Post: #26

Solid post by OP, and thanks to Hypno for bringing this one to the front page.

Post: #27

As much as I liked the move on first viewing, I found it a little trite in retrospect, and the fact it's written by a gay man (Alan Ball) is obvious. We have Lester masturbating furiously to a tasteful image of a girl covered in rose petals, and of course the homophobic Marine next door to Lester just has to be gay, of course.

It's also really fucking pretentious. I look back now on that bag-in-the-wind scene and cringe at how profound I once thought it was.

But!

It was refreshing to see conformity and the banality of modern life treated with such derision, and as others have said, a film depicting a middle-aged man lusting after a teenage girl in any less than critical terms took major balls.

Post: #28

Lester works in advertising and writes press releases or something like that.

Post: #29

The plot with the daughter and the pot dealer boyfriend was irritating. Clearly the movie intended them to be sympathetic characters but that guy reminded me way too much of guys I've observed in real life. They're essentially the male version of the manic pixie dream girl: pretentious art interest, mommy and daddy don't "get" them, pseudo-intellectual, etc. And of course the girl gets sucked into their frame totally.

Lots of movies pull this crap, especially 80s teenager movies. There's a reason every narcissistic millennial male tries to mirror the unpopular teenage male move character who's, like, a total rebel and stuff.

Post: #30

Great bump. A classic 2Wycked breakdown of my favourite movie of all time. Quite a treat for me today.

I will never forget the experience of watching this film when it hit cinemas. Why? I was 22 years old & watching it in Gold Class with my narcissistic mother.

There were so many parallels to draw upon when comparing the portrayal of Lester & Carolyn Burnham's relationship, & much of the disaffection & dysfunction it created going on around them to my own familial experience. Watching this film was, with out doubt, the first red pill I ever took.

And I loved it. I was almost pulled out of my seat from the fist pump I threw at the climax of this scene. One of the greatest cinematic experiences of my life...



I still get shivers.

Anyway, when the credits were rolling & the lights came up in the cinema I turned to my narc mum, who had a slightly shell shocked, glazed expression at having her life played out in full view of a packed cinema and with a big shit eating grin, I said...

"That was fucking awesome. That movie should be compulsory viewing for all western high schoolers."



That was the first red pill. That was the first time I realised it wasn't just me who saw through the bullshit. In a way, it helped keep me sane.

Post: #31

I dissent. This is a blue pill movie.

The Ur-Bluepill of the 20th century is that traditional American marriage (seen from the founding to 1964) was some kind of loveless hell. That was a myth then and it was a myth now. Every survey shows that people were happy, and my grandparents who just after 72 happy years of mairrage were typical (and they will be the last generation where this was typical)

Without this 'the 50s were repressive' lie, there is no easy divorce, widespread feminism, dozens of genders, or broken homes caused by female hypergamy.

What American Beauty the movie is doing is trying to blame the consequences of the breakup of the American on the American family to bolster this blue pill.

Hollywood makes one of these 'the American family is hell' bluepill movies like this or Revolutionary Road every 2-3 years and signal boosts the bluepill message at OSCAR season.

The glimpses of humor and small amounts of red pills that you guys are seeing aren't what the audience is taking away from the movie.

Post: #32

^
what this guy said

A subversive homo wrote this movie, and it seeps through like black tar.

Post: #33

(07-07-2017 10:31 AM)Rotten Wrote:  I dissent. This is a blue pill movie.

The Ur-Bluepill of the 20th century is that traditional American marriage (seen from the founding to 1964) was some kind of loveless hell. That was a myth then and it was a myth now. Every survey shows that people were happy, and my grandparents who just after 72 happy years of mairrage were typical (and they will be the last generation where this was typical)

Without this 'the 50s were repressive' lie, there is no easy divorce, widespread feminism, dozens of genders, or broken homes caused by female hypergamy.

What American Beauty the movie is doing is trying to blame the consequences of the breakup of the American on the American family to bolster this blue pill.

Hollywood makes one of these 'the American family is hell' bluepill movies like this or Revolutionary Road every 2-3 years and signal boosts the bluepill message at OSCAR season.

The glimpses of humor and small amounts of red pills that you guys are seeing aren't what the audience is taking away from the movie.

Post: #34

For me, the big score for this movie was when he blackmails his employer for $50,000. I can think of plenty of employers I would have gladly done this, too. I certainly would have done it to the employer I was working for at the time. Just for that reason alone, Lester Burnham was my hero.

Post: #35

The guy who wrote the screenplay started by writing about Amy Fisher, the Long Island Lolita. The story morphed several times. According to Wiki, the screenplay had a dark, cynical ending which the director changed.

I think both views - the red pill and blue pill views - are valid. I think the film is ambiguous because there were many cooks in the kitchen. The characters are interesting and the acting superb, and if you can get something out of it then great. The only thing I disagree with is the premise that ambiguity makes it art; no, it just makes it ambiguous.

Rotten and TooFineAPoint make some good points above, great contribution. But one thing I will disagree with is that marriage in the 50s was not perfect. Check out the film Diner, made in 1982 but set in 1959.