|
Post by hi224 on Apr 6, 2020 14:52:53 GMT
Certain documentaries fall within this realm to me as well.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Apr 6, 2020 20:34:17 GMT
Goldfinger: I really like the film, but the scene in which James Bond wrestles Pussy to the ground in the barn and steals a kiss makes me uneasy.
The Little Mermaid: The movie's message is more geared towards parents and learning to let go when your children get older. The problem is that Ariel is still a naive 16-year-old girl who has a huge crush on a prince, and I'm not too convinced that she learned anything from her dealings with Ursula. The message would work if Ariel showed maturity in her actions.
The Birth of a Nation: It's visually stunning, but it has hurtful and racist stereotypes of black Americans.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 6, 2020 20:52:30 GMT
You mention docs so are we talking morally questionable in how they present facts?
Amadeus - villainizes Sallueri who in real life wasn't a jealous prick that drove Mozart to death.
Schindler's List - presents Schindler purely as an uninvolved observer until he isn't. In reality, Schindler was a Nazi spy who's work helped the Nazis invade Poland, so he kinda helped kill way more people than he saved.
Then here are some movies morally questionable in general:
The Dark Knight - torture, illegal spying, and fascism are all necessary evils.
The Lion King - we have rightful rulers, and it's okay that they eat us because eventually we get to eat their shit. Also, those starving darkies need to stay in their place.
Saving Private Ryan - you should really kill POWs. Also, 8 people to save 1 might be okay?The movie never really decides, but seems to lean there.
James Bond - Archelaus' Goldfinger example where he rapes a lesbian straight is a good starting point. The whole series kinda belongs here.
|
|
|
Post by pennypacker on Apr 6, 2020 21:02:04 GMT
Snow White: Never eat apples.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Apr 6, 2020 21:12:34 GMT
I already see a topic like this will be interpreted in different ways as some are looking at actions in movies, which would be easy to fault a lot of movies in this regard since acting the way many do in movies would be a bad idea in real life etc.
but personally... I am looking at it more in terms of having a effect on the viewer in a negative way (like to where one should not see certain movies for moral reasons (I get what qualifies here will be a bit open to interpretation and all though)). but in this regard I pretty much dumped roughly 5-15 movies a while ago now as even though I considered some to be good enough to be among my favorite movies, I had to let some go. even recently I dumped one more in this regard. I am not going to list these though.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 7, 2020 0:16:24 GMT
You mention docs so are we talking morally questionable in how they present facts? Amadeus - villainizes Sallueri who in real life wasn't a jealous prick that drove Mozart to death. Schindler's List - presents Schindler purely as an uninvolved observer until he isn't. In reality, Schindler was a Nazi spy who's work helped the Nazis invade Poland, so he kinda helped kill way more people than he saved. Then here are some movies morally questionable in general: The Dark Knight - torture, illegal spying, and fascism are all necessary evils. The Lion King - we have rightful rulers, and it's okay that they eat us because eventually we get to eat their shit. Also, those starving darkies need to stay in their place. Saving Private Ryan - you should really kill POWs. Also, 8 people to save 1 might be okay?The movie never really decides, but seems to lean there. James Bond - Archelaus' Goldfinger example where he rapes a lesbian straight is a good starting point. The whole series kinda belongs here. Like Capturing the Friedmans where the director, deliberately withheld some information and it made it feel like the documentary tipped too far within one direction. It felt like jhim or less advocating for their whole innocence. I do feel their was alot of merit to the documentary, but the presentation is questionable. Same with Don't Fuck with Cats.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 7, 2020 0:20:50 GMT
You mention docs so are we talking morally questionable in how they present facts? Amadeus - villainizes Sallueri who in real life wasn't a jealous prick that drove Mozart to death. Schindler's List - presents Schindler purely as an uninvolved observer until he isn't. In reality, Schindler was a Nazi spy who's work helped the Nazis invade Poland, so he kinda helped kill way more people than he saved. Then here are some movies morally questionable in general: The Dark Knight - torture, illegal spying, and fascism are all necessary evils. The Lion King - we have rightful rulers, and it's okay that they eat us because eventually we get to eat their shit. Also, those starving darkies need to stay in their place. Saving Private Ryan - you should really kill POWs. Also, 8 people to save 1 might be okay?The movie never really decides, but seems to lean there. James Bond - Archelaus' Goldfinger example where he rapes a lesbian straight is a good starting point. The whole series kinda belongs here. I guess I was talking along the lines of thematic aspects of a movie. Like The Breakfast Club betrays its first half with the second half basically say: only by conforming can we truly unite as a community. Whereas the second felt like it was in contrast.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 7, 2020 0:43:05 GMT
Flesh + Blood (1985) = Where to start? Rutger Hauer's character is a mercenary and a rapist; Tom Burlinson willing poisons women and children; Jennifer Jason Leigh is a whore. Side characters all do shady shit. But I love it. If Game of Thrones was a two hour movie w/o dragons, this would be it.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Apr 7, 2020 4:09:38 GMT
Cannibal Holocaust - Real animals were killed in the making.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Apr 7, 2020 5:31:33 GMT
How to Make a Murderer. The pieces of crap who made it deliberately left out incriminating details while throwing in evidence-free "Well, many THIS happened" scenarios. I'm glad the scumbag is going to die in prison, and I wish nothing good in the lives or careers of the makers of the doc.
Can you tell I'm angry about it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2020 13:27:17 GMT
Cheech and Chong's Nice Dreams. Cheech breaks the fourth wall to joke about date raping a woman passed out in his ice cream truck. It was a terrible scene even for its day, and I'm surprised that film is even still available for viewing given the current cancel culture.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Apr 7, 2020 13:45:50 GMT
How the West Was Won is the only film I can enjoy that is morally questionable. The title itself is offensive. But what beautiful scenery.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 7, 2020 14:32:30 GMT
You mention docs so are we talking morally questionable in how they present facts? Amadeus - villainizes Sallueri who in real life wasn't a jealous prick that drove Mozart to death. Schindler's List - presents Schindler purely as an uninvolved observer until he isn't. In reality, Schindler was a Nazi spy who's work helped the Nazis invade Poland, so he kinda helped kill way more people than he saved. Then here are some movies morally questionable in general: The Dark Knight - torture, illegal spying, and fascism are all necessary evils. The Lion King - we have rightful rulers, and it's okay that they eat us because eventually we get to eat their shit. Also, those starving darkies need to stay in their place. Saving Private Ryan - you should really kill POWs. Also, 8 people to save 1 might be okay?The movie never really decides, but seems to lean there.James Bond - Archelaus' Goldfinger example where he rapes a lesbian straight is a good starting point. The whole series kinda belongs here. I don't think it promotes killing POWs. A few surrendering troops are shot at the end of the Normandy sequence, but the film certainly isn't condoning that behavior. Those weren't even Nazi soldiers surrendering, they were conscripted soldiers from Czechoslovakia. Or are you making a common misconception: As far as eight men to save one, plenty of missions require potential risk to more men than the human objective, whether to extract or terminate the target. The film itself probably questions the morality of this equation more than the soldiers would, hence the radar site sequence giving their side mission greater importance in the grand scheme of the war. TDK is a fascinating watch (well, minus the heavy handed ferry sequence) for its sociopolitical commentary. The Winter Soldier addressed similar themes from a more overt geopolitical angle. Both of these superhero films ask the viewer how comfortable they are ceding power to authorities depending on the threat level, and how far they're willing to stretch legal and moral limits to achieve a 'greater good.' They differ in that Batman (ironically as a vigilante) represents authority in his respective film, while Captain America represents the will of the people to resist totalitarianism. TDK certainly exists in more of a moral gray area with its messaging. (Though it should be noted that Nick Fury, one of the 'heroes' of the MCU, is completely onboard with Project Insight and only changes his mind when he realizes he no longer has control of it. In that regard he's no different than the film's villain; they simply have slightly different agendas. This is one of the reasons I think TWS, despite being one of the more respected MCU films, still doesn't get the credit it deserves as a think piece beyond the bluster of super heroics.)
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Apr 7, 2020 17:40:02 GMT
Peter Pan is in my top 50, yet the Native Americans depictions aren't tremendous. I do think the time it was made gives them a pass for several reasons: they're depicted as independently dominant, the Princess is a strong stoic female (even more than Wendy), & they're portrayed as pretty heroic. For 1953, it could've been a lot worse.
Around the World in 80 Days is pretty racially generalizing, including American wild west/cowboy culture. I like the movie as a light hearted road film, but it really wouldn't fly these days. Peter Lorre's Asian performance has not aged well at all.
National Lampoon's Vacation - St. Louis. Airplane! - Jive talking
It's clear that racial overtones existed throughout cinematic history.
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Apr 7, 2020 18:58:05 GMT
Having lived in St. Louis my entire life, I wasn't offended by that scene. It's pretty accurate about certain areas unfortunately. The only mistake is that there aren't really house fronts like that, right up on the street.
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Apr 7, 2020 19:11:03 GMT
Maybe "morally questionable" is a little strong in this case, but one movie I've always enjoyed, 1963's The Thrill of it All, is based on outdated sexism. Doris Day plays the wife of an obstetrician (James Garner) who takes care of their two young children and makes gallons of homemade ketchup (?). The family also has a live-in housekeeper. Doris is offered a job as a TV spokeswoman for a series of soap commercials (most likely a short-term job, until the ad campaign ends as most do). The husband can't stand the idea of her working at all outside the home, and reacts with (comical) anger at his wife and at one point pretends to be cheating on her.The film ends with Garner hinting at impregnating Day so that she will eventually have to forget about the job and stay home. A product of its time, and still a cute movie.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Apr 7, 2020 19:17:22 GMT
Having lived in St. Louis my entire life, I wasn't offended by that scene. It's pretty accurate about certain areas unfortunately. The only mistake is that there aren't really house fronts like that, right up on the street. They made it look like Sesame Street!
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 7, 2020 20:03:26 GMT
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - manipulating the story so the British officers behave in ways they would not have for real, as well as making the Japanese commander different from his historical counterpart--it may make the story more eccentric and interesting but I wonder the cost since it is distorting the truth, and for what end?
MOBY DICK 1956 -- The only really questionable thing for me is the use of real whaling scenes. They are so brief they could have used props instead.
ZULU 1964 - although a rousing film it is full of questionable behavior and historical inaccuracies. They make one character who was a non-drinker into a drunk, and the Belgian cripple who talks so enthusiastically about Zulu stamina is the one who goes on a rampage stabbing them to death! The Christian missionaries are portrayed as complete basket cases and the ending is such a fraud--suggesting the Zulus retreated because they were saluting fellow braves--complete nonsense. The Zulus reportedly retreated because the relief column came. By ending it as they did, it makes the Zulus look like they were embracing multiculturalism and colonialism. If they had followed the truth, the film would not seem so dated.
FIREFOX 1982 - Although we finally get a big studio Hollywood film that depicts the USSR in a profoundly negative light (after years of films where it suggested they were good at heart) it implied that the Soviet Union was a Russian enterprise and even included a weird scene where Eastwood says to someone "what is it with you Jews anyway? Don't you ever get tired of fighting city hall?" According to Solzhenitsyn, the founding of the Soviet Union was a primarily Jewish enterprise and he lamented the Western image that Communist = Russian because it was false.
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Apr 7, 2020 20:19:55 GMT
In Star Wars, did they really have to blow up the Death Star, killing not only Grand Moff Tarkin (who did deserve it), but also many, many accountants, custodians, shop keepers, chefs, and maintenance workers?
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Apr 7, 2020 20:52:15 GMT
In Star Wars, did they really have to blow up the Death Star, killing not only Grand Moff Tarkin (who did deserve it), but also many, many accountants, custodians, shop keepers, chefs, and maintenance workers? The Death Star was a weapon. A planet killer. Aircraft carriers full of janitors & cooks I don't think are reason not to sink one.
|
|