How did hollywood approve this?
This film has such a scathing political subtext... I am surprised a major Hollywood Studio gave this the greenlight.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > They Live (1988) Discussion > How did hollywood approve this?
Hollywood can afford to approve of this because they never blatantly state that the aliens in power in the movie are metaphors for the Jews. As long as you don't go after specifics, they'll let it slip. If you say that there are events in history exaggerated or lied about, or that bad guys that won wars are portrayed as good guys now, nobody cares. If you say the Holocaust is a hoax, they come after you.
shareHaha Jews? Are you kidding me? Carpenter has been very clear and open about the fact that the Aliens represent Republicans. The entire film is a criticism of Ronald Reagan and his "Reaganomics". Sorry, but this is not a film that is reflective of your anti-semitism.
shareHaha Jews? Are you kidding me? Carpenter has been very clear and open about the fact that the Aliens represent Republicans. The entire film is a criticism of Ronald Reagan and his "Reaganomics". Sorry, but this is not a film that is reflective of your anti-semitism.
LOL, could you be any more naive?
Carpenter was just giving the safe, politically correct answer. It's perfectly acceptable in Hollywood to criticize and mock Republicans, but it's not acceptable to criticize and mock Jews. Just look at what happened to Mel Gibson and Marlon Brando. They were practically burned at the media stake before they got on their knees and apologized.
Do you honestly think John Carpenter is going to put himself through the same hell and jeopardize his career just to give a meaningless interview? I mean, even if he had come out and said this movie was about the Jews, you'd disregard his views and call him an "anti-semitic" lunatic.
Smart people who understand how the world works are able to read between the lines of this movie and decipher the hidden meaning, while dumb people believe whatever they are told it means. share
Wait so you saying if John Carpenter were to say the film is about something that I don't think it is that I would deny it? You mean literally exactly what you are doing now? Its pretty clear what this movie is about given to context of the political environment at the time. You are grasping at straws to make this movie out as some statement against Jewish people without backing it up at all. Think what you want. John Carpenter has never given a *beep* what Hollywood thinks and has essentially stopped directing. Tell me now, what's holding him back from saying what the film "truly meant"? He's got nothing to loose. Yet you think that, in multiple interviews, he is simply lying about his intentions to save face? Give me a break.
shareWait so you saying if John Carpenter were to say the film is about something that I don't think it is that I would deny it?
That's exactly what I am saying. If Carpenter had been honest in that interview and said the movie was a depiction of how the modern world worked under Jewish control, you, and millions of sleeping people like you, would call him crazy, mock him, and boycott his movies.
That's why he gave the politically correct answer and said it was about "Republicans". The people he would be trying to help by informing them would burn him at the stake. It's a no-win situation for him.
Its pretty clear what this movie is about given to context of the political environment at the time.
Yes, it is about hidden Jewish control of society and the fact that the majority of people are asleep to this control. Except for the people "who can see", of course.
You are grasping at straws to make this movie out as some statement against Jewish people without backing it up at all.
What would qualify as "backing it up"? The movie speaks for itself. This idea that it's about Reagan and Republicans make no sense. Republicans aren't hidden amongst us like Jews are. Republicans don't secretly control society like Jews do. The ghouls in They Live can only be Jews, as they are the demographic group that best fits the message of the movie.
Think what you want. John Carpenter has never given a *beep* what Hollywood thinks and has essentially stopped directing. Tell me now, what's holding him back from saying what the film "truly meant"? He's got nothing to loose.
He has everything to lose. His good Hollywood reputation. His fame. His career. His private life.
Just because he isn't making movies right now doesn't mean he doesn't want to in the future.
Yet you think that, in multiple interviews, he is simply lying about his intentions to save face? Give me a break.
Of course he is lying. Everyone in Hollywood lies. It's the town of make believe. It's all based on illusion and theater. Think about it, the better you are at pretending, the more famous you become.
Were you honestly not aware that famous Hollywood people (paid pretenders) often lie in interviews to help maintain the illusion of what they do for a living? LOL. share
Absolutely most do. We are talking about Carpenter here. A very opinionated person who as never been afraid to say what he means. He has gone extensively in depth about the meaning of They Live and all of the subtextual imagery and dialogue used. You're trying to convince me that while he made a deep and opinionated film about apparently hating Jews, he simultaneously crafted every image and piece of dialogue in a way that he could say its about Republicans and Reaganomics. I don't buy that at all. There is also zero evidence supporting your claim besides that it's what you see. Movies are subjective and you can take away from it whatever you want, but to state a directors intentions going on your on perception of a film is ridiculous.
shareAbsolutely most do. We are talking about Carpenter here. A very opinionated person who as never been afraid to say what he means.
How do you know he has never been afraid to say what he means? Has he confided in you about this? Do you know him personally? What super controversial things has gone on record about for you to make this claim?
He has gone extensively in depth about the meaning of They Live and all of the subtextual imagery and dialogue used. You're trying to convince me that while he made a deep and opinionated film about apparently hating Jews...
Nice straw man fallacy.
Who said anything about him hating Jews?
...he simultaneously crafted every image and piece of dialogue in a way that he could say its about Republicans and Reaganomics.
On the contrary, nothing in the movie fits this idea that the ghouls represent Reagan, Republicans, or "Reaganomics". Republicans aren't hidden amongst us the way the ghouls in They Live were. Republicans don't control the media and use subliminal messaging to control the population the way the ghouls in They Live did.
The only group that fits that representation in the movie is Jews. They hide amongst white Christian populations and often use non-Jewish sounding names to fit in and appear white. For example, Jon Stewart is actually Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz. Sumner Redstone is actually Sumner Murray Rothstein. There are many more just like that. They control the media and use subliminal messaging to control the population. That's where political correctness comes from.
I don't buy that at all.
It doesn't matter what you buy, the movie is metaphor for Jewish global domination, whether you like it or not.
There is also zero evidence supporting your claim besides that it's what you see.
I've provided more evidence than you have.
Movies are subjective and you can take away from it whatever you want, but to state a directors intentions going on your on perception of a film is ridiculous.
That's the difference between people like me and people like you. I can read between the lines and see hidden messages, while you can only understand exactly what you are told. I can use logic to process information, while you can only use emotion. share
My favorite parts of what you said are
1. Jewish people are hiding themselves amongst "white Christians".
2. Jewish people invented "policitacl corectness" in order to limit speech and protect themselves.
3. That people don't obviously know Jon Stewart is Jewish.
4. Number 4 is most important. That "Jewish Global Domination" is a real threat and we are all just "sheeps" for not seeing it.
Debating you on the finer points is a total waste of my time. At least you gave me a good laugh.
Well, seeing as how you can't effectively refute any of those four points, I guess I will just have to accept your surrender here.
Better luck next time.
It doesn't matter what you buy, the movie is metaphor for Jewish global domination, whether you like it or not.
That's a screaming case of cognitive dissonance you have there. share
That's a screaming case of cognitive dissonance you have there.
It's best not to use words you don't understand the meaning of.
Instead, work on trying to logically explain how I am wrong. share
"That's exactly what I am saying. If Carpenter had been honest in that interview and said the movie was a depiction of how the modern world worked under Jewish control, you, and millions of sleeping people like you, would call him crazy, mock him, and boycott his movies. "
Instead we'll just call YOU a conspiracy theorist and anti semite! ANd we'd be right!
Instead we'll just call YOU a conspiracy theorist and anti semite! ANd we'd be right!
A prefect example of why you are Jewish owned livestock. No rational arguments, just ineffective responses the Jew media taught you to say without thought.
Well done, sheeple. share
This film has such a scathing political subtext... I am surprised a major Hollywood Studio gave this the greenlight.
I suspect that it flew in under the radar. Before it was made, it was probably easy to sell the concept of the movie to studio heads and Hollywood executives on the idea that the "they" in They Live were to be nothing but apolitical aliens or ghouls. After all, Carpenter had made those types of movies before. It probably wasn't until after the movie was finished that it became apparent who the aliens/ghouls truly represented in society. At that point, the money to make the movie had already been spent, and the only way to recoup their investment was to release it and make some of it back at the box office. share
the movie was pulled from theatres after only 2 weeks despite being #1 at the box office
shareThe message is kind of watered down by having much of the material presented as an absurdist comedy.
shareTo Hollywood's credit, they have in fact approved other films with the same message, some even done in a more serious manner than They Live (Wag the Dog, Eyes Wide Shut, Dark City, 1984, Society). And why even allow it? Well, a movie like They Live (probably the best of its kind) can easily be considered nothing more than fun entertainment, so I doubt they were reluctant to release that one. And with the others? I assume there's actually some folks in Hollywood that want us to think. Or perhaps they're just mocking us! #notarightwingconspiracynut :D
You want something corny? You got it!
and wanted to see what others said. I feel like Roddy Piper walking around after putting on the glasses.
lol
I bought the Reaganomics explanation for years because I just saw the Dan Quayle hairstyle and assumed the Democrats were more people oriented. I never thought about Jewish power until this election.
Then I read what others had said through history.
Cicero, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Voltaire, Mark Twain, HG Wells, Henry Ford, Walt Disney.
When you think about it, and look at Jewish conspiracy theories, it fits Jews much better.
Consider the wealthy woman in the supermarket with a very New Yorkish accent.
Or the Gene Siskel Roger Ebert aliens. They are usually assumed to be liberal types. Why are they there?
Why all the magazines with subliminal messages? Did Reagan take control of the media?
When I heard about Mel Gibson saying jews caused all the wars in the world I just assumed he was drunk and reacting to the Lebanon bombing Israel was doing at the time.
But now I see that Iraq was destroyed for Israel. Libya was destroyed for Israel. Syria-Israel. Clinton met with Goldman Sachs to discuss Iran and Syria being bombed.
Even WW 2 appears to have been agitated by Jewish interests in the UK and US (and most disturbing of all, the architects and proponents of a nuclear bomb program were Jews: Szilard/Einstein/Wigner/Teller/Frisch/Meitner. They "claimed" the Nazis *could* develop a bomb but there was no proof that the Germans planned to!
HG Wells in 1940 wrote:
"The whole question turns upon the Chosen People idea, which this remnant cherishes and sustains, which it is the "mission" of this remnant to cherish and sustain. It is difficult not to regard that idea as a conspiracy against the rest of the world...Almost every community with which the orthodox Jews have come into contact has sooner or later developed and acted upon that conspiracy idea. A careful reading of the Bible does nothing to correct it; there indeed you have the conspiracy plain and clear. It is not simply the defensive conspiracy of a nice harmless people anxious to keep up their dear, quaint old customs that we are dealing with. It is an aggressive and vindictive conspiracy. People are apt to catch up and repeat phrases about the nobility of the Book of Isaiah on the strength of a few chance quotations torn from their context. But let the reader take that book and read it for himself straightforwardly, and note the setting of these fragments. Much of it is ferocious; extraordinarily like the rantings of some Nazi propagandist. The best the poor Gentile can expect is to play the part of a Gibeonite a hewer of wood and a drawer of water for the restored elect."
Charles Lindbergh:
In a speech at an America First rally at the Des Moines Coliseum on September 11, 1941, "Who Are the War Agitators?", Lindbergh claimed the three groups, "pressing this country toward war [are] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration",[150] and said of Jewish groups,
“ Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation.[151] ”
In the speech, he warned of the Jewish people's "large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government". He went on to condemn Nazi Germany's antisemitism: "No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany." Lindbergh declared,
“ I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.[152] ”
The speech was heavily criticized as being anti-Semitic.[153] In response, Lindbergh stated again he was not anti-Semitic, but he did not back away from his statements.
Lindbergh's wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, had concerns about the reaction to the speech and how it would affect his reputation, wrongfully in her view. From her diary:
“ ... I have the greatest faith in [Lindbergh] as a person — in his integrity, his courage, and his essential goodness, fairness, and kindness — his nobility really ... How then explain my profound feeling of grief about what he is doing? If what he said is the truth (and I am inclined to think it is), why was it wrong to state it? He was naming the groups that were pro-war. No one minds his naming the British or the Administration. But to name "Jew" is un-American — even if it is done without hate or even criticism. Why?"
They make movies like this all the time.
share