For those of you that have immersed yourself in studying culture, feminism, and the socially engineered changes in gender roles in our current society, do you find that you can no longer watch movies without noticing the dynamics of social interaction between characters? I know I have.
Hollywood has been one of the most effective means of shaping the masses views, morality and behavior, and when one develops an acute awareness to these sorts of messages and cultural cues they seek to instill in the viewers of their products, it suddenly becomes blatantly obvious. I now find myself recognizing our Brave New World Order's indoctrination cues about human relations, present in just about every new movie, tv-show and commercial I see nowadays.
I haven't watched a movie in the theatres quite some time actually...the last movie I went and saw in the theaters was Mongol.
However, the other night, my wife and I rented the DVD of Liam Neeson's action flick, Taken.
Overall, I thought the picture was alright...but some of the dialogue and dynamics in the characters familial relationships prevented me from allowing myself to be completely immersed into enjoying the story.
Neeson plays an ex-CIA agent that quit his spy career to move to California so he could be closer to his daughter...who lives with his ex-wife and her mega-rich step-Father.
His ex-wife is an utter bitch who is definitely trying to interfere in the relationship between Father and Daughter. Neeson's character is supposed to be a bad ass, take no prisoners killer...but he is absolutely sackless and emasculated when it comes to dealing with his ex-wife.
Fearless ex-CIA agent that kills thugs and criminals with his bare hands,reduced to sackless wimpitude in the face of his ex-wife's bitching.
In one of the best scenes in the movie, the man boldly dissembles his way into the heart of an Albanian organized crime ring headquarters, than proceeds to kill multiple men, all with the demeanor of a man with ice running through his veins...yet in the scene's where she begins her bitching, complaining and accusations towards him, he's a spineless wimp that deserves to be divorced and have his role as father displaced by mommy's new husband.
While the movie definitely portrays a negative image of the ex-wife as a totally unreasonable bitch, the overall theme here is that she holds all the cards, and the assumption of authority as the custodial parent is unquestionable. Neeson is reduced to a begging, pleading, whining shell of a masculine man when it comes to dealing with her.
From my perspective, it was utterly disgusting to watch.
But the worst was how later in the movie, the ex-wife alludes to the reason why she divorced him.
The old "You were always working, you were never around."
This is the worst.
Men are supposed to be the providers, but if they work really hard at providing, than that's grounds for divorce?
And yet, when she hurls out these accusations and puts all of the blame on their failed marriage on Neeson's character, he has no response. He takes that blame and accepts it wholly.
This is in fact the cultural cue of the feminist movement writ large: It's always the Man's fault.
As if it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to break up her marriage, alienate their daughter from her father, and re-marry...simply because the man was "always working" i.e. he was performing his gender role of provider. Not cheating, beating her up, shooting drugs. No, working...providing for his wife and daughter.
Needless to say, while the action was fun to watch, noticing such underlying theme's and relationship messages pretty much ruined my overall enjoyment of the entire movie.
The Brave New World Order's subversive indoctrination propaganda messages are present in almost all movies...some more than others. But now that my eyes have been opened, it's literally destroyed much of the enjoyment I used to get out of watching movies.
9 comments:
I don't know, I think this movie can be "taken" much differently.
I think the movie makes it clear that Neeson's character spent his life working to provide for his family although he loved them. It shows that men are expected to be providers and when they devote their lives to do that, tragically they have to sacrifice family time. The movie does not blame him - the unreasonable mother does, and the daughter lashes out too. The wife/mother is clearly unforgiving and Neeson's character cannot say or do much against it due to his chivalrous nature. I wouldn't call this "sackless", I would call it "what society expects". That doesn't mean the movie is trying to say that it's okay. Neeson's character triumphs in the end, showing that he loves his daughter and it's only fitting that he used his "work skills" to be able to do that.
I really don't think this movie is an attack on men. It shows that good men who dedicate their lives to providing for their family can be misunderstood by their wives and children even though they mean well. He never gave up on his daughter and this reminds me of plenty of other stories I've heard of men seeking custody of the children they love, against an ex and a system that stands in their way.
I don't think this is an indoctrination but a caricature of the real world as it stands today. The moral of the story is that men love their children and will do anything to provide and care for them, even though the cards are stacked against them.
I don't think this movie is an attempt to blame men. I think the movie shows how wives and children DO blame men, but the message I get is that men are not really to blame - they're doing what they have to for the sake of their family who they love.
I see your point, Jay...but than, I had a hard time reconciling the image of Neeson's character absolutely folding under his ex-wife's blame.
The movie aside (let's not get sidetracked), the main issue here is the contradictory argument the fembots always present:
Work real hard at providing = Never around = Men's fault
Stay at home to be father = Not working = Good for nothing loafer and bum = Men's fault
So, heads you lose, tails they win.
'Nuff said.
I don't remember Neeson's characters response to his ex-wife's blame very well. It would be nice to see men stand up for themselves, not only in such instances but for men's rights in general. Too many men are oblivious.
Terminator 4: I read on the web that many people think that the women characters do not have roles 'important enough'.
WTF?
This is an action movie, not a feminist propaganda film.
Battlestar Galactica: In the original series Starbuck was a guy, and a drinker/smoker/womanizer at that. They had to change his character to a 'strong, empowered' grrl.
Sh*t.
There are countless examples.
Yep, movies, TV, newspapers, magazines, and books. All of it is infected. I enjoy watching classic movies, but they are not immune. I recently watched, 'My favorite wife' with Cary Grant and Irene Dunn. Horrible movie.
"do you find that you can no longer watch movies without noticing the dynamics of social interaction between characters? "
Yes, I try to point it out to my kids if we are watching a family movie.
I'm afraid I come across as a lecturing old foggey with antiquated notions of society sometimes. I try to keep the sentences short. "See, she is trying to make him feel guilty for exercising his natural protective urge." in regards to the generally emasculating portrayal of men onscreen, or " She has her head in the clouds and needs a dose of reality about what she can really offer him." in regards to romance on screen
Great post. I've noticed the same thing. The social programming contained in films and TV jumps right out at me. Funny, I never noticed it before the red pill.
Post a Comment