True Lies is Truly Disturbed.
Jaime Matthew
I went to see this film with high expectations (no higher than you could
expect from the team that brought us T2), but was instead given a look
into James Camerons deep psychoses.
I like action films as much as the next guy, but what was up with the
middle of this film?
Call this a spoiler, or what you will, but will somebody please explain
to me the humor in Arnold's character humiliating his extra-patient wife,
when he WRONGLY suspects that she is having an affair? What kind of sick
bastard would throw his wife into an interrogation room, find out he was
mistaken, and then have the gall to try and seduce her under false pretenses.
Tell Jim that enough is enough, and stay home. It's okay to kill. In a
film, it's almost expected. But leave the psychopathic hero crap on the
cutting room floor. Kids are screwed up enough these days without their
heros abusing their wives. Shades of OJ anyone?
Pool your money and rent T2 again. If you need to see graphic violence,
play Doom.
Mr. Jamela
mrja...@netcom.com
--
mrja...@netcom.com
DAUG Bytes
Matthew) writes:
<snip>
>Call this a spoiler, or what you will, but will somebody please explain
>to me the humor in Arnold's character humiliating his extra-patient
>wife, when he WRONGLY suspects that she is having an affair? What kind
>of sick bastard would throw his wife into an interrogation room, find out
>he was mistaken, and then have the gall to try and seduce her under false
>pretenses.
>Tell Jim that enough is enough, and stay home. It's okay to kill. In a
>film, it's almost expected. But leave the psychopathic hero crap on the
>cutting room floor. Kids are screwed up enough these days without their
>heroes abusing their wives. Shades of OJ anyone?
Agreed. Being part of that demographic group that made Cameron who he is
today (the wife/girlfriend who dutifully accompanies husband/other to
action film and realizes "yes, these are very entertaining, in fact very
PMS-relieving" and THEN the movie takes off to blockbusterdom), I was very
disappointed by the whole Helen-the-boob portrayal. Geez. Can't Cameron
stick to a formula that works? Yep, give us bigger budgets, more
ridiculous stunts, Ah-nold in a tux -- but what happened to the Ripleys
and Sarah Conners? Instead we get the bored suburban housewife willing to
take up with an entry-level food chain specimen and the jealous husband
wants her to redeem herself by acting like a hooker. (What WAS he gonna
say to her after the striptease if she hadn't bopped him with the phone?
Nothing that wouldn't have had me filing divorce papers the next morning).
Humiliating, yes. Degrading, yes. So as not to harp on the gender-bias
thing too much, humiliation was having Bill Paxton's character wet his
pants twice -- alright already! We're thought that was funny when we were
7 years old, but now it means the scriptwriter ran out of ideas. Cameron
used to have some "respect" even for his cartoonish characters; not here
in TRUE LIES. I doubt you'll find many women singing the praises of this
movie.
te...@delphi.com
>>Call this a spoiler, or what you will, but will somebody please explain
>>to me the humor in Arnold's character humiliating his extra-patient
>>wife, when he WRONGLY suspects that she is having an affair? What kind
>in TRUE LIES. I doubt you'll find many women singing the praises of this
>movie.
part of the movie bothered her and the answer was "no."
amy lynn young-leith
Well first off, it's a MOVIE so everything has to be bigger than life.
They are playing, I believe, on the stereotype (and reality for
some people) that men take a woman's cheating very hard, EVEN in
situations that aren't exactly normal. Don't forget, he thinks she's
CHEATING and not just seeing someone for lunch.
So while, as his partner clearly puts it, "What did you expect?," he
obviously does care for her and, being a man and a rather
stereotypical "manly man" in this flick, he goes overboard. Like a
lot of people would do. In his case it's just easier to go WAY
overboard because of his access to things.
She wants excitement; when he finds this out, he figures her'll give
it to her.
And many women DO find the concept of being a prostitute somewhat
glamorous and exciting. Obviously this character did. Not all women,
and not all conservative mother/professional types, but it's a common
issue. I didn't find it degrading at all; quite the opposite. The
character actually got INTO it (the dance) and I saw it as a (re-)
discovering of sexuality and, later, an expression of power (instead
of laying there she beans her "john" over the head with a phone).
I just sort of assumed that since he was going to this trouble, he was
going to come clean to her about his life and profession.
amy
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ Amy Young-Leith Bloomington, Indiana Lifetime Student
\ /\ (That thing to the left is a bunny!)
( ) The views expressed within represent only my opinions.
.( o ). ***Please feel free to email -only-***
Sean C. Cunningham
(...lots-o-junk deleted...)
: Nothing that wouldn't have had me filing divorce papers the next morning).
: Humiliating, yes. Degrading, yes. So as not to harp on the gender-bias
: thing too much, humiliation was having Bill Paxton's character wet his
: pants twice -- alright already! We're thought that was funny when we were
: 7 years old, but now it means the scriptwriter ran out of ideas. Cameron
: used to have some "respect" even for his cartoonish characters; not here
: in TRUE LIES. I doubt you'll find many women singing the praises of this
: movie.
I know several. All of them are smart enough to realize that this is a
piece of entertainment, not meant to be taken seriously. I mean, hell,
if Jamie Lee wasn't offended by doing it why make a big deal about it. Don't
people have more important things to do?
I'm sure all the PC robots out there will be happy when movies are filled
with grey-skinned, a-sexual mutes designed not to offend anyone. Won't that
be grand? Everyone's so sensitive about any one particular group being
"singled-out," everyone's full of such a lack of confidence in themselves and
their heritage that we've got to do _something_ so that they don't feel
uncomfortable.
--
Digital Domain: sean.cu...@d2.com FEAR IS NOT
N e t c o m: poc...@netcom.com -- Pixel Cowboy -- AN OPTION
R e a l World: Sean C. Cunningham July 15
gregory m. byshenk
in True Lies. IMO, TL, like, e.g., Last Action Hero, is going in
two different directions at once, and the directions are opposed.
(Spoilers...)
Some people have already noted some rather ugly elements to the
film, such as Arnold degrading Curtis (more than once), but I think
it is bigger than that.
Think about it: _all_ the characters in the film are extremely
nasty people. Obviously, the villains are unpleasant, but even
the 'heroes' are unpleasant.
From the very outset of the film: the 'good guys' blow up a villa
and kill off a whole bunch of people, just on the _possibility_
that something bad might be going on.
Tom Arnold's character is a total asshole, but is at peace with
himself, because he has accepted that he doesn't give a damn about
anyone else.
Arnold & Arnold are willing to take time off from a major stakeout
to investigate Arnie's wife's possible infidelity, and are willing
to misuse a whole (large) team of agents to do so. We don't even
need to mention Arnie's abusive treatment (twice!) of his wife --
the second time _after_ he knows that she did not have an affair
(I'd be willing to write this off as a bit of amusing role-playing
were it not for the fact that she was not in on the game).
A & A (& JLC) terrorize poor Simon. Ok, so Simon is a sleaze, but
he's so pathetic that this is schoolyard bullying.
Even Arnie and Curtis' daughter is a thief.
I find it hard to believe that this is all accidental. Perhaps
there is a point to all this: that there is something a bit
dehumanizing about killing off scores of people, even if 'they
were all bad'.
The problem is that this is all wrapped up in a standard action
movie. The 'good guys' save the day, Arnie and Curtis kiss and
make up, and Arnie even gets a chance to save his daughter, making
the whole gang one happy family.
So all's well that ends well ... ?
I find it very strange.
--
Gregory Byshenk | The University? Hah! Half the time
gbys...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | *I'm* not responsible for my opinions!
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Department of Philosophy
"Says Red Molly to James: 'That's a fine motorbike...'" R.T.
Andrew Tong
minor spoilers...
>DAUG Bytes <daug...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>>Call this a spoiler, or what you will, but will somebody please explain
>>>to me the humor in Arnold's character humiliating his extra-patient
>>>wife, when he WRONGLY suspects that she is having an affair? What kind
>
>This is a SUPER movie but that bothered me too.
I >know< I'm insensitive toward these kinds of things, so I wasn't so
bothered by that element of the movie.
I'm not sure I can justify the "humor" in anything (can anyone give
logical reasons for why they laugh at something?) But let me try to
justify my insensitivity, and maybe the entire scene, in
retrospect. :)
You could see it as an "escalation" of a sort. It began with a simple
overheard conversation, which in itself could be considered
"objectionable" or at least "bad manners." Then there's the fact that
Helen lies to a knowing Harry about what she actually did at noon
(again something that's "objectionable", and as such, should *not*
have been seen as "humorous" except by insensitive male scum like me
;).
So Harry wants to get a wiretap (uh-oh. I found the previous
incidents humorous. Should I draw the line here? Why?). He
interviews Bill Paxton's character under false pretenses (deeper and
deeper).... Where have you finally had enough to say, "No, I do not
find this humorous, because the situation is so sick and demented"?
Is it when brute force is finally used? If that's the case, then
perhaps my shortcoming would simply be that I inure myself to use of
force/violence in these kinds of movies. I expect it, and I
subconsciously prepare myself for it before I go to see something like
TRUE LIES. To fail to do so would prevent me from enjoying *any* of
the movie.
In specific regards to the interrogation scene, I think it should make
very little difference that Harry Tasker *wrongly* suspected the
affair. Whether or not there was an affair shouldn't colour our
judgement as to the appropriateness of the method he used in
ascertaining the "truth." It should be based on whatever leads Tasker
had to back up his fears. Of course, Harry only had an overheard
conversation, "advice" from Tom Arnold's caracter, and the simple fact
that his wife was *lying* to him (and later, info from a wiretap and
interview with Bill Paxton's character). It seems obvious that the
grounds definitely do *not* logically justify the actions taken.
But his actions, even if morally objectionable, were totally in
character. Harry's job is to obtain secret information, and perhaps
the problem is that the only methods he knows for doing that are ones
he's been taught (and has seen) to be the "most efficient" or "most
reliable" methods, with no regards as to the "most humane" or "most
sensible" methods.
If I were to feel anything at all in reaction to the "humiliating"
scenes, it would most certainly include a sort of sympathy for Harry
Tasker, a person who is almost *forced* into taking the regrettable
actions he did because of the conditioning he underwent in the process
of becoming a super-spy. And by the way, perhaps one of the reasons
Helen isn't "filing divorce papers the next morning" (other than the
circumstantial fact that she was kidnapped and sent to the Keys then)
is because she's able to *see* that this is the main reason things got
out of hand, and that she decided she's still able to love, accept,
and live with Harry--even though he is a spy. That seems to be the
explanation Cameron provides at the very end, at least.
The incident, then, actually does a nice job of showing a reasonably
realistic *negative* side of the spy lifestyle, or "let's show that a
spy would utterly bomb when it comes to the kinds of everyday,
domestic problems that we all have to face in our lives", something I
don't think any previous spy movies (James Bond, etc.) have ever
really tried to do. If there's any genuinely *positive* influence that
Cameron may accomplish with TRUE LIES, I think this would have to be
it. (Apart from the groundbreaking technical wizardry, of course.)
Also note that the tables were eventually turned on Harry. Later in
the film, he is injected with truth agents and Helen gets to ask *him*
some questions. Admittedly, no truly "probing" questions were
presented at that time, and I would see that as a valid criticism of
the movie.
As for the "Helen as a boob" scene, I'm not sure I could describe it
as "humiliating." I saw it more as a (perhaps) crucial moment of
transition for Mrs. Tasker from "clumsy housewife" into a person more
aware of her sexuality, power, etc., etc., (borrowed from another post.)
In any case, I've never automatically translated "display of sexual
prowess" into "humiliation."
Finally, for those who are lamenting the lack of a "Ripley" or "Sarah
Conner" in TRUE LIES, note that the stage is set for Helen to *be*
that kind of character in any sequel. Sarah Conner wasn't exactly her
savvy, buff T2 self in the original TERMINATOR (and I don't think
Ripley was in ALIEN, but my memory is a little fuzzy on that one).
Cameron seems to like to "build up" to these things.
I know that I'm thinking waayyy too much about what's supposed to be a
mindless action flick, but dammit, it was fun!
-- Andrew
Steven Chung
te...@delphi.com
>Well, I enjoyed True Lies. I don't expect movies to
>represent reality 100% of the time. Helen didn't represent
>the typical woman, clearly, and Arnold doesn't represent the
>typical man. And that fact was blatantly obvious to me and
>always is whenever I got to see a work of fiction.
Yes, but Arnold is the HERO in this movie and for the HERO to be
so insensitive to his wife is not congruous.
Lazlo Nibble
>> I doubt you'll find many women singing the praises of this movie.
>
> I know several. All of them are smart enough to realize that this is a
> piece of entertainment, not meant to be taken seriously.
That's a cop-out. "It's just a movie" wouldn't be an excuse for
Schwarzenegger's character slapping his daughter around, had he done that,
so it's not much of an excuse for his character doing what a lot of us see
as a similar thing to his wife. In the context of a film where he's
supposed to be the hero, his behavior doesn't *work*.
> I'm sure all the PC robots out there will be happy when movies are
> filled with grey-skinned, a-sexual mutes designed not to offend anyone.
Oh yeah, that's it -- everyone who's bothered by the mean-spirited
subcurrents in this movie is obviously a mindless PC drone. Keep saying
it Sean, maybe eventually you'll be able to convince yourself that it's
true.
I'm not complaining about this stuff because I think it's "degrading to
women" or "offensive to Arabs", I'm complaining because it's sloppy
writing, just as distracting as any other major continuity problem.
--
Lazlo (la...@rt66.com)
amy lynn young-leith
Does it ever occur to people that since YOU didn't write it, perhaps
it's YOU who isn't "getting" what the character was "supposed" to be?
Just because someone doesn't like a movie doesn't mean it's a horrible
movie or bad writing or... it's just not to your liking. Big deal.
I'd say I don't like a rather large chunk of today's "entertainment."
I agree with an earlier poster who said that it's a MOVIE folks, it's
ENTERTAINMENT. If you want an airtight documentary on the social and familial
consequences of being in this line of work, tune in Discovery or go
read a book.
Some people found some elements of the movie "disturbing."
Surpringly, no one found the murder of god only knows how many people
"disturbing." THIS is what bugs me more than anything else!
James Nicoll
amy lynn young-leith <aly...@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>Some people found some elements of the movie "disturbing."
>Surpringly, no one found the murder of god only knows how many people
>"disturbing." THIS is what bugs me more than anything else!
Something I found amusing was the Anglo-American sentimentality
about animals, as seen in the scene where Arnold is killing small hordes
of hirlings in Switzerland. The humans get killed without remorse, but
the dogs only get bonked on the head and are shown getting back up. As
well, later on in the horse vs motorcycle chase scene, the head terrorist
fails to shoot the horse from under Arnold, which would have been my solution
to the horse chase. Horses are easier to hit than humans.
James Nicoll
Evelyn C. Leeper
Sean C. Cunningham <poc...@netcom.com> wrote:
> I know several. All of them are smart enough to realize that this is a
> piece of entertainment, not meant to be taken seriously. I mean, hell,
> if Jamie Lee wasn't offended by doing it why make a big deal about it.
I hope you aren't suggesting that as long as someone is willing to do
something in a movie that makes it all right in real life. The
argument (I believe) is that in the story Harry was humiliating Helen
by making her perform as a prostitute for a stranger (as far as she
knew). That an actress was willing to take the role does not change
whether or not the humiliation existed in the story. No one is claiming
that Jamie Lee Curtis, the actress, was humiliated for dancing in her
underwear for millions of dollars.
I would imagine the actor playing the main terrorist wasn't offended by
taking that role, but that hardly implies that that the actor endorses
that *character*'s--or any other character's--actions in the story.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
"Am I politically correct today? Do I do crystals and New Age?
Obviously, women's music's for me--Edith Piaf, Bessie Smith, and Patti Page."
--Lynn Lavner
Dr. Midnight
I also found the whole middle section of the movie pretty off putting (esp. the
interrogation/humiliation sequence), and I narrowed the problem I had down to
this: The movie, and especially that whole "affair" sequenece, was played far
too straight to be funny. That was my problem with the whole film really
(which I would give ** out of ****): tried to be a comedy AND a straight action
flick. Too funny to be serious, too serious to be funny. The balance was all
off. You can be an action picture with funny moments, or a comedy with action,
but trying to be an action picture AND a comedy doesn't come off well. Was this
the same problem folks had with "The Last Action Hero"?
Hudson Hawk, which this was compared to, never was played straight. That's why
it was (to me) funny. It also wasn't what I would consider an action picture
ala Die Hard, Terminator, and True Lies. True Lies just waffled around between
funny and not-funny and spent too much time in the latter to make that whole
middle piece work as comedy. Although it seems I'm in the minority here, it's
good to see I wasn't the only one who felt that way.
My two cents,
Dr. Midnight
-- I work for Digital. I don't speak for 'em.
I can also be reached via the World// "I learned everything I
Send to: midn...@world.std.com // know from comic books!"
This space for rent. // -- Pinky, "Animaniacs"
Kenn Barry
>They are playing, I believe, on the stereotype (and reality for
>some people) that men take a woman's cheating very hard, EVEN in
>situations that aren't exactly normal. Don't forget, he thinks she's
>CHEATING and not just seeing someone for lunch.
It's worth remembering that this is a remake of a French film,
not an original Cameron plot. The macho meme-virus is stronger there
than in the US. Indeed, the whole infidelity subplot is very, very
French.
It was a fine film, but I hope Cameron will now go back to
making his own stories. And that they'll be SF :-).
Kayembee
Eric Castle
Oh, give me a break. Since when did you make up all the rules for how a
hero is supposed to act in every film. Come on people, you are going way
overboard on this issue.
Eric Castle
wrote:
> poc...@netcom.com (Sean C. Cunningham) writes:
>
> >> I doubt you'll find many women singing the praises of this movie.
> >
> > I know several. All of them are smart enough to realize that this is a
> > piece of entertainment, not meant to be taken seriously.
>
> That's a cop-out. "It's just a movie" wouldn't be an excuse for
> Schwarzenegger's character slapping his daughter around, had he done that,
> so it's not much of an excuse for his character doing what a lot of us see
> as a similar thing to his wife. In the context of a film where he's
> supposed to be the hero, his behavior doesn't *work*.
Doesn't work for *you*. Since when does a hero have to follow *your*
notions of what a hero should or shouldn't do?
> > I'm sure all the PC robots out there will be happy when movies are
> > filled with grey-skinned, a-sexual mutes designed not to offend anyone.
>
> Oh yeah, that's it -- everyone who's bothered by the mean-spirited
> subcurrents in this movie is obviously a mindless PC drone. Keep saying
> it Sean, maybe eventually you'll be able to convince yourself that it's
> true.
Yes they are!
> I'm not complaining about this stuff because I think it's "degrading to
> women" or "offensive to Arabs", I'm complaining because it's sloppy
> writing, just as distracting as any other major continuity problem.
>
Didn't find any continuity problem.
Eric Castle
Leeper) wrote:
> In article <pocketsC...@netcom.com>,
> Sean C. Cunningham <poc...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > I know several. All of them are smart enough to realize that this is a
> > piece of entertainment, not meant to be taken seriously. I mean, hell,
> > if Jamie Lee wasn't offended by doing it why make a big deal about it.
>
> I hope you aren't suggesting that as long as someone is willing to do
> something in a movie that makes it all right in real life. The
> argument (I believe) is that in the story Harry was humiliating Helen
> by making her perform as a prostitute for a stranger (as far as she
> knew). That an actress was willing to take the role does not change
> whether or not the humiliation existed in the story. No one is claiming
> that Jamie Lee Curtis, the actress, was humiliated for dancing in her
> underwear for millions of dollars.
>
> I would imagine the actor playing the main terrorist wasn't offended by
> taking that role, but that hardly implies that that the actor endorses
> that *character*'s--or any other character's--actions in the story.
>
True. Because its a MOVIE, not REAL LIFE. Almost all movies have some
ascpect that you would never do or would never happen in real life.
Evelyn C. Leeper
> In article <1994Jul16....@news.cs.indiana.edu> "amy lynn young-leith" <aly...@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
> >They are playing, I believe, on the stereotype (and reality for
> >some people) that men take a woman's cheating very hard, EVEN in
> >situations that aren't exactly normal. Don't forget, he thinks she's
> >CHEATING and not just seeing someone for lunch.
>
> It's worth remembering that this is a remake of a French film,
> not an original Cameron plot. The macho meme-virus is stronger there
> than in the US. Indeed, the whole infidelity subplot is very, very
> French.
I get the impression that the French film didn't have this as a major
sub-plot, though I could be wrong. And my impression is that the
French have in general more sang-froid about this sort of thing than
Arnie did. (If they didn't, I wouldn't have had to say it in French,
would I? :-) )
Did anyone out there see the French film (LA TOTALE)?
gregory m. byshenk
>Was this the same problem folks had with "The Last Action Hero"?
I think that I made the comparison, so I would have to agree. On
my reading, TL was trying to examine 'action movies', but also to
_be_ an action movie. Similarly, I saw at least three different
movies in LAH: 1) a comic sendup of action movies; 2) an
examination of the unreality of action movies; and 3) an action
movie.
I am not sure it would be impossible to do these different things
(present an critical analysis of a genre while remaining within
that genre) at the same time (see, for example, "The Player"), but
it is at least very, very, difficult to pull off. Neither TL nor
LAH manages to do so, at least IMO.
>Hudson Hawk, which this was compared to, never was played straight. That's why
>it was (to me) funny. It also wasn't what I would consider an action picture
>ala Die Hard, Terminator, and True Lies.
IMO, HH is also a failure, but for different reasons. I enjoyed it
overall (and the first half immensely), but think that it failed
because Bruce Willis just went completely overboard; my guess is
that Willis (like Eddie Murphy?) needs someone to rein him in. It
seemed to me as if HH just had more and more things thrown into the
pot and stirred around until the whole became something of a mess.
Alan Asper
jda...@sbctri.sbc.com writes:
>
>Joe, who found "True Lies" only mildly disturbing, and only mildly
>entertaining
Joe, I disagree with you. Therefore, you--and your entire
system of values--suck.
Isn't this what the net is all about?
Alan
My opinions are not those of my employer, who
is the same as Joe's employer.
Joe Dawis
young-leith" <aly...@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> Does it ever occur to people that since YOU didn't write it, perhaps
> it's YOU who isn't "getting" what the character was "supposed" to be?
>
> Just because someone doesn't like a movie doesn't mean it's a horrible
> movie or bad writing or... it's just not to your liking. Big deal.
> I'd say I don't like a rather large chunk of today's "entertainment."
Isn't the point of this newsgroup for people to post _why_ a movie did or
didn't entertain them (including why it did or did not disturb them)? And
for other people to post _why_ they agree or disagree? I think you're
trivializing people's opinions by saying "it's just not to your liking."
>
> I agree with an earlier poster who said that it's a MOVIE folks, it's
> ENTERTAINMENT. If you want an airtight documentary on the social and familial
> consequences of being in this line of work, tune in Discovery or go
> read a book.
So -- we should never be disturbed by anything we watch under the guise of
"entertainment?" How about a bloodbath of dozens of school children being
mowed down by machine gun fire? OK, maybe that's extreme, but then again a
lot of what is now commonplace in Hollywood movies today would have been
considered extreme not so many years ago (how many "action" movies have you
seen lately where there _hasn't_ been a scene with someone getting their
head blown open by a gunshot?). I hope there are some things which will
_always_ disturb viewers.
If on the other hand you're saying that the entertainment world has no
impact on the real world (and, presumably, vice versa), I think you're
sadly deluded. On an individual basis, perhaps you're right, but the
_systematic_ portrayal of negative themes (e.g., women as sex objects,
Arabs as crazed terrorists, the cheapness of human life) in "entertainment"
ought to be cause for concern.
If on the third hand (ouch!) you're saying that "True Lies" is a movie that
asks you to check your brain in at the door and watch it as a mindless
sponge (stimulus->response, stimulus->response), well, I'll go along with
that.
(I get the feeling I'm overreacting to someone's overreaction to someone
else's overreaction to a movie. I love Usenet!)
>
> Some people found some elements of the movie "disturbing."
> Surpringly, no one found the murder of god only knows how many people
> "disturbing." THIS is what bugs me more than anything else!
It's just a MOVIE. Anyhow, "they were all bad."
Sarcasm aside, I noticed right away that this was going to be one of those
human-life-is-cheap movies (I suggested early on to my wife that we should
have been keeping a body count). I was amused, by the way, at how quick
they were to show us that the two attack dogs were OK, in the midst of all
this human carnage.
James Acker
Let me start by saying, I am not living in America right now so I
haven't seen the movie. From the posts I've seen so far I find
myself visualizing some of the scenes you are all discussing.
I just find it strange that the biggest complaint is that
he was cruel to his wife, and in a movies that seems to have him
killing alot of people. I understand it, maybe will even share it
when it get to see the film, but I don't think I will understand
the reason for that irony. May be because the killing in action
films is so cartoony and BIG, but we come to "believe in" the
human interaction in action films? Which is, of course, ridiculous.
Clarinda Lofton
I second that motion.
And also--for people who complain about "how TL portrays women (how they all
have a secret desire to be a prostitute) or how TL portrays relationships (the
Arnold character 'torturing' his wife) please try to remember that even cheesy
action flicks are not trying to represent the populous or even the norm among
the populous. They are two specific "characters" interacting in a way that is
indicative of them and their relationship---and in this case---to quote the
gentleman above--"Maybe because the killing in action films is so cartoony and
BIG, but (have) we come to "believe in" the human interaction in action films?"
It's called suspension of belief. You can't enjoy the movies without it.
Clarinda
George Nassiopoulos P-353 495-7181
: Something I found amusing was the Anglo-American sentimentality
: about animals, as seen in the scene where Arnold is killing small hordes
: of hirlings in Switzerland. The humans get killed without remorse, but
: the dogs only get bonked on the head and are shown getting back up. As
: well, later on in the horse vs motorcycle chase scene, the head terrorist
: fails to shoot the horse from under Arnold, which would have been my solution
: to the horse chase. Horses are easier to hit than humans.
I think the terrorist had lost his gun by the time he got on the
motorcycle, but i could be misremembering that one...
George Nassiopoulos
nas...@cfa.harvard.edu
amy young-leith
I think it's rather hilarious. Killing men and "bad" women is just
fine, but embarass a housewife? Oh, never!
amy young-leith
Joe Dawis <jda...@sbctri.sbc.com> wrote:
>Isn't the point of this newsgroup for people to post _why_ a movie did or
>didn't entertain them (including why it did or did not disturb them)? And
>for other people to post _why_ they agree or disagree? I think you're
>trivializing people's opinions by saying "it's just not to your liking."
Perhaps you didn't understand what I was commenting on. People were
saying, "Oh, I didn't like that... the writer did a horrible job and
it sucked." No, perhaps you just didn't like it... unless you hired
the writer, told them what to give you and they didn't do it, you
cannot necessarily say that they suck as a writer.
>So -- we should never be disturbed by anything we watch under the guise of
>"entertainment?" How about a bloodbath of dozens of school children being
>mowed down by machine gun fire? OK, maybe that's extreme, but then again a
>lot of what is now commonplace in Hollywood movies today would have been
>considered extreme not so many years ago (how many "action" movies have you
>seen lately where there _hasn't_ been a scene with someone getting their
>head blown open by a gunshot?). I hope there are some things which will
>_always_ disturb viewers.
Yes, I agree, it SHOULD be disturbing, however... what do you expect
when you go to see a movie with Ah-nold in it, and on top of that WHO
was directing the movie? WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? And the irony that it's
okay to kill god only knows how many people, but heaven forbid he was
"mean" to his wife... WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
>If on the other hand you're saying that the entertainment world has no
>impact on the real world (and, presumably, vice versa), I think you're
>sadly deluded. On an individual basis, perhaps you're right, but the
>_systematic_ portrayal of negative themes (e.g., women as sex objects,
>Arabs as crazed terrorists, the cheapness of human life) in "entertainment"
>ought to be cause for concern.
I agree.
>If on the third hand (ouch!) you're saying that "True Lies" is a movie that
>asks you to check your brain in at the door and watch it as a mindless
>sponge (stimulus->response, stimulus->response), well, I'll go along with
>that.
Exactly. Don't go see Philidelphia wanting a lot of yucks, and don't
go to True Lies wanting a good ethnological and anthropological
documentary.
Charles Lin
In article <1994Jul21.1...@news.cs.indiana.edu>, "amy young-leith" <aly...@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <Ct7DD...@tfs.com>, James Acker <ac...@tfs.com> wrote:
>> Let me start by saying, I am not living in America right now so I
>> haven't seen the movie. From the posts I've seen so far I find
>> myself visualizing some of the scenes you are all discussing.
>> I just find it strange that the biggest complaint is that
>> he was cruel to his wife, and in a movies that seems to have him
>> killing alot of people. I understand it, maybe will even share it
>> when it get to see the film, but I don't think I will understand
>> the reason for that irony. May be because the killing in action
>> films is so cartoony and BIG, but we come to "believe in" the
>> human interaction in action films? Which is, of course, ridiculous.
>
>
>I think it's rather hilarious. Killing men and "bad" women is just
>fine, but embarass a housewife? Oh, never!
>
While it seems like a strange attitude, my feeling is that
(and I haven't seen the movie either) it's OK for someone to
kill "bad" people. Wars, after all, made heroes out of those
who killed. Yet, such heroes were expected to be kind husbands
or wives, and so this normally "bad" behavior was justified.
However, if the person was killing "bad guys", and also a
distasteful person, then there's no reason to support the good
guy. A bad guy is a person who kills randomly and has no
redeeming values, while a good guy kills bad guys, and still
has some redeeming values. I suppose that's why some people
are unhappy with these scenes. The early Lethal Weapons had
both main characters killing off plenty of people, but the
point was that they were supposedly decent people.
Of course, whether this is what movies should promote
is another story.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@eng.umd.edu
salomon phillip
Phil Salomon
sal...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
gregory m. byshenk
>Perhaps you didn't understand what I was commenting on. People were
>saying, "Oh, I didn't like that... the writer did a horrible job and
>it sucked." No, perhaps you just didn't like it... unless you hired
>the writer, told them what to give you and they didn't do it, you
>cannot necessarily say that they suck as a writer.
I think that you don't understand what people are saying about the
film. It's not just that someone didn't like it, but that the
different parts of the film didn't work together.
I personally find the huge amounts of violence in some 'action'
movies a bit disturbing, even when it is 'cartoon' violence such
as what is in True Lies. Thus, I can appreciate the attempt to
examine the psychology of the action hero that (I think) is present
in TL. However, I can also say that the film doesn't "work" in
the way that it was presented. This is the reason for saying the
writer and/or director did not do a good job.
If, on the other hand, such was not the intention of the middle
part of the film, then I would again say that the film doesn't
work, because the middle part doesn't fit the tone of the film
as a whole. (I should note that this would be a serious blunder,
which is why I think the inclusion of the middle part of the film
must have been intentional on Cameron's part.)
>Yes, I agree, it SHOULD be disturbing, however... what do you expect
>when you go to see a movie with Ah-nold in it, and on top of that WHO
>was directing the movie? WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? And the irony that it's
>okay to kill god only knows how many people, but heaven forbid he was
>"mean" to his wife... WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
I agree that it should be disturbing. The problem with TL is that
it is compartmentalized. That is, it is trying to do two different
things at once, which gives one disturbing section -- Ah-nold and
his wife -- and two straightforward 'action' sections. And the
'action' sections are played for laughs, with the seeming intention
not to be disturbing at all. So the film doesn't work.
>Exactly. Don't go see Philidelphia wanting a lot of yucks, and don't
>go to True Lies wanting a good ethnological and anthropological
>documentary.
The problem with this attitude is that True Lies opens itself up
to this kind of criticism by including the middle section examining
the psychology of the action hero. No one analyzes "Speed" in this
way because there is no character development present (and none
expected). This aspect is not necessary in an action movie, but
if Cameron chooses to include it, then analysis and criticism of
this aspect is warranted.
Let me note that I applaud the effort of Cameron in TL (and some of
his other films) to expand the scope of 'action' films. Of course,
in aiming a bit higher, Cameron has made the target a bit harder to
hit. IMO, he has missed in the case of TL.
Kenn Barry
>In article <barryCt...@netcom.com>, Kenn Barry <ba...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> In article <1994Jul16....@news.cs.indiana.edu> "amy lynn young-leith" <aly...@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>> >They are playing, I believe, on the stereotype (and reality for
>> >some people) that men take a woman's cheating very hard, EVEN in
>> >situations that aren't exactly normal. Don't forget, he thinks she's
>> >CHEATING and not just seeing someone for lunch.
>>
>> It's worth remembering that this is a remake of a French film,
>> not an original Cameron plot. The macho meme-virus is stronger there
>> than in the US. Indeed, the whole infidelity subplot is very, very
>> French.
>
>I get the impression that the French film didn't have this as a major
>sub-plot, though I could be wrong.
Dunno, since I haven't seen it. I plan to rent it if I can find
it, though. But I would think it too obvious a gag to miss using.
You've go a Bondish superspy convinced his wife's cheating on him. He's
used to power, used to decisive action, has high-tech equipment and
professionals at his disposal, and doesn't even have to worry about
paper trails, since in his line of work it's customary to cover your
tracks. If LA TOTALE was at all similar, I would think this the big
pitch that sold the film: the whole movie-fantasy machinery of the
super-spy used to solve a bedroom-farce dilemma. The French relish
comedy with the world turned upside-down, social convention and
habitual expectation turned on its head, the great with their feet of
clay on display.
>And my impression is that the
>French have in general more sang-froid about this sort of thing than
>Arnie did. (If they didn't, I wouldn't have had to say it in French,
>would I? :-) )
I believe you're right. Judging by what I see on the net, quite
a few Americans find the infidelity-and-revenge subplot too disturbing
to laugh at. I expect the French have less of a problem, there.
Kayembee
John Switzer
>In article <Ct7DD...@tfs.com>, James Acker <ac...@tfs.com> wrote:
>> Let me start by saying, I am not living in America right now so I
>> haven't seen the movie. From the posts I've seen so far I find
>> myself visualizing some of the scenes you are all discussing.
>> I just find it strange that the biggest complaint is that
>> he was cruel to his wife, and in a movies that seems to have him
>> killing alot of people. I understand it, maybe will even share it
>> when it get to see the film, but I don't think I will understand
>> the reason for that irony. May be because the killing in action
>> films is so cartoony and BIG, but we come to "believe in" the
>> human interaction in action films? Which is, of course, ridiculous.
>
>
>I think it's rather hilarious. Killing men and "bad" women is just
>fine, but embarass a housewife? Oh, never!
And, of course, embarrassing a salesman in public, making him think he's in
danger of his life, forcing him to wet his pants at a gala ball, is also OK.
Well, he is a car salesman, so I guess he, like the lawyer in Jurrasic Park,
is acceptable cannon fodder to the PC crowd.
--
John Switzer | "The powerless are always noisy, and the
| completely powerless have been, historically,
CompuServe: 74076,1250 | completely noisy, at least on Usenet."
Internet: j...@netcom.com | -- Mr. Protocol, SunExpert, July 1994
John Switzer
<aly...@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>Joe Dawis <jda...@sbctri.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>So -- we should never be disturbed by anything we watch under the guise of
>>"entertainment?" How about a bloodbath of dozens of school children being
>>mowed down by machine gun fire? OK, maybe that's extreme, but then again a
>>lot of what is now commonplace in Hollywood movies today would have been
>>considered extreme not so many years ago (how many "action" movies have you
>>seen lately where there _hasn't_ been a scene with someone getting their
>>head blown open by a gunshot?). I hope there are some things which will
>>_always_ disturb viewers.
>
>Yes, I agree, it SHOULD be disturbing, however... what do you expect
>when you go to see a movie with Ah-nold in it, and on top of that WHO
>was directing the movie? WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? And the irony that it's
>okay to kill god only knows how many people, but heaven forbid he was
>"mean" to his wife... WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
And I, for one, think the whole scene in question should be disturbing
simply because Arnold is clearly on the edge as he tries to deal with his
wife's apparent infidelity. Geez, man, pulling out a full strike team
complete with helicopter? This is not the action of a sane man, and
I have known guys and gals who have gone sort of crazy in similar
situations (though obviously not to this extent). The most interesting
question to me about all this is what would Tasker have done had his
wife actually been having an affair?
Stephen Notley
: Yes, I agree, it SHOULD be disturbing, however... what do you expect
: when you go to see a movie with Ah-nold in it, and on top of that WHO
: was directing the movie? WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? And the irony that it's
: okay to kill god only knows how many people, but heaven forbid he was
: "mean" to his wife... WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
But that's the oddest thing about it. I wouldn't be surprised to see this
movie from McTiernan or Donner or Verhoeven, but this is James Cameron.
Sure, he has the well-deserved rep of being king of American action
films, but the thing that made hims special was that his films, in
addition to presenting genre-defining action, all had sensitivity and
genuine respect for human life.
This is the first Cameron movie where people are the targets. We had
robots (Terminator), aliens, nobody (The Abyss), and robots again (T2).
Sure, all these movies are violent, but there's never been the kind of
wholesale slaughter that we see in TL. Sure, the "shoot the kneecaps" bit
in T2 comes off as much as a joke as a serious point, but the point
*is* there. Remember Sarah, about to blow Dyson away because she's sure
he's going to bring on the Apocalypse, and she *still* can't kill him.
Human lives are incredibly precious in all of Cameron's previous work.
The more disturbing point for me is the military-love ethic that TL
reeks of. This is the same man who wrote in THE ABYSS, "Coffey looks and
he sees Russians. He sees hate and fear. You've got to look with better
eyes than that." And yet in TL we have this loving, loving view of
various pieces of military hardware and a totally unquestioned
super-military organization. I guess this makes Cameron's scripting of
RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART 2 a little more comprehensible, but it's pretty
disappointing. Big step backward for Cameron this time out.
Damian Penny
>James Nicoll (jam...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: Something I found amusing was the Anglo-American sentimentality
>: about animals, as seen in the scene where Arnold is killing small hordes
>: of hirlings in Switzerland. The humans get killed without remorse, but
>: the dogs only get bonked on the head and are shown getting back up. As
The first time I saw TRUE LIES (I've already seen it twice), the girl I
saw it with had no qualms about watching people's heads being blown off,
etc., but when I laughed at the dogs scene she leaned over and said,
totally seriously, "that's NOT funny".
--
D A M I A N P E N N Y
-----...@ganymede.cs.mun.ca-----
M E M O R I A L U N I V E R S I T Y O F N E W F O U N D L A N D
Jennifer R Linrud
: > so insensitive to his wife is not congruous.
: Oh, give me a break. Since when did you make up all the rules for how a
: hero is supposed to act in every film. Come on people, you are going way
: overboard on this issue.
I enjoyed the movie, but considered it quite misogynistic. I understand
it's only entertainment, but these Air Force guys sitting in front of us
at the theater just thought it was sooooo cool.
It's not going overboard to point out that the stuff the so-called "hero"
was doing to his wife was akin to the Police's "Every Breath You Take."
The fact is that he was not a nice guy at all.
blaine3
dddd
: I enjoyed the movie, but considered it quite misogynistic. I understand
: it's only entertainment, but these Air Force guys sitting in front of us
: at the theater just thought it was sooooo cool.
: It's not going overboard to point out that the stuff the so-called "hero"
: was doing to his wife was akin to the Police's "Every Breath You Take."
: The fact is that he was not a nice guy at all.
I noted that the wife beat Arnold up once, and then knocked him down
later with a punch in the face when she found out he was a secret agent
and had lied to her and arranged her kidnapping. She also blew away
scores of villains with an Uzi. Is this anti-male violence? Of course not.
Its just an action movie. I don't see any justification for getting on
your politically correct high-horse about misogynism.
Do you think that in real life that Jaime Curtis could Knock Down
Arnold with one punch? No of course not, most likely she would have
hurt her hand! This is a fantasy.
I think Jaime Curtis deserves an Oscar for this. I loved every minute of it.
Al Kwiatkowski
In article <30pjn8$c...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca> sno...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Stephen Notley) writes:
>amy young-leith (aly...@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>
>: Yes, I agree, it SHOULD be disturbing, however... what do you expect
>: when you go to see a movie with Ah-nold in it, and on top of that WHO
>: was directing the movie? WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? And the irony that it's
>: okay to kill god only knows how many people, but heaven forbid he was
>: "mean" to his wife... WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
>
People expect an action movie. I'm really amazed you don't know
this, but in an action movie, the hero is expected to be all "good".
Occasionally, they try and spice up by having flaws (like he can
actually be *hurt* 8) in the hero, but he's mostly just an all-around
super guy. Sure he kills thousands of people, "but they were all bad",
so it's OK 8D. But scaring the hell out of your wife, and then
blackmailing her to act like a prostitute (when she's done *nothing
wrong*, mind you) is definitely *not* OK, so people end up confused
and let down. Reminds me of a certain former football player turned
actor -- hmmmm, can't remember his name, if only he was on TV more.....
>This is the first Cameron movie where people are the targets. We had
>robots (Terminator), aliens, nobody (The Abyss), and robots again (T2).
>Sure, all these movies are violent, but there's never been the kind of
>wholesale slaughter that we see in TL. Sure, the "shoot the kneecaps" bit
>in T2 comes off as much as a joke as a serious point, but the point
>*is* there. Remember Sarah, about to blow Dyson away because she's sure
>he's going to bring on the Apocalypse, and she *still* can't kill him.
T2 digression: oh sure, but her bit of compassion still wouldn't have
prevented Dyson from possibly creating the computer in the future;
good thing he gets conveniently killed later! 8)
>Human lives are incredibly precious in all of Cameron's previous work.
>
Good point. He does seem to have respect for actual human lives in his
movies.
>The more disturbing point for me is the military-love ethic that TL
>reeks of. This is the same man who wrote in THE ABYSS, "Coffey looks and
>he sees Russians. He sees hate and fear. You've got to look with better
>eyes than that." And yet in TL we have this loving, loving view of
>various pieces of military hardware and a totally unquestioned
>super-military organization. I guess this makes Cameron's scripting of
>RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART 2 a little more comprehensible, but it's pretty
>disappointing. Big step backward for Cameron this time out.
I don't think this is a 'step backwards' at all; I get the impression
that Cameron knows *exactly* what he's doing. CIP (case in point):
Arnold does plenty of action hero cliches, like comandeering vehicles
for his own use, using company resources for spying; but these goofy
actions are always noticed as such by Tom Arnold's character. He's
pointing out the silliness for us. And I think Cameron's trying to do
the same.
Another example: "He's called the Sand Spider"
"Why's that?"
"Probably because it sounds scary."
There's a reason he called the film 'True Lies' beyond the
immediate plot, IMO. Cameron's using the average action movie
script, and poking holes in it. Everything in the movie,
including the lame Arab stereotypes and the misogynistic
middle section, was used on purpose to do just that. You
know, maybe he *wanted* people to be uncomfortable during the
interrogation scene -- any thought on *that* idea?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I shall return....." \ Al Kwiatkowski
- Gen. D. A. Macarthur \
"I'll be back......." - ths...@iitmax.iit.edu
- A. Schwarzenegger / Illinois Inst. of Tech.
/ Chicago, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Day
>
>SPOILERS! below.......
>then blackmailing her to act like a prostitute (when she's done *nothing
>wrong*, mind you) is definitely *not* OK, so people end up confused
Wait a minute, keep in mind that he was doing the "prostitute" number
for *her* benefit -- she wanted some risk and excitement in her life,
so much so that she almost went to Paris with Paxton's character. At
that point in the movie, Arnold was no longer mad at his wife, he realized
that he had neglected her and he just wanted to give her what she felt
was missing so she wouldn't find her life so intolerably dull.