The Upton Sinclair classic is filled with labor relations, leftist struggle sessions, and disproving American imperial propaganda, but we get a movie about mean oil man doing mean things. What a travesty and an erasure of Sinclair's message. The man could layer irony on so thick that it would make Chapos jealous. Has anyone here read the book, and, if so, what are your favorite passages? Mine is:
Someone mentioned another stunt of the returned soldiers—their setting up a censorship of moving pictures. One Angel City theatre had started to show a German film, “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari,” and this Hun invasion had so outraged the Legion men, they had put on their uniforms and blockaded the theatre, and beaten up the people who tried to get in. Tommy Paley laughed—the courage of each of those veterans had been fortified by a five-dollar bill, contributed by the association of motion picture producers! They didn’t want foreign films that set them too high a standard!
Then Schmolsky. He was too fat to comprehend such a thing as irony, and he remarked that the directors were mighty damn right. Schmolsky, a Jew from Ruthenia, or Rumelia, or Roumania, or some such country, said that we didn’t want no foreign films breaking in on our production schedules. An hour or so later Bunny heard him telling how the Hollywood films were sweeping the German market—it wouldn’t be three years before we’d own this business. “Vae victis!” remarked Bunny; and Schmolsky looked at him, puzzled, and said, “Huh?”
Vae victis, indeed. The entire text can be found here for free:
You can’t call a movie from like 2007 (or whatever) a classic. I take that personally as an attack upon… me!
Speaking of me and 2007, you may be surprised, or not, to find out/remember that a lot of people kind of thought Plainview (I think that’s the character’s name. Been a while) as… an understandable guy. A guy who did bad things but it worked out as a positive eventually!
And no, I’m not joking. Yes, obviously Daniel is a morally repugnant person. But in a similar vein to that cliche line from Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men people really do believe there has to be bad men doing horrible shit but it benefits society in the long run.
So, my point is, while you characterize the movie correctly (basically just a camera following one of the biggest pieces of scum imaginable) many people saw it as an antihero film. Maybe even a “pull yourself up by the bootstraps, kill your friends, abandon your boy, drink a few milkshakes!” exaggerated tale of “doing what it takes to succeed.”
It’s basically that whole phenomenon of (mostly) men thinking Tony Soprano was the “good guy.” Or thinking Walter White was “good” and Skylar was a “removed.” (Still very commonly repeated even all these years later.)
I don’t think most viewers get the feeling you describe. Probably close to the opposite. “When Daniel kills his fake brother? oh boy! That fucker had it coming!” I dunno, something like that.
Also, nice name.
Fair. I was just kinda thinking out loud via words. I guess I was mentally trying to tie a knot, or whatever, of why people (broadly, because this media is beloved after all) who are probably relatively decent people day to day enjoy this stuff. Why I enjoy it, for that matter. And that’s the best I could up with in addition to the obvious of the creators are purposely manipulating the audience into caring. My concern isn’t so much the empathy you can build through story telling though. That’s normal and fine. My issue is the people who walk away, think about it a little bit, and arrive at the conclusion that Daniel or Tony Soprano, etc. were the good guys or justified. That actually worries me a lot, tbh. Because it shows, probably, wtf do I know, either complete incompetence/ability to comprehend media (which, given, is a huge problem) or that the “American exceptionalism” Do what you gotta do! Type shit is, for some fucking reason, still around. Unfortunately I know the truth that it is… to some degree.
Just more thinking.