Mona Lisa was a metaphor for the patriarchy.
In this movie, we see Edward Norton and Drax the Destroyer, the only 2 hetero males non-black, plotting, killing and taking advantage of all the others.
Edward Norton (white hetero male) takes advantage of Agatha (woman), of the Hamilton villain (black), of Andi (black woman).
Drax the Destroyer takes advantage of Whiskey (woman).
They plot between them to continue using the minorities and oppressed to their advantage, to maintain the status quo and the patriarchy.
The Mona Lisa is just the token, the trophy that represents this. It's an historical artefact, made in ancient times where the patriarch was even more rampant.
At the end, Edward Norton seems to go off unscathed. He keeps his status quo and the minorities look down and accept their fate.
However, the person with the most minority credit (Andi, for she is black and a woman), starts a revolution. She convinces the other minorities to stand up to the patriachy. They agree and go along with it, destroying Mona Lisa in the way.
Talking about what actually happened, it seems ridiculous that they would celebrate destroying an historical artefact like Mona Lisa just for a money vendetta. And the movie painted this in a good light... As to say "you go girl, you destroy Mona Lisa to show you won't stand up for this s***".
No matter how right she was because he killed her sister, Mona Lisa has nothing to do with it, and is way above your personal vendetta against other people. This is the equivalent of throwing tomato soup into a famous painting to protest against oil exploration.
reply
share
JohnBraun604 (289)
2 years ago
That is a hell of an explanation and really well said. Utlimately, you are giving filmakers way too much credit. They just thought they are above the Mona Lisa and could not wait to trash it. Kinda sad
reply
share
punkrockgirl (1269)
2 years ago
Hmmm. Not a bad theory. Given who the director is, I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think he was even intending that or putting that much thought into it. I believe there was probably some sort of small agenda thrown in, just like the last movie, however this time I don't think it's as clear. I think some of your points are valid, but not all of them. Are you just saying all that because people who are minorities are in those roles or is it beyond that? Of course you'd say it's more than just minorities in the role, but is it really? Does it bother you so you try to find reasons to not be okay with it?
With that said, I think if the message is truly what you say it is, then I disagree with the themes of the movie. Even if I dislike certain parts about it, I still enjoyed the story for the most part. I watched it with an open mind and did find plenty of flaws. It was in the back of my mind that the only villain was a white man, so it is questionable. It isn't something that automatically bothers me, since white males have typically been villains in movies way before the woke era. I certainly think the problems you point out are valid and something to be aware of, but I personally wouldn't stretch my views that far myself.
reply
share
Ranb (9595)
2 years ago
Well, if you actually thought it was the Mona Lisa. I think they were all fools to believe he could get the painting on loan from the museum.
reply
share
Towelie_Towel (1773)
2 years ago
The movie clearly means that he has the means to do it and was able to do it. In this reality, it is the truth.
reply
share
Ranb (9595)
2 years ago
His fortune was built on lies and manipulating people who were smarter than he was. I think he was lying about the Mona Lisa. Unless the director has something to say, then I guess we just have to speculate.
reply
share
Towelie_Towel (1773)
2 years ago
Yeah... Then why did he become so distressed when the Mona Lisa was being burned?
There is no evidence, no realistic argument, no real reason to even speculate the theory you are proposing.
That's like saying "perhaps all of this was just a dream in the mind of Thanos and this is part of the MCU. You cannot say it isn't until the director denies it."
reply
share
Ranb (9595)
2 years ago
You make a good point.
But until we see his reaction to the painting burning up, what is easier to believe? That he paid enough money to borrow it or that he just has a clever forgery hanging in his house?
Edited to add; The painting that was destroyed was clearly painted on canvas or other cloth. The film depicted the flames causing the canvas to peel away and burn. There were copies of the Mona Lisa painted on canvas, but the original that hangs in the Louvre is painted on wood. So the painting that burns in Miles house was not the original.
reply
share
FFNogoodnik (775)
2 years ago
But we did see his reaction to the painting burning up so it is irrelevant what was easier to believe because after the film is is clear that it was supposed to be the real painting.
reply
share