Midsommar (1 point)

 

        When Midsommar was first released, I remember many people saying that it was a movie about a woman getting out of a toxic relationship and finding a supportive community. That reading tends to ignore that the film features cultists murdering people and their racist undertones. The truth is, Midsommar is a film about a woman getting out of a toxic relationship and being integrated into a community that wants her to think they’re supportive. It explores how society can put women in a situation where they’d rather join a literal cult than break up with their shitty boyfriend. I’m far from the first person to come up with this reading (I’ll link a good video that discusses this), but I still feel that the major consensus revolves around the first take.

 

I guess that part of why this take is so popular is that the film doesn’t try to convince you that Dani’s boyfriend is a bit of a jerk. Ari Aster (the director) regularly reminds you that he sucks, which leads to some audience members seeing his rape and eventual murder as something he deserves. I believe Aster is trying to challenge the audience’s empathy with this.

 

Also, through the film as a whole, Aster is commenting on how vulnerable people can be inducted into harmful groups. While this film focuses on cults, I also see a parallel to how young people online fall victim to fascist ideologies. The more I was exposed to this take on the film, the more I was reminded of how depressed kids, teens, and young adults have fallen into the slimy abyss of places like 4chan. They become drenched in irony and anger, sometimes not realizing they’re spreading hate speech. A lot of the time these people could be decent, but then you see the Kekistan flag on their Twitter banner and all hope is lost. The online alt-right community really is a modern cult, taking otherwise decent people and twisting their minds until they’re a shell of their former selves.

 

Here’s the video I was referencing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjCh7lTVNwo

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bloodchild (2 Points)

1. What is your reaction to the text you just read?  That was…a lot. There’s a lot to unpack with the relationship between the Tlic and the Terrans. It’s disgusting in a literal sense, but it also mirrors a lot of things going on in the real world. Their parasitic relationship, which the Tlic make out to seem mutually beneficial, reminds me of how some white people view Black people. In America, the whites are the ruling race, like the Tlic in the Preserve. They make it seems like Black people are just part of the “mutually beneficial” system of capitalism, but really, they are an oppressed class, being used to further the wealth of those in charge. This parallels how the Tlic use the Terrans as host bodies for their young, but make it seem like they’re doing the Terrans a favor by “protecting” them, when in reality they are putting them in harm’s way.  2. What connections did you make with the story? Discuss what elements of the story with which you were able to connect?  I was able t
Read more

Metropolis (2 Points)

A lot of Metropolis barely feels like fiction at this point, at least when it comes to its commentary on society. As a matter of fact, it weirdly feels like a predecessor to Bong Joon-Ho’s Parasite. Both visually portray class in similar ways; the working class literally live under the upper-class, who don’t really care about those beneath them. Sure, you can argue it’s a bit of an obvious visual metaphor, but I don’t think it takes away from how effective it is. I’d argue that some of the most powerful imagery seems obvious. It speaks to the core of what it’s representing, in this case how the working class is seen as below the upper class. It’s kind of hard to analyze it beyond that, because the film sums it up better than I could with its final card: “The Mediator Between the Head and the Hands Must Be the Heart.”
Read more

Future Tense (2 Points)

The year is 2220. Humanity has, in essence, created immortality. When the body dies, an AI copy of the consciousness can be created and can live on through virtual reality. Some people use this to continue to interact with dead loved ones, and others meet AI versions of their idols. There has been a lot of debate over how legitimate these AI copies are considering they are created by humans. No matter how hard they try, the people who create these do have biases. This is especially true when the family is involved in crafting the AI version of their dead relative; is this a truly authentic version of the person, or an idealized version? How does this affect their legacy? In the end, does it really matter as long as the family is happy? The morality of turning this into an industry would be questioned, but capitalism was abolished after The Millennium War in 2100, so it’s no issue. VR has blown up in popularity after scientists figured out how to simulate the sens
Read more