Posted on 05/21/2015 9:19:42 AM PDT by Sioux-san
...The dystopian images of Fury Road depart significantly from the Mad Max films of the 1970s and 1980s. Fury Road presents us with a world where motherhood is commodified to suit an elite class of males who wish to share their property and life ambitions only with other men. Women are hooked up to machines that pump milk from their breasts and held inside dismal barracks, gestating heirs for warlords who show no sexual interest in women. The men of this warrior ruling class derive all their ecstasy from the company of muscular young males eager to labor and soldier for each other and for their male patrons.
I doubt anyone on the production team has read “Breeders: How Gay Men Destroyed the Left.” Hence I am left to conclude that the movie’s pretext embodies everything that “anti-gay” opponents of surrogacy such as myself have been warning, because there is a deep-seated but suppressed anxiety running rampant in Hollywood about just how horrible our society will become if gay men are uncritically awarded everything they demand...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Only if you’ve got a really big screen. The overwhelming vehicular carnage will stop being overwhelming on a small screen.
***”The architecture of the Citadel is unmistakably reminiscent of the gay sex dungeons in which (he) worked during the 1980s and 1990s”***
Anyone remember the big fire in San Francisco back in the late 1970s? It was on all the news, then suddenly got hushed up.
The story was, the firemen on the scene were trying to rescue men in chains bound to the walls of these burning buildings, and the firemen had to call for special equipment to cut the chains.
While I do have a home theater with a projector and 120 inch screen, I pretty much quite watching movies for the special effects a while back. I just got bored with it because most of the big movies have been based on nothing but special effects and CGI these days. Granted, that's just my personal preference and I certainly understand why some people get into the big screen special effects experience. Personally, I think the best cinema over the last 10 years or so has been some of the television series on HBO and AMC. I've enjoyed Sopranos, Deadwood, Rome, The Wire, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad and Walking Dead over just about everything released by Hollywood over the last 10 years. There have been some exceptions like "American Sniper" or "The Dark Knight" but they are very few and far between.
Miller stayed old school with this. CGI is only used to enhance not to replace. So you get real car crashes with some CG car parts thrown in to make it a bit more visceral. This is a stunt work extravaganza. This is a movie where the bad guys have a car with a bunch of Kodo Drummers, a wall of speakers that would make The Who drool, and a guy with a guitar that shoot flames out of the top because... well do an image search “mad max 4 guitar” and you’ll see why. It’s certainly not great cinema as it just barely has enough plot to provide an excuse for the next leg of the chase. But it is great action and a lot of fun.
No mention of “Justified”? I actually got hooked on that one like I have not been hooked on TV in a long time. Timothy Olyphant and Walton Coggins did a hell of a job of acting in my opinion even though I suspect I would not want to spend five minutes with either one out of character.
The difference is that we are men, action is what we do in real life, the left creates false realities to brainwash people, to get their minds right for current politics.
Forty years of such imagery and brainwashing has changed the civilian (voters) view of females in the military, and now they are seen as equal to the actual warriors.
“The difference is that we are men, action is what we do in real life...”
Sure, but... *SPOILER ALERT* .... the scene in question involves proficiency with a rifle at long range. Not a test of athletics or hand to hand combat, where it would be unrealistic for the average woman to be able to best a man.
There are plenty of ladies on FR, I am certain, who are quite handy with a rifle, so this is not in the realm of leftist fantasy.
I am definitely leaning the Netflix direction as well.
Here’s the rub on the “role model” for that young woman. It is a false narrative — the female in real life may be able to outtalk/outgun/outsmart a man, but we will never be able to compete on any level of one-on-one physicality. Letting the female heroine character show the male “hero” who is boss only happens if the guy lets her do it. He could deck her in a heart beat if he so chooses. These Amazon-like characters in the military movies and the action movies are being drawn by Leftie Feminists (both female and male) fantasizing about how we really should be not as we are. This gives young females a false sense of their own true strengths.
yep. When the Navy Tailhook scandal broke my wife said,, “The women couldn’t defend themselves at a cocktail party but politicians think they can defend the USA?”
yep. When the Navy Tailhook scandal broke my wife said,, “The women couldn’t defend themselves at a cocktail party but politicians think they can defend the USA?”
“Here’s the rub on the “role model” for that young woman. It is a false narrative — the female in real life may be able to outtalk/outgun/outsmart a man, but we will never be able to compete on any level of one-on-one physicality.”
Well, *SPOILER ALERT*, it wasn’t about competing on a physical level. The film just showed her besting Max at one specific task, that a women realistically could best a man at, if she put in the proper practice. There’s nothing really unrealistic about it.
It wasn’t a fight between them either, so there was no “he let her win” to speak of. A task needed to be done, Max failed to do it, and she succeeded. Both of them needed the task to be done, so the only competition was indirect, they weren’t really facing off against each other.
Your wife is quite right in her observation. The girls also think they can drink like the guys, but the vast majority find out that is not true either.
I understand - I will say no more until I see the movie.
Oh my
So, is it inaccurate that the movie divides society among gays and straights, and men and women? But if it DOES do that, how can that be irrelevant or without significance?
Yes. It is inaccurate that it does that. The society isn’t particularly divided men and women and if there were any sexual connotations and divisions I sure missed it. There are no divisions or sexual references/divisions any more than any other movie for the most part. The key issue (don’t wanna give it away) is male/female specific but it is merely a device. Could be anything. Anything that has men/women in it will have some divide for any number of reasons if you look for it. Some are more obvious than others. But it is not present in any significance (and even not at all) in this movie.
The article is just wrong.
Boy ain’t that the truth. I remember that too about that song. Just enjoy the d**n song. Just enjoy the d**n movie. You can find ANYTHING in ANYTHING. Sure some movies are intended to “preach” but most do not. It’s like people who look to be offended. Well, if you are looking for it you are sure gonna find it.
About 20 years ago there were two teenage girls out of Prescott, AZ who were (metaphorically) beating the pants off of professional military/police snipers at 1000 yards.
I would say the article’s author may have a knack for pareidolia towards certain issues, knowingly or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.