After an interesting pub conversation yesterday–regarding one of the satirical films on this list, in fact–I decided that it might be interesting to give a rundown of a few films that are notoriously misinterpreted.
There’s no point in trying to define “satire” or date it back to Swift and his modest proposals, Aristophanes and the withholding ladies of Attica, or whoever else might be considered an originator.
The one thing that seems to be constant about satire is that the authoritarian-minded somehow lack the fundamental ironic capability to understand it. Sort of like Germans. Or, so it would seem, a substantial number of Americans.*
Not that this is to privilege and/or denounce either side of the political spectrum here; it is of course incontrovertible that the authoritarian side has fewer collective neurons to rub together. Nevertheless, less fucked-up politics does not intelligence make: witness the furore over Spike Lee’s Chi-Raq, claiming that the film believes women are “only good for sex.”
This of course fails to acknowledge the obvious fact–to anyone who’s ever read a fucking book–that it is an update of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata. This is merely a mild example of how epically unintelligent the progressive-minded, too, can be when they put their backs into it.
In any case, I had a little conversation with my old friend Chatty about some satirical films that have been misinterpreted and/or taken literally. Let’s dig in and see if there’s some shit to learn.
*Let’s be clear here: I would never associate Germans with authoritarian leanings. Obviously.
Chatty’s breakdown:
Satire of: Militarism, fascism, propaganda
Taken seriously as: A cool sci-fi action movie with awesome space marines
Many viewers missed that the film is a critique of fascist aesthetics and instead saw it as a celebration of gung-ho patriotism and violence.
My critique:
Robert Heinlein, author of the original book from 1959, is a strange animal.
Arguable right-wing leanings–at least at this point in his life–but also certain hippie-anarchist tendencies that sort of balance them out. Very soon, in fact, in Stranger in a Strange Land and (if you ever wanted his full blueprint for a society) The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
(Some of his philosophizing is a bit nutty, but it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater; he reminds me of that right-wing uncle at Thanksgiving who occasionally makes a valid point despite valiant efforts not to do so.)
It’s hard to argue that the pro-military propagandizing of the book is fairly strong. The book and film is literally reducing the enemy to (subhuman) bugs–complete with species-based epithets–so that it can destroy them with impunity. I mean obviously we’re past that dark phase of humanity so this just seems regressive. Unless some choice beachfront property is involved, naturally.
Verhoeven, on the other hand, has a long history of left-leaning satire. So he seems a strange contender to make a movie of such a book as this. Unless–wait for it–he’s actually doing it satirically. Never.
Chatty’s assessment:
Satire of: Toxic masculinity, consumerism, anti-establishment nihilism
Taken seriously as: A playbook for rebellion or masculinity
Despite its satirical edge, many fans idolize Tyler Durden and ignore the film’s warning about losing oneself to ideology or violence.
My commentary:
Chatty is correct on these counts.
This is a dangerous film that I love so much I can’t stop talking about it. Its satirical aspects are played so drily that–despite the ending where “the cuck wins”–it’s really easy to see why a generation of fucked up young men idolize the sociopathic cult leader in the film. (And they also like Tyler Durden.)
I have heard it argued that the film should perhaps wear its satirical aspects on its sleeve a bit more to alleviate the problem of the men taking this seriously–after all, no one wants to be Travis Bickle they way they want to be Tyler Durden, right?–but I’m stuck in a quandary:
To wit, I question whether it is a valid response to nerf our art in such a way that a bunch of objectively demonstrable dumbfucks couldn’t possibly misinterpret its message. It’s a bit like saying we shouldn’t allow religious texts because some shithead is likely to read them at face value.
(Although, to be fair, that’s likely a net positive. So much for satire!)
Anyway, re: Fight Club, maybe I’m going out on a limb, but David Fincher is a smart boy and I question whether the risk of misinterpretation might be a feature rather than a bug.
Just as in…
Chatty’s take:
Satire of: Wall Street greed, superficial culture, hyper-masculinity
Taken seriously as: A stylish slasher or a dark character study
Some viewers interpret Patrick Bateman as aspirational or “alpha,” missing the critique of status-obsessed, dehumanizing capitalism.
My assessment:
I don’t really know what it means to “consider Patrick Bateman as aspirational.”* I feel like what Chatty means is that people aspire to be Patrick Bateman.
If that’s the interpretation that we accept here, that’s all well and good. Unironic love for this film among finance bros is definitely a thing.
I’ve worked with my fair share of bankers in my former life and I can attest personally to the fact that they all seem to love this movie (and, if not clear, they fail to understand it at all).
Although, all that said, the fact that bankers aspire to be someone who is a literal (not figurative) psychopathic axe murderer tells you everything you need to know about bankers.
*Also “consider” doesn’t take “as.” It’s “consider Patrick Bateman aspirational.” Seriously.
Chatty’s take:
Satire of: Media sensationalism, television news, corporate power
Taken seriously as: A prophetic drama
Though it’s an over-the-top satire, the film is often seen as eerily prescient journalism—less “satire” than “documentary of the future.”
My assessment:
I don’t know how much I agree with Chatty here, but its assessment raises an interesting point: that is, perhaps the satire was a bit OTT at the time (perhaps not; I wasn’t born).
However, given how absurd all culture has become in the past 49 years–with particular emphasis on how mainstream media has let its mask slip–there’s an argument to be made that the best satirical films, for good or ill, become documentaries of the future.
Cf. Black Mirror and the pig.
Chatty’s take:
Satire of: Corporate greed, Reagan-era capitalism
Taken seriously as: A motivation for aspiring financiers
Despite Oliver Stone’s clear condemnation, Gordon Gekko’s “Greed is Good” speech became an aspirational mantra for some.
My assessment:
Stone’s clear condemnation of what? Logic, Chatty. Logic. Be clear or we won’t know what the fuck you’re saying. Also: “financier” is not the correct term here.
To hell with how it ends up for Charlie Sheen at the end of the film. See American Psycho above. Perhaps, simply by virtue of not being a fucking axe murderer, Gordon Gekko is a better role model for our bankers than Patrick Bateman. But obviously bankers still love Gordon Gekko.
Somehow I don’t think that was Stone’s intention. Then again, if political leanings can be described as circular, Stone has traveled so far left he’s become an apologist for–sorry, I think this thing is bugged. I’m just going to shut up now before I “fall out of a window.”
Chatty’s take:
Satire of: Corporate control, police militarization, media violence
Taken seriously as: A badass cyborg cop movie
Its hyperviolence and sleek protagonist overshadow its critique of authoritarian capitalism and privatized law enforcement.
My assessment:
I love the use of the word “badass” here. It’s quite funny that this of all words comes up in Chatty’s regression to the mean. I also was unaware that “cyborg cop movie” is a genre, but I’ll take it. We could use more of those, to be fair.
Also: “sleek protagonist.” I want to be a sleek protagonist. Alas…
I mean this is definitely one of those films that is hard to misinterpret if you have a pulse. Much more than Starship Troopers, it is full of tells–some with fairly obvious exposition–about its true criticism of money, the police, and the media.
But then there are the blood and the robots. It is understandably hard to pay attention to little things like cultural criticism when there is ultraviolance and stop-motion robots!
Chatty’s take:
Satire of: Cold War paranoia, nuclear policy
Taken seriously as: A disturbing look at nuclear annihilation
Though obviously absurdist, some viewers treat it as just a dark (but plausible) war thriller, missing the extreme irony.
My assessment:
OK so I really don’t know how this wouldn’t be taken as comedy. Or even plausible, for that matter. It’s definitely dark, though.
I feel as if people’s misinterpretation–taking it “seriously”–is more of a situation of the world getting stupider and, therefore, life imitating art.
Cf. Idiocracy and Network.
Chatty’s take:
Satire of: Excess, corruption, the glamorization of wealth
Taken seriously as: A party movie
Leonardo DiCaprio’s energetic performance led many viewers to admire Belfort’s lifestyle rather than condemn it.
My assessment:
Bankers don’t like this film as much as the previous two.
In short, this is because Belfort comes from a lower-middle-class background; needless to say, he did not tick all the correct boxes at all the correct times like they did to get their special Masters of the Universe jobs.
Therefore, Belfort’s success is, on a certain level, invalid and unearned. He is not a Role Model.
However, bankers are definitely into the “coke and hookers” part of the film, so will entertain it merely for these sequences. And if they were watching on VHS, they would burn a hole in the tape right at that shot of Margot Robbie in the doorway.
Satire of: High school social politics, media sensationalism
Taken seriously as: A quirky teen drama or edgy romance
Some viewers overlook the film’s absurdist critique and see it as a stylish version of Mean Girls with murder.
My assessment:
The media aspect is minor, if it really exists at all. It’s only the Big Fun thing, which comes in only three or four times in the film.
Generally, I find it hard to believe that someone would read this as a “quirky teen drama” given all the murdering, but have it your way, Chatty. “Edgy romance” I will accept as somewhat true.
Umm… yeah. Heathers bears a lot of resemblance to Mean Girls. Yet curiously enough, Heathers was released 15 years before Mean Girls.
If there is a mistake here, it’s the fact that the kids don’t have any concept of “before” and “after” for things that happened pre-hypnotic-rectangle-in-pocket. By all visible evidence, the TikTok generation’s idea of cause and effect is effectively as solid as its grasp of the difference between “literally” and “figuratively.”
Anyone sound of mind–Tina Fey included, I’m sure–would therefore identify that Mean Girls is, rather, Heathers without murder.
Chatty’s interpretation:
Satire of: Anti-intellectualism, consumerism, media decay
Taken seriously as: A chilling prophecy of cultural decline
Intended as a broad satire, it’s now frequently cited (even by academics and politicians) as an accurate prediction of contemporary society.
My assessment:
I don’t particularly agree with Chatty insofar as I don’t know that this film really ought to be included on this list. Just because it came true doesn’t mean it’s misinterpreted.
Furthermore, Idiocracy is aggressive enough toward the insolubly stupid that it might actually ruffle a few feathers in Tangerine Dreamland–and that’s sort of antithetical to the whole argument of this article.
So while it is satire, the fact that it has largely come to pass some 15 years into the future (instead of 500 years into the future) is mostly reason to weep rather than to feel smug.
Regarding the accuracy of the film itself, all you need to know is this: the characters all wear Crocs–Mike Judge believed that only the mythically unintelligent would ever willingly subject themselves to the indignity of such footwear.
Indeed.
Conclusion
It would seem that satire is a bit of a double-edged sword. But then again, everyone from the Greeks to Voltaire to Swift to Mike Judge had to go through the same thing.
The beauty of satire, really, is that the people who get it actually… get it. The people who don’t are simply confused.
In situations such as Fight Club, I suppose one has to wonder whether the film has been a net positive or a net negative for society. There’s an argument to be made, but the arrow of causation becomes rather blurry. After all, fascists gonna fascist.
Put another way: such an argument is akin to suggesting that Swift himself encouraged the English to treat the Irish as subhuman.
In short, some people are simply irredeemable.
The best thing we can do is laugh at them.
*Which is, needless to say, no comment whatsoever on the English.
Idea Theft and Other Pointless Concerns No one is going to steal your fucking idea.…
Engineering the Midpoint through Faulty Logic for Screenwriters How People Come to Conclusions This post…
Bad Guys Close In (Falling Action): Three Examples for Screenwriters The second part of Act…
The Law of Unintended Consequences in Film: Three Examples and Three Exercises “The Law of…
How to Create Suspension of Disbelief for Screenwriters As a big fan of speculative fiction,…
How to Solve Story Problems Without Logic: Angus Fletcher’s Techniques for Creative Breakthroughs It’s not…