| RATING: | 40% |
| FORMAT: | DVD |
Another movie proving once again how Whites are unable to think outside their own frame of reference and imagine a world outside of their own culture. Yet another post-apocalyptic road movie that obsesses about the loss of White privilege that was caused by that very privilege.
What remains is a story of family that has successfully stripped away the materialism of a culture that has eaten itself to death. This brings out the cannibalism inherent in such a culture by making anthropophagy literal. But the film refuses to really address the issues it raises and becomes hopelessly treacly, cloying and sentimental.
The hope here lies in people continuing to express their belief in choice and that these should be made fully rather than strenuously avoided. The idea here that most people in the West are bad is claimed after the world ends as if that was not true before.
Like most science fiction this is an allegory about the present state of the world; asking the question: How to preserve ones humanity in a hostile environment. Despite the ostensibly humanitarian nature of the project, the plot and style reek of contempt for humanity. Humans would somehow become bestial after a global war; catalogs of human awfulness - They are awful; We are great.
The Christian concept of original sin has ruined many a good story with its implicit assumption of human Evil when there is no one around to punish that Evil Without the latter, there is no Good here; meaning the work treats human beings as the same pieces of meat as do the film’s anthropophagy.
It is also very hard to identify with people who took life on Earth for granted - the very cause of the catastrophe seen here. Mixed in with this is the sense that this is little more than an elaborate and expensive whinge at others for their lack of humanity - a lack of humanity hypocritically matched by the filmmakers themselves in their negative depiction of humans in this movie. Deep down, such people regard human nature as worthless - a reflection of their own nature.
A drama where human nature is posited as essentially bestial is very simple to write: Everyone gets killed, there can only be one survivor, The End. If the only way for Whites to exemplify their love of life is to imagine that state-of-mind in contradistinction to the worst imaginable behavior of human beings, then they have a relative definition of love. And that is no real definition at all since it only exists if evil does and lacks an objective existence without it. A love that can only exist in the presence of hate is not love. It is the spurious claim of the bad parent who infantilizes their children by claiming that only they can love them and that others are to be feared; ie, do not take sweets from strangers.
A bleak film from a bleak culture that sustains itself with the lie that it loves its children despite the bleakness of the culture this lie creates. Only the superlative casting makes this mess at all watchable.
Like a whole slew of White writers, their books are about nostalgia for auld lang syne when things were better before White cultural decline set in. This is really coded White fear of a world in necessary flux from familial decline. Strange that a culture that has so little faith in its young, should produce such an attempt to pretend otherwise.
When Whites talk about Man-made disasters, they are really talking about disasters made by White Man (eg, the finale of the movie Planet of the Apes). There would, in fact, be whole areas of the Earth not devastated by atomic bombs; eg, Africa. Yet Whites always assume in their movies that the entire world would be destroyed, rather than just the White part. Logically, any White survivors would head for those parts of the globe least likely to have been destroyed. But they never do and one wonders if this is because they would much rather die than share the Earth with Blacks - the most likely survivors of a nuclear war? (Now that would make a really good movie if Whites ever had the courage to make it.)
Die Hard 4.0 was much better than this and so are the post-apocalypse films of Andrei Tarkovsky. If the child is the father of the man, where is the man? Like a lot of existential blather, this one offers no relief from the gloom, nor a single reason to go on living in a world that is dying from the negative attitudes on show here. Worse, it offers no reason to go to the cinema.
No comments:
Post a Comment