[deleted]
[deleted]
Yea so he befriended a black. He went against racism later and regretted his past.
share
MovieChat Forums > American History X (1998) Discussion > [deleted]
ed norton saw that his racist views were wrong near the end of the movie no?
shareWasn’t the teacher a black man? He wasn’t a thug
shareI found it disturbingly ambiguous at best in what message it tries to get across and is regarded by many as backhandedly reinforcing white supremacist/anti black racist views which is why i wasn't the least bit shocked to find out that white supremacists absolutely love this movie.
shareNailed it!
I think the moviemakers wanted not to sound preachy. They ended up with what you perfectly described.
BTW, the whole plan is quite stupid. Making a movie about neo nazis and thinking "I don't want to be preachy". Why the hell not? If you try and stay "impartial", you wind up also supporting the whole neo nazi "ideology". Is that really a good idea?
I have to disagree with you.
No-one wants to watch a 'preachy' film. Leftists and libs won't be challenged, and right-wingers and racists won't be interested (not that we should be appealing to their preferences, but making a more complex film that smartly gets them to challenge their world-view would achieve more than one that is automatically off-putting). What possible audience is there for a preachy film apart from maybe kids?
That said, I think this film is bad. A more matter-of-fact film that didn't present its characters either as broad grotesques or Christ-like martyrs, as was the case with Derek, would have been able to give us a non-preachy look at neo-Nazis that critiqued their worldview, but in a way that avoided sanctimonious editorialising (sorry, but I feel patronised by filmmakers telling me the blinking obvious "Racism is wrong." I'd much rather they try to make us understand why anyone *still* gravitates towards racism, despite how absurd and irrational such ideology/thinking is). Like I say, that's why a more docudrama-style approach which didn't divide its characters into clear heroes and villains, but took a more detatched and interrogative approach to why some people think as they do, would have worked, and would have been less likely to be embraced by neo-Nazis.
Neo-Nazis don't get off on serious, sober, thoughtful films that dispassionately allow their fellow bigots to tie the ropes around their own necks. But they *do* get off on histrionic, soft-focus, over-stylised scenes of racist thugs successfully destroying supermarkets and threatening the vulnerable, pathetic and hapless minorities in their wake. It can't help but glamourise their nonsense, even when it's supposed to be mocking them, and that's what these lame-brained white supremacists respond to.
Like I say, a cooler, more thoughtful, less hectoring film that asked questions, and presented us with fewer stereotypes, on either side of the debate, would have been better.
That makes sense.
Like Romper Stomper, another ostensible commentary on neo-Nazis, I struggle with this film, because it treats its subject in a rather facile, broad manner, where, aside from the Black professor/mentor character, all the POC are treated as ciphers at best, and absurd grotseques at worst (although it's also fair to say that practically all the characters, aside from Derek and his family members, are treated as grotesques, particularly the egregiously terrible fat Nazi friend who we see flicking away a black jellybean from a bowl of white ones, a comically heavy-handed, even parodic, moment that pretty much sums up the film's entire approach).
I genuinely suspect the film was made with the best intentions. I believe its Jewish director, Tony Kaye, and star, Edward Norton, didn't set out to make a film that would be admired and celebrated by actual white supremacists, but unfortunately, Kaye's limitations as a filmmaker (this was his first feature film, and he had hitherto specialised in directing commercials), and the various behind-the-scenes conflicts between the director, the lead actor, and the studio, clearly hurt the final movie leading to a film that treated its important themes in a facile and glib manner, that unsurprisingly found favour with some bigots.
I think the movie is saying it is complicated. Racism and hate are always wrong but a lot of the anger that leads to racism and hate is based in real issues. Such as Derek's hate is first triggered by his father being angry about what he sees as unfairness being caused by affirmative action; then when his father is killed by black criminals Derek wrongly attributes this as a result of the race (instead of the culture).
The movie is saying that allowing misguided angry to lead you to hate destroys everything and yourself. It is saying as an individual that hate and anger doesn't do anything "to make your life better".
The end I think is saying that hate leads to more hate; and more pain. It is not saying that Derek was right about racial issues or the cause of them; but it is saying that there are real problems with both cultures. The anger is not limited to whites hating blacks but also Blacks hating whites.
The film is anti-racist; but it also is real in the way it demonstrates that prejudice is not based only in ignorance but the anger is caused by real problems; and that angry goes both ways; black to white and white to black; and the movie says it is wrong and evil both ways and only leads to pain and destruction.
It actual addresses the racism issue in one of the most true ways I have seen in a Hollywood film.
One thing you can say though is it does not offer any real solutions to the things that is causing the anger between the races. It basically is saying fight against the symptom only and don't try to diagnose the real disease.
"The movie does say hate is a waste of time, but it doesn't say racist views are incorrect or morally wrong."
I thought it was blatant how it was screaming just that. It's like it was written between the lines... in bold characters!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Just to be clear, I deleted my posts because I stupidly posted them in the wrong place.
They were meant to be in response to EleazarHisSon, and I've now corrected that error.
No problem sir. 👍
shareCheers.
It was a message for everyone, but I just wanted to make sure that no-one thought I was deleting anything I felt ashamed of.
I just copied and pasted the deleted posts in response to the poster I had intended to reply to.
And I agree that the film is anti-racist. I just don't feel it deals with the topic very well.
I know that there are quite a few white nationalists who like the movie. I remember back in the day, the DVD was sold on a white nationalist website.
shareBecause it's a very stylised film that can't help but make the neo-Nazis' behaviour almost seem glamorous. Plus, whilst most of the other neo-Nazis are idiots, manipulative bullies or shrill harpies, Derek, although he does end up ultimately renouncing his white supremacist associations, is depicted as some righteous super-human Nazi, who is learned, intelligent, good-looking *and* an exceptional basketball player who takes on a group of Black men in a game, and leaves them wanting. He's a fairytale neo-Nazi that doesn't exist in real-life.
Now, I am all for nuanced and complex characters. I didn't, for instance, care for Derek's fat neo-Nazi associate/'friend', who is basically Derek's complete opposite (why do they even hang out together), and is obese, stupid, ignorant, and left huffing and puffing on the basketball court. His depiction is as cartoonishly vile as Derek's depiction is absurdly flattering.
A better film would have given us three-dimensional characters, rather than Christ-like martyrs or Hate Sink grotesques. Instead of telling the viewer what to think of these people based on their characteristics/personality, the film would have given the neo-Nazis enough rope to hang themselves by exploring their abhorrent views and attitudes.
Better films on neo-Nazis do exist, like Daniel Radcliffe's Imperium, where the majority of white supremacists are neither glamorous poster-boys for Aryanism, nor are they completely unwatchable borderline two-dimensional monsters, but regular-presenting and rather bland and nondescript middle-class family men, who just happen to subscribe to an abhorrent ideology. Such an approach is too lowkey and matter-of-fact for actual bigots to get off on, but it also nevertheless offers something challenging for the rest of us, rather than simply playing to our obvious, and, yes, quite reasonable-under-the-circumstances, biases and prejudices.
Films like Imperium are not saying "Give Nazis a chance," (far from it), but, to their credit, they are treating these human-beings as actual human-beings (albeit human-beings who are consumed by irrational hate), and at least making some effort to understand how anyone could turn to such absurd beliefs, which is more than the frankly cartoonish American History X achieves.
share[deleted]
I don't think it tries to pick a side, it shows the many nuance of race problems and demonstrates that it isn't exactly black and white, no pun intended. There is truth to both sides of the perspective, one being that white supremacy exists and it is destructive to a balanced society, and the other being that blacks are also racist and often contribute to their own cultures problems while blaming whites. This isn't meant to be a "our side is right" film.
shareCorrect take ☝🏻
The film is sophisticated and dares to show evil black people - a no-no in today’s twisted woke hellscape. It also shows the legit grievances that can lead to white supremacy - a definite no-no.
The fact that a film of this quality and nuance could never get made today shows how much Western Civilisation has declined.
Dereck and his friends should have been latino if the filmmakers were looking for an accurate portrayal of reality.
share