Cinema World Views

[Resha Caner]

It is what the citizens of DC put up with every day.

Originally it was a failed attempt to prevent unsavory competition about placing the federal capitol in one's own state. And the idea was that anyone who lived there, lived there on a temporary basis with residence in another state, such that they would have a vote. However, as I said, it didn't really work. Once that was recognized, DC was given electoral votes: District of Columbia voting rights - Wikipedia

There are still differences with respect to the states, but those differences may fade over time. After all, we're not really a federation - haven't been since at least the Civil War. As such, "states" aren't states anymore, but national districts. That faux situation may eventually be erased as well. The professor in my U.S. Government class for my history degree was actively involved in some political movements to make the change.

The whole idea of a "citizen" now is so very different than the idea of a citizen then. Again, that's an interesting thread to observe in movies. When was the last time you saw a movie where the government wasn't inept, corrupt, bloated, etc.?

 

[Resha Caner]

It's always interesting to watch a Hollywood film when you know something about what really happened.

No doubt films play fast and loose with the facts. But if they're honest about their artistic vision, how much does it matter? My wife and I have had some interesting discussions about Zefferelli's blue-eyed Jesus. IMO it was a deliberate artistic choice to make a statement. He wasn't promising to be historically faithful to those kinds of details.

I can understand why many would assume filmmakers should, but does that mean an African-American church can't cast black school children in a Christmas pageant - that everyone has to go seek out Middle-Eastern actors? That seems equally absurd to me.

Context, context, context.

[edit] Oh, and the "what really happened" thing. What I learned is that it's not as easy as many think.

 

[Radagast]

No doubt films play fast and loose with the facts.

Many films do no more than pay lip service to the facts.

But if they're honest about their artistic vision, how much does it matter?

If the "artistic vision" is all about distorting history, then it is a lie from the Infernal Regions Below.

[edit] Oh, and the "what really happened" thing. What I learned is that it's not as easy as many think.

In many cases, it is.

To take a concrete example, the movie U-571 is about Americans boarding a WW2 German sub to capture cryptographic equipment. The story was very loosely based on British sailors boarding the WW2 German sub U-110 to capture cryptographic equipment. We know what actually happened. The movie's distortion of history was entirely deliberate.

 

[RDKirk]

I wouldn't bet on it. After all, there was the film about that sad period in Lincoln's life when he persecuted the vampire community. I'm sorry, I need to be PC ... the VWM community.



Uh huh. All men in the 1960s were misogynist and there's no other explanation as to why women didn't hold power in days gone by. That's gotta be it.

The funny part, IMO, is that that's the measure. I once saw a news piece on female business owners. They focused on a woman who owned a construction company. Huh. Why did they pick that industry for their piece? Can't imagine why.

Of course that meant shooting on construction sites, and in the background you could see that all her employees were ... uh ... male. Hmm ... And not a comment from the owner about how she hoped to change that.

After I saw that, I thought it would be an interesting study to see if female-owned businesses had a more balanced gender ratio among their employees, fewer harassment claims, a lower gender pay gap, etc. I don't know if something like that's been done, but a second interesting anecdote was an NPR piece done on the women's march in 2018. They interviewed a black woman who was very critical, stating that it was not a "women's" march, but a white, rich, women's march. NPR then looked at the numbers, and they supported that claim.

My point: I doubt in the long run women leaders will prove any less gender-biased, racist, etc. than men. It will be different, but not necessarily better. That's no reason to exclude them, but I don't see that it's going to bring paradise on earth either.

Well, affirmative action is known to have been more effective for white women than other minorities. There are more than enough women executives and managers now to gather some statistics on that.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand the reference enough to know what plot you're suggesting.

For a Fistful of Dollars/Yojimbo/Last Man Standing set in ancient Troy.

 

[RDKirk]

Many films do no more than pay lip service to the facts.



If the "artistic vision" is all about distorting history, then it is a lie from the Infernal Regions Below.



In many cases, it is.

To take a concrete example, the movie U-571 is about Americans boarding a WW2 German sub to capture cryptographic equipment. The story was very loosely based on British sailors boarding the WW2 German sub U-110 to capture cryptographic equipment. We know w
That actually happened. The movie's distortion of history was entirely deliberate.

Also that black guy on the sub crew.

 

[RDKirk]

There are still differences with respect to the states, but those differences may fade over time. After all, we're not really a federation - haven't been since at least the Civil War. As such, "states" aren't states anymore, but national districts. That faux situation may eventually be erased as well. The professor in my U.S. Government class for my history degree was actively involved in some political movements to make the change.

OTOH, as we studied in my post-grad terrorism courses, the American distribution of powers to the states gives the US a fairly unique resilience against catastrophes, including massive terrorist attacks. Most provinces and "states" as set up in other countries are nowhere near prepared to handle law and order, local disasters, local commerce, et cetera, as is the US. Even the economic and government capitals of the country are split between NYC and DC.

Arguably, the US could totter on nearly indefinitely if DC were to be nuked, with few if any governmental collapses.

 

[Resha Caner]

If the "artistic vision" is all about distorting history, then it is a lie from the Infernal Regions Below.

If the purpose were to distort history, of course that would be bad. But I expect in many cases it is a strawman to assume that was the filmmaker's intent.

To take a concrete example, the movie U-571 is about Americans boarding a WW2 German sub to capture cryptographic equipment. The story was very loosely based on British sailors boarding the WW2 German sub U-110 to capture cryptographic equipment. We know what actually happened. The movie's distortion of history was entirely deliberate.

I'm not familiar with the film. I would have to know how it was promoted and the actual content before I could render an opinion. If I were guessing, however, I wouldn't suspect deliberate distortion in the sense you're implying: to steal a victory for Americans from the British. Rather, it is well-known in Hollywood that foreign films often don't play well in the U.S. So, it was probably more a money-based decision to change a good story so it would sell better to the American public. And in the end they succeeded, didn't they? Getting the British PM to mention your film to Parliament is a sure way to sell more tickets. As the old saw goes, no publicity is bad publicity.

That's not something I would support, so if that's what happened I'm not defending it. But I can't accept your rather emphatic declarations without a further warrant. Constructing historical narrative is something I am quite familiar with, and it's a long conversation.

So, at what point, would you be comfortable with the story? For example, what if they dropped any claim that it was based on a true story? What if they presented it as alternative history - a well-established literary genre? What if they changed all the 'real-world' names, i.e. kept the story but posed it as the Glenfaddles boarding a Kennywiddle submarine? What if they totally stripped it down, kept only the thematic elements, character structures, or story arcs, and then rebuilt it? All of those happen all the time in film, and I would bet you've watched such a movie without realizing it originated from a historical core. Your conversation with @RDKirk about "Last Man Standing" comes close to such a venture.

 

[Resha Caner]

Arguably, the US could totter on nearly indefinitely if DC were to be nuked, with few if any governmental collapses.

Possibly. I mean no disrespect to your service, because I do understand (as well as a civilian can) what it means to beat back the barbarians at the gate. And I'm in no rush to add more pain to my life. But I probably wouldn't shed a tear if American government were to take a radically different course.

For a Fistful of Dollars/Yojimbo/Last Man Standing set in ancient Troy.

Gotcha. I'm more familiar with the history of Byzantium, so maybe we could do Constantinople instead. I actually wrote a story that takes place during the fall of the city to the Ottomans in 1453 called "The Gates of the City". It was the launch point for an alternative history.

 

[RDKirk]

So, at what point, would you be comfortable with the story? For example, what if they dropped any claim that it was based on a true story? What if they presented it as alternative history - a well-established literary genre? What if they changed all the 'real-world' names, i.e. kept the story but posed it as the Glenfaddles boarding a Kennywiddle submarine? What if they totally stripped it down, kept only the thematic elements, character structures, or story arcs, and then rebuilt it? All of those happen all the time in film, and I would bet you've watched such a movie without realizing it originated from a historical core. Your conversation with @RDKirk about "Last Man Standing" comes close to such a venture.

Considering that "Last Man Standing" is ultimately, albeit very loosely inspired by a historical event.

 

[Dave-W]

Once that was recognized, DC was given electoral votes: District of Columbia voting rights - Wikipedia

Votes in the electoral college for president - yes. But that is it.

DC residents have NO votes in congress at all. They do elect a "delegate" who may vote in committees (depending on the committee rules) but has no vote in the overall house or senate.

That cannot change without either a constitutional amendment giving DC residents full voting rights or DC achieves statehood.

 

[Resha Caner]

Votes in the electoral college for president - yes. But that is it.

DC residents have NO votes in congress at all. They do elect a "delegate" who may vote in committees (depending on the committee rules) but has no vote in the overall house or senate.

That cannot change without either a constitutional amendment giving DC residents full voting rights or DC achieves statehood.

I thought it was clear I am aware of all this. Maybe you expected more indignation on my part. Maybe I should be, but I'm underwhelmed simply because 1) I'm in a similar situation, and 2) I doubt statehood would change D.C. much.

With respect to #2, If D.C. had a senator, I think you'd find that senator had little to no influence in Congress. Things would stay pretty much the same.

With respect to #1, I'm not represented either. I'm a very conservative person living in a very liberal state. That means the person I vote for is never elected, my "representatives" support things I don't support, etc. If I ever mention that, the response is, "You knew that when you moved here. If you don't like it, leave." So, it's much the same for you. If you don't like it, leave. Easier said than done, isn't it?

 

[durangodawood]

....With respect to #1, I'm not represented either. I'm a very conservative person living in a very liberal state. That means the person I vote for is never elected, my "representatives" support things I don't support, etc. If I ever mention that, the response is, "You knew that when you moved here. If you don't like it, leave." So, it's much the same for you. If you don't like it, leave. Easier said than done, isn't it?

Representation used to mean that you get a say along with everyone else in choosing the representative from your district.

But now youre changing the notion of representation to mean that it only counts if your district's rep shares your ideology? Do we really want to go there?

DC people get no say at all in choosing a representative.

 

[Resha Caner]

DC people get no say at all in choosing a representative.

The continued use of italics, underlining, and bolded words reads like, "But you don't get it! It's not fair!"

My point is: the purpose and condition of D.C. was established 200 years ago, and no one was forced to establish residency in D.C. They chose to do it, knowing what D.C. was. So, IMO, they don't get to whine about it. Further, pushing for statehood for D.C. seems to ignore the very reasons it was made a federal district in the first place. Now, if you have arguments about how the concerns of the founders can be addressed, we'll talk.

Representation used to mean that you get a say along with everyone else in choosing the representative from your district.

But now youre changing the notion of representation to mean that it only counts if your district's rep shares your ideology? Do we really want to go there?

DC people get no say at all in choosing a representative.

I'm not changing the notion. The "you get a say" idea always included the expectation that you'll win some and you'll lose some. Further, it always included the idea that the rights of the minority would be protected. The majority can't do just whatever it wants.

If you're always on the losing end - never get what you want - and your position as a minority voice is not protected ... how is that "representation"? The conversation is underway in conservative Christian communities regarding the appropriate use of civil disobedience. I know because my church has been having that conversation. I like how our pastor expressed it. If a government allows behavior you disagree with, that is not a reason for civil disobedience. If a government prescribes behavior you disagree with, that is a reason for civil disobedience. Using that guideline, I don't think we've reached a point where civil disobedience is justifiable. However, while so far it's been struck down, there are a few instances here and there where specific lawmakers have attempted to prescribe behavior I would oppose. So, it may happen at some point.

Keeping this in the theme of the thread, the movies that come to mind regarding civil disobedience are "Ghandi" (which I've seen) and "Bloody Sunday" (which I've not, but is on my 'maybe someday' list).

 

[durangodawood]

....My point is: the purpose and condition of D.C. was established 200 years ago, and no one was forced to establish residency in D.C. They chose to do it, knowing what D.C. was. So, IMO, they don't get to whine about it. Further, pushing for statehood for D.C. seems to ignore the very reasons it was made a federal district in the first place. Now, if you have arguments about how the concerns of the founders can be addressed, we'll talk.

Lots of people were born in DC and the city is their home. I understand the reasoning for denying them representation. But lets not call it something other than "denying them representation."

The "you get a say" idea always included the expectation that you'll win some and you'll lose some.

The expectation that every type of ideology gets to have its day of victory was never included in the founding documents nor their rationale. You just made that up.

If you're always on the losing end - never get what you want - and your position as a minority voice is not protected ... how is that "representation"?

Back when states, cities etc had particular interests, it used to be that as long as your place had representation, then to some extent all the citizen of that place were represented.

When you demand representation for your ideology rather than your place (be it neighborhood, city, or state), you will have to accept that your ideology might only be represented by office holders from various other districts or states where your ideology is in the majority.

The best way to satisfy your new notion of representation in the fed govt would be to elect congress on a nationwide party slate basis rather than tying seats to geographical districts. Maybe we should give that go?

 

[durangodawood]

The continued use of italics, underlining, and bolded words reads like, "But you don't get it! It's not fair!"...

Italics typically adds a little extra emphasis to a word, like one might do when speaking. All that other baggage is just what you're bringing to it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Lots of people were born in DC and the city is their home. I understand the reasoning for denying them representation. But lets not call it something other than "denying them representation."

It's not being denied. That implies people are forcibly required to live there. A relative of mine lived in Virginia and worked in D.C., and that is common. But I understand not all have the economic means to leave. Regardless, that does not constitute a denial of rights.

A compromise would be to give all D.C. residents some process for selecting association with a particular state (which is closer to the original intent). That is, they could vote in Montana even though they live in D.C. I'd be OK with that. Heck, I might move to D.C. just to get an option like that.

The expectation that every type of ideology gets to have its day of victory was never included in the founding documents nor their rationale. You just made that up.

Whether intentional or not, rephrasing my comment distorts its meaning. I was speaking of compromise in all it's varied forms. You get item 1 from your list, I get item 5 from my list. You temper or modify your proposal because of the conflict it causes me. I temper or modify my behavior to conform with the proposal you push through.

But my list does contain non-negotiables. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

And I didn't just make all this up. The FFs were well aware of such things.

"If a pertinacious majority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated." (Hamilton, Federalist 22)

"We may well suppose that neither side would entirely yield to the other, and consequently that the struggle could be terminated only by compromise. It is extremely probable, also, that after the ratio of representation had been adjusted, this very compromise must have produced a fresh struggle between the same parties, to give such a turn to the organization of the government, and to the distribution of its powers, as would increase the importance of the branches, in forming which they had respectively obtained the greatest share of influence." (Madison, Federalist 37)

The best way to satisfy your new notion of representation in the fed govt would be to elect congress on a nationwide party slate basis rather than tying seats to geographical districts. Maybe we should give that go?

I've proposed that here at CF. No one went for it. Would you give it serious consideration?

 

[Nithavela]

Sorry. Better luck next year.

Here's hoping I won't watch a single movie.

 

[USincognito]

Perhaps the best example I can think of is Seven Samurai and the Magnificent Seven (1960). Both are great movies (Seven Samurai often makes critics' best of all time lists). The Magnificent Seven is, I think, a quite faithful adaptation of the original. The themes of honor, protecting the weak, the humble nobility of ordinary farmers are all there. It's too much for me to juggle 14 people, but clearly some of the characters are direct analogues of each other, with their own stories.

Obviously there are differences when your settings are feudal Japan and the Wild West. Race is a minor issue in The Wild West that doesn't exist (so far as I can see) in Seven Samurai. But largely these differences are just set dressing: swords for sixguns, kimonos for leather. The stories and worldview are quite similar (though perhaps this wouldn't be the case for a less faithful or unfaithful adaptation, like the more recent Magnificent Seven).

A reviewer's take.

Of course the trope reached it's zenith with Battle Beyond the Stars.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course the trope reached it's zenith with Battle Beyond the Stars.

With Robert Vaughn playing essentially the same role in "The Magnificent Seven" and "Battle Beyond the Stars."