This is the post where I gush about Mad Max.
George Austin
Mad Max. What's it about? The notion that people are people, and not objects. And that to treat them as such may create immense power structures and FLAMING GUITARS, but is ultimately self-defeating.
How's it tell this? With 2 hours of awesome, so that the message can be totally under the radar and still infect you.
For me to really be into a movie it needs to be about something. Car chases don't interest me (I have never seen a Transporter movie, and think the opening Bond chase scenes are the worst parts of the movies) -- and what I adore in my movies is ideas to be taken seriously and taken to their logical conclusions.
We get that in spades in Mad Max. Every moment -- from Max being branded as property, to Furiosa despair in the salt, to max leaving the utopia he just helped create, never saying but implying that he'd fuck it up -- speaks truth into the void.
I don't watch many movies in the theatre. Maybe 1 or 2 a year. Usually, they seem like expensive time sucks, and I'll wait for the local drafthouse or Netflix.
But not Mad Max. This was everything I'd hoped for and more.
Comments are open. Spoilers are acceptable, as is polite dissent. And I get to define polite, and will delete comments that threaten to bring down my mood.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess I needed to watch it with you. I was disappointed and pretty much missed all the awesome.
ReplyDeleteTodd Sprang drafthouse? DRAFTHOUSE
ReplyDeleteThat's a good fucking idea.
ReplyDeleteJill Bearup, as she often does, has some great insight, though this isn't one of her schmancey polished videos: http://blip.tv/stuffyoulike/vlog-mad-max-fury-road-7196275
ReplyDeleteI recall talking about what I thought the movie was about not too long ago on g+ at great length so this time I'll try (and probably fail) to keep this short.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the movie was about much more than what it is on the surface, an awesome post apocalyptic movie about being chased through the desert. The trick is that there are tons of deep development woven throughout the movie. There are complex characters that act as people beyond their tropes, a rich history of the land, and a multitude of diverse cultures. The trick of the movie is that we only get parts of these things. Characters don't talk about their motivations or pasts beyond a phrase or two. Cultures are revealed in references, but we never see enough to understand them. Characters know how the world developed, but the auidience never learns. This creates a movie where the viewer is forced to fill in all these gaps which makes us add all the depth we could ever want. Every expression can reveal new depths of emotion and meaning, but since it is never explained then there are no correct answers as to what it meant.
Maybe, David Rothfeder , Maybe. So maybe the awesome has to be brought by the audience, and it acts as a litmust test, or like the cave on dagobah -- where you see only what you bring with you.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm fairly certain that the movie is plenty awesome before the audience fills in the blanks. I mean flame throwing guitars and spear grenades.
ReplyDeleteMeh. I'm no stranger to the idea of subtlety but when there's that much that needs to be filled in by the viewer, maybe the director or writer is at fault for lack of exposition. When the main character has, what, 10 lines?, am I really supposed to relate to him or his plight? I found myself not giving a crap about anyone, let alone finding any meaning in what went unsaid.
ReplyDeleteStill, I'm game for trying it again over beer.