This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I managed to enjoy the movie 'in spite' of Johnson's politics being present because I went in knowing and expecting them so it wasn't like ordering a bowl of soup and being surprised there's a fly in it. I knew that the fly was part of the chef's specialty so I can just kind of 'eat around it.' Good performances, solid cinematography and good editing choices. A script that's too full of itself but is 'clever' and has decent dialogue moments (like the scene you alluded to).
Unfortunately that managed to sort of ruin the movie's twists because now Johnson's habits have made it easier to predict whodunnit and why.
Female Characters are generally 'good.' Poor, working class characters are ALWAYS heroic in understated ways. Characters that espouse right-wing views (even if they clearly don't believe them) are not good. Any tropes/cliches will always be subverted, even at the expense of the plot.
Those four rules by themselves get you approximately 90% of the way through the mystery.
EVEN THOUGH Rian sort of cheated and [SPOILERS] made a female character a killer this time, she never strikes the killing blow herself. [/SPOILERS] He really has an aversion to making his 'good' characters ever do anything that might make them less likeable. Likewise, he doesn't let his bad characters have any moments that might make them seem 'cool'.
I can actually envision this guy's writing process, he probably goes through like a dozen drafts refining the script to make sure there's no way an icky right winger is ever proven right in the slightest, that they're humiliated and sufficiently hypocritical to make it impossible for viewers to pretend they're 'better' than the protags, and finally to make sure nobody can criticize the protagonists' actions at any point, there's always some justification baked into the script. And to his credit, he's good at it, you don't get people pulling a "Thanos did nothing wrong" argument with his movies. He wants to make an airtight moral victory. In this film the Fire-and-Brimstone clergyman is [SPOILERS] an impotent drunkard scamster with an illegitimate son, and the reverence of his followers is entirely unearned, which they come to realize.[/SPOILERS] In GLASS ONION the hypersuccessful billionaire has to be shown to be stupid, petty, tasteless, secretly hated by everyone and not even deserving of his own success in even the tiniest way, it all has to be stolen. YET, as I mentioned at the time, I'm not sold on the idea that his defeat is complete and irreversible at the movies' end:
This was also how The Last Jedi played out. SAME FREAKIN' RULES. See how they elevated Admiral Holdo, deflated Poe Dameron and Luke Skywalker, and made the entire First Order leadership out as incompetents. And Mary Sue'd Rey harder than ever.
I think he screwed up just a little this time, in that while the 'victim' in this case was a bad guy (in contrast to the previous two movies) he didn't manage to make it seem like they deserved to die. A whole line of humiliations is inflicted on him, some contemptible decisions were shown, but all-in-all killing him was objectively indefensible.
But the mystery needs a dead guy to happen, so whatevs. That part was clever enough for me, although I could spot the one way the plan as portrayed could have failed in any 'realistic' setting. Red herrings were set up and executed well. Characters don't behave in stupid ways to make the plot move. And its mostly logically consistent except that one time (you're telling me a guy happened to be recording a baseball game, on broadcast TV, and that a particular device was powerful enough to interfere with the signal?).
Although Kudos to Rian for actively incorporating modern tech into his stories. Rather than trying to pretend cell phones don't exist or ignoring that they can solve most plots instantly.
Anyway. I grew up on mystery novels and shows. I've read Sherlock Holmes, Encyclopedia Brown, Hardy Boys, and more since I was very young. And I'm slightly pained to say that the entire Murder Mystery genre is played out and practically dead by now. It has been years since I saw a mystery resolution that actually made me go "WOW." And that mystery was in fact... KNIVES OUT. And thus I can credit Johnson with trying very hard to revive the genre with a fresh approach. But much like the actual corpse in this film, Johnson can only give it the illusion of resurrection, its still very much dead and no amount of mortuary makeup alone will solve that.
I'm still convinced the real ending of Knives Out is that the nurse is guilty and she successfully plotted to influence the old man to change the will in her favour, etc. It just makes the ending more coherent and the entire story more satisfying; she played the "me? poor innocent angelic nurse brown immigrant lady?" card so well that she fooled Blanc, who is maybe not up there with Hercule Poirot even if he does like showy dénouements, by using his biases and prejudices, and the end shot is the family knowing she dunnit but unable to prove it. Standing there sipping her coffee out of her "my house" mug to rub their noses in it.
Rewriting that movie so its a parable about immigrants scamming Boomers out of their fortunes and/or scamming this country's generous welfare system would be hilarious and topical.
And yeah, the clear biases shown by Blanc SHOULD be a weak spot of his, but instead its basically him being aware of the rules Rian's universe works under.
As I said, 'Airtight Moral Victory.' Blanc's approach isn't so much putting together the clues to figure out what series of events happened, he solves the MORAL narrative of the case and then the rest of it clicks into place around that. This seemed ESPECIALLY true in the third film.
And even funnier, the fact that in EVERY movie, the protags needs a high IQ white male to actually fix things while they, the downtrodden, do almost all the dirty work is absolutely patronizing if you think about it for more than a minute. He tried to undercut that with this film. The final Blanc film should absolutely have Blanc himself being the murder victim and the out-of-depth protagonist manages to solve it all on their own for once.
Glass Onion ends with burning the Mona Lisa because Teacher Lady has her feathers so ruffled, and I don't think "black woman destroys cultural inheritance of humanity because she's peeved" is that moral a narrative. If you wanted to look at it in a certain light, you could even claim it's racist: black people depicted as resorting to violence because they're incapable of responding to set-backs any other way.
But to be fair, Johnson's Knives Out universe is a very stylised one running on particular tropes and only tangential to our reality. It's artificial and chock-full of artifice, because it's recreating the Golden Age 'body in the library' detective stories where the more baroque the plot, the better, so long as you could be held to have played fair with scattering clues throughout the book (the early Ellery Queen novels routinely had a "challenge to the reader" about 'can you guess/work out whodunnit?' before the final chapter wrapping up the entire case).
I can steelman that one. If your sibling was brutally murdered, and your response is to freak out and break some 'property,' is that really morally objectionable? Are we genuinely weighting the continued existence of the Mona Lisa (of which there are many copies, its not some hidden gem) over a human life at that point? Its a thought worth weighing, at least. I think one can sympathize enough to see why from the sibling's perspective a piece of artwork is not worth preserving over the life of a loved one.
And yet, it is also pretty hard to believe the point "genius black lady invents something which is stolen by mediocre white guy" since that's something that has probably never happened in all of history.
The concepts in Glass Onion were actually really good and were probably dragged down by the Johnson's absolute need to get his message across at all costs.
That's not what is being compared though, rage over the loss of a human life is what is being compared to a priceless painting, not the life itself.
But even then, on various videos of Just Stop Oil and similar protesters defacing works of art, you'll find plenty of commenters whole throatedly supportive of slitting the protestors throats.
I'm just saying, is it not at least sympathetic for someone to have a crashout and destroy stuff (even irreplaceable stuff) because their loved one was killed? "My brother/father/daughter was killed, you think I give a shit about your painting right now?"
Hell, its a common trope is 'revenge rampage' movies for the protagonist to kill dozens of mooks on their way to taking out their rage on the person they hold responsible for killing their loved one.
This is usually cheered. If killing a bunch of henchmen to get at the person who murdered your kin is sympathetic/justified, how is burning up a painting not just a little sympathetic/justified too? What are the actual bounds of 'acceptable' behavior to enact righteous vengeance?
vs. the Just Stop Oil folks who are doing it deliberately as a cry for attention.
The henchmen, in most such stories at least, are pieces of human garbage and the world is made a better place with each one the protagonist kills. The priceless work of art being destroyed is a permanent loss for humanity and its culture. The problem with your steelman here is that it presupposes that all human life is equally valuable, or at least that no humans are net negatives on humanity.
I love the scene in Citizen Kane when Kane destroys the shit out of his room. It's very visceral and conveys the emotions he is feeling exceptionally well. So I appreciate it as a story-telling device. But morally, in real life, it is purely destructive behavior and a sign that someone is unable to control their emotions. It doesn't make me think more highly of Kane's character when he goes on a destructive rampage.
As the loss of the protagonist's loved one is to them. This seems to be the message dissonance. Saying you'd sacrifice a particular human in exchange for preserving a particular work of cultural significance will disgust a significant portion of the population.
I'd point out that we're almost never given any background on the mooks to know one way or the other. Hence that Austin Powers gag. Its very much something you're just not supposed to think about. The Mona Lisa is a very legible artifact since we know its background and 'importance' so the film can exploit that fact to give you an emotional reaction you WON'T feel for random henchmen #23. But if it was revealed that random henchman #23 is a recovering drug addict who really needs money to pay for his daughter's heart surgery (leaving aside that he could just set up a gofundme) then it might make us feel bad about all these dudes dying. Of course, killing them in self defense is still 100% justifiable in my book.
The problem with the rebuttal is that it presumes that every single work of art is of practically infinite value... but in reality you gotta draw the line somewhere. How many randomly selected humans (or, shall we say, randomly selected countrymen of yours, so there's a CHANCE its your family members) would you sacrifice to preserve Michelangelo's David?
The world may be tangibly poorer if the Mona Lisa is destroyed, but its actual impact on human life is negligible.
Like, I'm not arguing that burning the Library of Alexandria WASN'T a grievous loss for humanity, or that we shouldn't want to preserve cultural heritage. Just... taking the position that we should be MORE upset by the destruction of a piece of classical art than the unnecessary death of a human being (and for argument's sake, assume they were a net-positive human) seems suspect. I'm not sure how you can draw any bright-line moral rules around that assumption.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link