Went to a movie theater and saw a trailer for a movie where I was interested in the first 30 seconds of it, but the trailer then showed what looked like something probably from the last 10 minutes and spoiled the entire movie, so lost all interest.
So what movies come to mind as having done really good, where it makes you interested and gives you an idea of the movie, but doesn’t ruin any big reveals?
Fight Club. I literally avoided it because all the ads made it seem like some ‘BRO FIGHTING IS HARDCORE AND AWESOME LETS CHUG A BEER’ dudebro bullshit.
The fan interpretation of the movie as literally that really colors my perception of the movie. I love Bukowski (with some trepidation), and I know that the dudebro interpretation is 180 degrees from the intended meaning, but when it’s that badly misinterpreted I can’t help but feel like the cultural baggage weighs it down. It’s been decades since I’ve seen it, but when I started becoming aware of the PUA culture ((which I think provided the nucleus to the incel/maga culture we see today), they were leaning hard into it.
Contrast that with American History X, which I’ve been told has been interpreted by skinhead/WP subcultures as a film that portrays them positively and justifies their POV. I don’t associate that movie with that interpretation because they’re a much more marginalized community (at least until 2016), and because the movie really beats you over the head with the message so much that misinterpretation cannot be attributed to the film.
Do you mean Palahniuk? Bukowski didn’t write Fight Club
Yup - you’re right. I kinda have the same hang ups with both, and it’s late, so I got them confused.
I know it’s a valid use of the word by its definition, but “marginalized” is so associated with oppressed minority groups in my head that I definitely did a double take at seeing Nazis described as such.
That’s fair. I struggled to find the word, but it was (again, at the time) a counterculture movement on the fringes of a counterculture movement (the punk/hardcore scene in general). There was a time when I was pretty elbows deep in researching groups like WAR and the role of bands like Skrewdriver and gangs like the Hammerskins. I even interviewed some people. They were all very surreally open to talking - you can see that if you watch some documentaries from the time.
I really don’t want to get back into that though. It’s a dark hole, and it’s getting close enough to mainstream politics that it’s an entirely different phenomenon.
What I guess I was trying to say is that Fight Club spoke to more people, and might have helped convert them. AHX was only seen as an endorsement by people who didn’t need converting, and who were such a tiny fraction of the population that they didn’t pose a large scale threat (although they did beat the crap out of me on a couple of occasions).
Oh I didn’t mean to criticize your use of the word, I was more commenting on how the word has evolved :P
I wasn’t sure if I agreed with your assessment of the different receptions for Fight Club and American Horror X (seeing as I haven’t really encountered enough Nazis talking about the film to form an opinion) but “AHX was only seen as an endorsement by people who didn’t need converting” makes quite a lot of sense.
You mentioned documentaries, are there any in particular you’d recommend? I’d be curious to see any parallels or differences there are between neo-Nazi punk culture and the current era “alt-right” or whatever they call themselves lately.
It’s been too long for me to remember off the top of my head, but this SPLC article on Tom Metzger and the White Aryan Resistance should give you a starting point and some terms to search for. The Hammerskins were one of the bigger gangs back then that had a presence in multiple states and I think in the UK. The ADL also has great records and studies on these groups and are a key resource for researchers.
It’s been a while since I saw it, but I believe the older guy in AHX was supposed to represent Metzger. They were very much alike.
Thanks for the starting point! 😊
Look up ‘The Stunt Man’ with Peter O’Toole. He plays a director trying to make a WW1 movie. At one point he’s talking to the film’s writer. “A director I really admire once made a truly great anti-war movie. Military recruitment in his home town jumped 500% after they screened it.”
I think this comment sums up why a lot of studios don’t avoid spoiling major plot points in trailers. It’s very easy to advertise a movie as something it isn’t (or just the opening third), and miss the core audience that will actually leave good reviews on it, convincing others to go.
A movie that did a great job of getting across what it was in the trailer, but still throwing a massive curveball, was Barbarian, which I really appreciate it for. Almost every plot point was subversive, though partially because it was such a strange film.
Cabin in the Woods is another great example. Avoided it because it looked like a generic slasher.
I had it figured out from the scene on the airplane.
“Oh look, we have the same suitcase!”
“Oh, fuck me!!”