"I think you are overlooking the OP question, why would Michael Douglas want to appear in a film filled with gun violence? "
he's an actor.
"That's the question I'm addressing. The film does not portray gun use in a positive light at all, contrary to the suggestion of the OP,"
the portrayal of guns itself in the film is actually neutral.
"and it is clearly an indictment of the middle-class white American male struggling with the loss of his dominant role in family and society."
before i was with you, but since you had to throw the word "white" in there, you lost all credibility.
"Did it escape you that Douglas' character was a laid off defense contractor"
no.
"who blamed his ex-wife for his troubles? "
example please. who knows, she might have her part. we will never know.
"I have no idea if Douglas would refuse to appear in a movie that championed conservative principles"
because it doesn't. where do you even get that from?
" but if he wanted to promote a left-wing political message there is absolutely no reason to object to this story."
and here come the paranoia. and you ask yourself why a certain kind of republicans are prortrayed as maniacs.
"I rated the film poorly not because of politics, but because of its lousy cop out of a resolution. "
that it is.
"What exactly is the film supposed to be showing us? A character study of a man falling apart? If he's gone mad, does that mean everything the character says and does up to the point his insanity is made clear is no longer valid? That anyone who cheered along with him when he ranted about the cost of a Coke, or refused to be mugged or vented about blind corporate rule is as nuts as he is? The terrible ending basically refutes the necessity for the first 90% to even exist. "
and that's the part we both agree on.
"Jean-Luc Godard said the best way to criticize a film is to make a better one. If you want to see this same story, but done well, watch "Observe and Report", a film that is 100x better than this schlock-fest. "
i think i'll do. thanks.
"Finally, bringing Donald Trump into an entirely unrelated discussion says more about your own peculiar bias than anything else. "
nope. it was the perfect example. you asked why republicans are portrayed as (shortened version) evil and insane. first of all, you are projecting this broad statement onto an even broader amount of people and your projection is dead wrong. that's the problem with this paranoia of a "liberal left wing blah blah blah conspiracy" bs. that's not even a skewed version of reality, that's plain and simple mental illness. nobody is picking on kasich, mccain ...etc or their followers. good people. not everybody shares their opinions, but widely accepted as good people. now, if you look at trump, no matter what your party affiliation is, or even if you have none, there you have your prime example of everything that is wrong and evil. there you also have the answer to your question. and the fact alone, that even the slightest criticism to said person will always get answered with a) acusing the person to be on the other side and b) with "but hillary", deepens that problem even further. we had 8 years of "no matter, what our elected president does, we will stall it, no matter the costs, no matter the damage" and you ask yourself, why that is received as bad?
reply
share