sb-901-395404 Reviews

Ender's Game (2013)

Killing is child's play - and fun!

[6/10 · 30 July 2014]

This movie has achieved a high rating but possibly due to all the wrong reasons. Scanning the reviews here the allegory of this film appears to have been missed despite the message being simple: those indoctrinated into today's contemporary US military complex, running the military machine; the generals, admirals, NSA/CIA commanders, are nothing more than naive children. These "children" are controlled by the "adults" who know best. And who do the story's adults represent? The American mega rich elite. These elite are incapable of achieving anything on their own (as matters are much too complex) but must depend upon the skillful "children" (society's workers) to maintain and extend their power.

How are the "children" controlled? Through deception. It's ironic that the books upon which this film is based are apparently recommended/required reading at US military training centres; despite the clear indictment of the US imperialistic state system, military recruits are encouraged to read the text - showing just how blinded the US (and British, Australian, etc.) population is to the indoctrination they have received since birth.

Another important aspect of the film is the use of games. This is analogous to the use and purpose of sports in the training in jingoism, and the ease with which the skills and aggression developed in sport are transferred to warfare; the US (and other ultra right wing Western countries subservient to the US) obsession with sports, is important to all states as a vanguard of fascism (or nationalism generally) with its veneration of strength and youthfulness. Thus, we can see the importance of contemporary violent video games and films in nurturing violence required by the state. This is common to all states, not just the US. Also an important value of sport/games is the in-group/out-group mentality that is encouraged, shown by research to enhance feelings of competition against the out-group and preference for the in-group - essential values to instil in those being prepared for war. Imagine if you will, an Olympic games in which the nationality of participants was unknown, and the goal for each participant (as opposed to competitor) was cooperation - to maximize the performance of all.

Democracy or anarchism will not be tolerated. When Ender is asked about his abhorrence in being subjugated by orders/others, the "adult" presents the solution/reward; domination of others (given power to order others around). So we see cooperation is neither encourage within the institution or without (i.e., with the "enemy"). Here we see veneration of the totalitarian structures that form the bedrock of "capitalist" society (ignoring for the moment that espousing institutions are "too big to fail" denies capitalism, as only the strong are supposed to survive in a truly capitalistic system) - individuals within corporations/governments fight each other as they fight "the enemy". There are no friends, Ender must be made to "feel" alone (another lie, he is not alone; people naturally wish to help and receive help, when left to their own devices). Analogous to the learned helplessness of today's citizens as unions and governments fail them, as corporations reduce them to "individual atoms of consumption" - the only solution is to use Nietzche's "will-to-power".

Who are the "bugs"? The US elite's "enemies", properly dehumanised. Just as the Nazi propaganda machine paired images of cockroaches with that of Jews, in order to dehumanise those that are to be exterminated (in order to minimise otherwise natural feelings of compassion with one's fellow humans), so too are the film's contrived "enemies" portrayed as insects. This can be seen in the comments of today's US drone pilots that describe their murder of innocent civilians and "suspects", as "bug splats".

Throughout the film Ender struggles with his emotions that are constantly being manipulated by the "adults", as well as the constant doubt as to the ethics of his actions. Underlying the "adults' " motivations is their fear of the "enemy", that need complete annihilation in a pre-emptive strike - otherwise the US elite might have to share their wealth with the rest of society and the world. Also important is the film's portrayal of the lack of any threat posed by the "enemy" (indeed, all they wanted was to share the Earth and to continue to live, as any sentient being would) and the desire of the "adults" to nevertheless obliterate any chance of being subservient to (or attacked by) them. This echoes the US elite propaganda that portrays targeted groups/countries as "enemies" engaging in unprovoked aggression towards their "children" (by only offering government/corporate censored/doctored accounts of events) - the elite invariably portray themselves as mere peace-lovers engaged in self-defense.

This is not a movie about children, but it would serve them well to watch it, with instruction, to break free of the the lies around them, much in the same way as Edward Snowden / Ender Wiggin did. However, given the US military use of the books, the chance of lifting the fog of lies appears slim.

The World's End (2013)

Not very funny but right on the money.

[5/10 · 10 January 2014]

Not sure if the creators of this movie are trying to say something but the analogy gives pause for thought. This spoof of invasion of the body snatchers turns the warnings of that movie on their head. In the original, the metaphor was that the protagonist was fleeing from the communist threat that was taking people over while they "slept". This was the warning from the capitalists, owners of Hollywood.

However, in the "The World's End" we see it is the Capitalists who have taken over society, where individuals have become empty headed consumers controlled by the world wide web and "connectivity", sold as "freedom". The masters of humankind do not wish you to fight them but obey them "willingly", which entails becoming a robot slave, who thinks they are free, despite obviously being not.

These "free" robots (slaves) represent the wage slaves in today's capitalist society who are constantly indoctrinated that they are "free" and live in a "free" society (somebody once said, "There is nothing more pitiful and a slave who thinks he is free"). Moreover, they are told that they live in a "democracy", which in fact they do not. Instead people are given representative democracy, which is expressly designed to counter and control expressions of genuine democracy.

And remember, the capitalists regard us as children in need of guidance not able to think for ourselves and if we continue to rebel against them, then society will crumble, the "World will End". However, the movie suggests life without might not be so bad after all, in fact, after a little adjustment, it might a little better without crap technology and crap food.

Bordertown (2007)

Definitely worth a watch!

[12 September 2011]

This is a terrific movie. However, I can see why some people might not like it due to the somewhat average production in places.

Form: I thought the colour filters were a bit overdone but still quite nice, acting was acceptable but not the best given the cast, dialogue was clunky at times and sometimes quite unrealistic. I found much of the violence/exhumation extremely unsettling and the shanty towns and factory scenes leaving me a terrible sense of oppression and hopelessness, as they should.

Content: While the plot was a little crazy and predictable at times (e.g. the baiting scenario) the underlying message is what really makes this movie worth watching. It's pretty well on the money for describing the institutional injustice of the corrupt US and Mexican government-corporate capitalists . As Chomsky succinctly puts it, the Free Trade Agreement is neither free nor trade nor an agreement.

The movie also shows how most people in a position to do something about injustice choose the easier and often selfish option to ignore it, in favour of personal reward, or due to fear of financial loss and receiving a similar fate to the oppressed. While the resolution of the main plot was a bit awkward, it was wonderful not to see everything neatly resolved with everyone coming out a winner (obviously this is not a Hollywood film) – two of the three main characters did not triumph individually but received the true reward so often received for standing against injustice – personal sacrifice.

Personally, I found the movie very challenging, leaving me with both a sense of guilt and desire to do something really worthwhile to affect change. I'm mystified as to why this movie has only now just reached my local video store (Australia)...

Final score: Form (5) + Content (10) / 2 = 7.5

Solitary Man (2009)

Misandristic Fantasy

[7/10 · 19 November 2010]

Contrary to what you might think, this film is not about a down-on-his-luck car salesmen but rather, it is a story about four women and their contemptible treatment of a man, in their attempt to elicit from him, a behaviour that is acceptable in their eyes.

At various stages of the narrative, these central women relentlessly attempt to manipulate the so called protagonist; Ben is rewarded, used, punished, vilified and then given one final call in to heel. The central question driving the story is not what precipitated his apparent intolerable behaviour (the film's red herring) but rather, it is whether or not Ben will submit to the feminist "reprogramming' or remain unrepentant to the last.

Tragically, it makes no difference whether Ben does what the women want him to do or not, he still gets punished regardless; for one women he does exactly what she wants him to do, and is impeccably punished for it. However, he receives no points for attempting to avoid the situation that cements his demise, being forced into it against his better judgement and will, by the very women who unleashes upon him his own private Armageddon; Ben is punished and blamed by the one that forced him into the situation, with no admittance of her own guilt at creating the underlying animosity between herself and her offspring, the real cause of the problem in the first place. This is a typical example of how Ben is repeatedly blamed for the women's own short-comings. Similarly, Ben is a horrible man simply because, like most men, he does not find wrinkly old women as sexually attractive as young young ones (note, however, he did admit older women could still nevertheless, 'get him off'). Again, while not explicitly treated in the film, one could assume anecdotally that while many old women, in seeking to boost their self-esteem, wish to be sexually ravished and desired by their partners, it is wholly unacceptable for men to bed young attractive women for exactly the same self-obsessed reason. Yet throughout Ben is a survivor of indomitable spirit, the utterly authentic existentialist.

Ben's punishment far outweighs his crimes - for brief moments of self gratification (without it seems any thought of malice to others) he is attacked at the two most fundamentally important dimensions of the male life; the ability to succeed vocationally/financially and the ability to nurture and sustain intimate family relationships, most importantly, with his offspring. The four aggressive women punish him with isolation, attempting to destroy him emotionally and materially, all of which, they feel completely justified in doing and commiserate with his crimes.

Clearly, this film serves to mirror the typical behaviour of women in family breakdown today, where the majority of women succeed in taking and breaking that which is most important to a man - I can only assume some of the makers of this film are victims, or know victims, of divorce (and if you're a woman that has not done this to a man, don't kid yourself into thinking that you would never do such a thing – the statistics clearly show, in family breakup, women overwhelming (85%+) get custody, house and money while blocking access to kids – so you either haven't yet had the opportunity to do it, or you are one of the wonderful minority who have not – I salute you!).

Similarly, for one act of indiscretion (let's say a one night stand that leads to pregnancy), men today are forced to pay money for the next 20 years for a child they don't even get to see, being actively marginalised as a father (while the women try to ease their conscience by telling themselves that they want their fathers to be more involved in their child's life, while simultaneously denying them custody or access, often as punishment for perceived transgressions). This leaves these men little hope of ever being able to find a suitable partner due to their lack of money and emotional ruin at being unfairly separated from their child (let alone how much the child suffers). A punished non-commiserate to their 'crimes'.

But of course, on another dimension, a class dimension, this is all fantasy since as female lovers (and probably male) to men of power know, rich and powerful men do not get punished as Ben does (e.g. Hugh Grant, Bill Clinton) but merrily continue their lives, to the envy of the beaten down non-alpha male herd, and consternation of the female kind.

Top movie – good-on-ya Ben! Men, don't give up - you can survive! Ladies, learn to accept men (admittedly, not always pleasant) for what they are, not what you want them to be. And try not to punish them too severely for their, and your, imperfections.