MovieChat Forums > Miss Sloane (2016) Discussion > Anti-Gun Propaganda

Anti-Gun Propaganda

posted 8 years ago by PrimeMinisterX (8707)
28 replies | jump to latest

As a movie, it was okay. Fairly dull in its plot and slow in its pacing--it took two sittings for me to finish it--but it's at least well shot and well acted.

However it's also clear that the writer had a definite agenda and wanted this film to be a hit piece against the gun lobby. As someone who is very much pro-Second Amendment, I found the film nauseating in the way it made the gun lobby out to be dishonest villains and the anti-gun Brady crew out to be the principled, morally upright people who are just trying to do the right thing.

It's a shame since there was so much obvious talent involved. But at least the disastrous $3.5 million box office take balances the scales.

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

it bombed big time

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 8 years ago

Yeah, $3.5 million is a disaster. However, I read that it only had a $13 million budget, so it could've been a lot worse.

I'm amazed that they were able to make this film on only $13 million. How do you make a movie with Jessica Chastain, John Lithgow, Mark Strong, Sam Waterston and Alison Pill for so little money?

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 years ago

I guess they took discounts to make a political statement.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 8 years ago

That's my thought as well. They must have really believed in this movie, or at least wanted the Hollywood street cred of making a leftist film like this.

reply

[–] GladyRuth (123) 7 years ago

I'm 15 minutes in to it and had to stop watching. I too am pro-Second Amendment and her first rant was enough for me. It's hard as a woman to watch an intelligent woman spout such trash. Regardless of how good it looked in other ways I just can't watch it.

Kudos to you for getting through it.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

Even as a Second Amendment guy, I acknowledge that the gun situation in America is a complicated one. I wish the writer of this film has been sensible enough to do the same. Instead, he/she just decided to go the lazy route of making the pro-gun people out to be the bad guys and the anti-gun people to be the righteous crusaders.

If Hollywood's going to lean left, they could at least chill with the demonization of people who think differently and try to portray the opposition as fleshed out characters instead of one-dimensional caricatures. That's just good storytelling, if nothing else!

Such a shame. Definitely one of my biggest film disappointments of 2016.

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

I'm really enjoying the film so far (about half way through) and don't find it slow paced (although it's clearly not an action film, it's designed to get you using your brain). I also don't see how you all view the anti gun lobby to be portrayed as more honest, I think both sides are portrayed to be scheming although obviously, some people have very real reasons not to want guns to be readily accessible.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

I think both sides are shown to be political, but ultimately the gun lobby is shown to be the evil capitalistic entity, and those opposing it are the moralistic force for good. I mean, the whole movie is about how she switches sides in order to "do the right thing."

Finish the film and you should see what I mean.

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

It's a fact that the gun lobby have more money and it's a fact that many people have been harmed by guns and so do want stricter controls... I've not seen anything yet that I find to be biased or incorrect but I will wait to see if my opinion changes in the second half.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

It's a fact that many people's lives have been saved because they were armed when they were attacked.

It's also a fact that when the government has all the weapons and when the people have been successfully disarmed, the government has all the power and the people have no way to resist.

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

If the criminals didn't have guns, no one would need a gun to defend themselves.

Besides, this film wasn't about banning guns, this film was about having tighter controls to mean that only law abiding citizens could buy guns.

As a Brit, I find it astounding how easy it is to buy a gun in America!

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

The thing about criminals is what makes them criminals is that they do illegal shit. I mean, cocaine is illegal, but that doesn't stop people from getting it. Very few criminals have obtained their guns through legal means.

You say you find it astounding how easy it is to buy a gun in America. Frankly, I find it astounding how easily Western Europeans have allowed their freedoms to be taken away.

It's important to remember that the Second Amendment is ultimately about the citizenry having means to defend themselves, if necessary, against a rogue government. That is, against tyranny. History gives us more than enough information to know that power corrupts and that the more powerful a government gets, the more they abuse that power.

An armed citizenry serves first and foremost to keep that power in check.

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

But most of the guns own by criminals were once legal guns... stolen from other people or shops, they didn't just appear from nowhere. If there are less legal guns, there will be less illegal guns. I've genuinely never felt the need for a gun to defend myself from violence or an evil government, I find it sad that Americans do.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

I'll put it this way:

If an unarmed 6'2" 220 lb man attacks a 115 lb woman, then it doesn't matter if he has a gun or not. He can kill her with his bare hands if he wants, beat her, rape her etc. So it's not always about the other person having a gun, it's just about them being stronger. A gun can act as an equalizer in this kind of situation.

Are women never attacked in Britain?

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

Of course women are sometimes attacked, but if I was grabbed, I doubt I would be able to get a gun and do something sensible with it in those circumstances... and who is to say he wouldn't get it off me and decide to shoot me instead of 'just' raping me if he's so strong?

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer to have a fighting chance rather than just be at the mercy of someone who is attacking me because I have no realistic means of defending myself.

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

And I don't think it is a realistic means of defending myself.. I just think it would be adding a deadly weapon into an already dangerous situation which might not go my way. I would rather rely on myself than potentially put a gun in his hands!

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

I'd imagine all the women who have successfully used firearms do defend themselves would disagree about it not being a "realistic means" of defending themselves. For them, it was very realistic and undoubtedly many of them would not be alive today if they had nothing but their fists to defend themselves.

In any case, this ultimately sounds like it just comes down to difference between the modern Western European mentality and the American mentality.

I'm not a woman, but I still don't favor my chances in a kickboxing match against large human beings. And if they have any kind of weapon--a gun, a knife, a baseball bat--then that's all the worse. It makes perfect sense to me to carry a firearm, which can equalize my chances in a physical altercation against someone who wants to hurt me.

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

I wonder how many women have had guns taken off them by these 'big strong men' too... I do know that more people are killed by toddlers with guns in America than by terrorists though.

And I wouldn't get into a 'kickboxing match', I would bite, scratch, kick, hit and scream and would fancy my chances more than getting hold of a gun that is kept in my bag once someone has snuck up on me and is attacking me.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

Well I guess it's good that America and Britain exist.

This way I can live where freedom is preserved and you can live . . . well, in Britain.

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

Haha... yeah, freedom so long as you're a white middle class man.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

I suppose that is in contrast to the the UK, where white people and Christians are taught to be ashamed and subservient while Muslim migrants run wild?

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

Have you ever even been to England or are you relying on Fox News and Donald Trump to tell you what's going on?

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

I've never been there. But no, I'm not just relying on the news. I've talked to people who have not just been there, but lived there. In some cases, people who were born there and grew up there.

They all say the same thing: It's a very sticky situation and way too many concessions are being made by your politicians.

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

I WAS born here and have lived here all my life and can tell you, absolute nonsense. We ARE a multicultural country but white Christians are still the majority.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 7 years ago

The majority, sure, but you don't think that too many concessions are being made so not as to offend minorities? Specifically Muslim migrants?

reply

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

No, I don't... I have had to make absolutely no changes to my life for Muslims (who are often British citizens anyway).

reply

[–] Tabbycat (878) 7 years ago

I did enjoy the movie, but you are absolutely right.

Though I fall somewhere in between the two poles on this issue, I really don't appreciate being lectured by Hollywood screenwriters. A primary reason I don't bother with much big-studio output anymore is that I like intelligent, adult fare -- and The Town doesn't really cater to that. Most of what they produce is aimed at teenagers and children, and I'm neither.

reply