Originally posted by: return_to_hades
Yikes! This thread is running close to almost 40 pages. Say what I may will about Vanga he delivers on his claims. He promised a film that would trigger people, and boy did he. Try as I may to let it go; it's like having someone claw at a festering wound that hasn't healed yet.
No one is perfect. And none of the celebrities I am a fan of are spotless. For me, it is simple - irrespective of whether I am a fan or not, I criticize when it is something I disagree with, and I praise when it is something I agree with.
I've seen countless movies with all kinds of shitty people doing all kinds of shitty things. But in most of them, especially many cited in this thread, the characters doing those shitty things aren't the protagonists or heroes. If the shitty character does end up as the protagonist - there is a redemption arc, a sense of comeuppance, or at least some exasperation built toward the character. You don't feel gross or wrong watching the movie.
The reason why Animal crosses all the lines for me is the intent of the maker and the larger impact it has. This movie is intentionally made to trigger people. In other words, hurt them by punching below the belt. So basically, this is a grown man who was so upset by the criticism he received for his previous film that he decided to zoom in on each one of them and see how far he could push the envelope.
Many movies with gray or dark protagonists were not made to trigger, upset, or hurt people. They were simply made to tell stories - of how mental health issues may trigger toxic behavior or how wealth and power make ordinary people debased and corrupt. And as a result, the other aspect is how gratuitous it is in going out of the way to humiliate women. Worst of all, it has been packaged in a way to whip the masses into a frenzy, celebrating the character for their toxicity, not despite it.
That being said, I do believe the maker has a constitutional right to make any kind of movie they desire. If people wanted to censor or ban the movie, I would be against it and stand for the rights of makers. Art imitates life, and life imitates art. But people also have the free will to watch and not watch what they want. For content made for adults, whether it be p0rnography, gambling, drugs, alcohol, or edgy movies it is up to the adults to take it with a grain of salt and know the rules of society and the law. Most importantly, I have no right to intervene or dictate what adults legally consume.
But that doesn't mean I understand and support these choices. Honestly, I know there is nothing I can do to change people's minds. And perhaps I am speaking into a pointless vacuum. To a certain extent, I get why Vanga makes the kind of movie he does. I also get why some of the masses revel in movies like this. But I will never get why so many more do. It isn't just about feminism or women's rights. It's just that how could any human who wants to be a good human support content that not only humiliates other humans for the sake of it but also was created for the sole purpose of upsetting and hurting people? But I should step away from this - no one likes a mad woman.
I didn't read any of the threads on this topic,because I realise that I would be wasting my time.I am glad I read yours.It sums up everything,I would have wanted to address.The film is set in a lawless bubble..where other mortals are just mute spectators. In this bubble there is no crime, no punishment,no repentance,no redemption. A soulless bloodsport- where rest of society doesn't exist .Vanga is an extremely cold, calculative, cynical and slippery filmmaker.He is just trolling the public and making money.
.....this group is so delusional....and they are giving such blanket statements.....unbelievable....
Sports
The 50
0