[deleted]


[deleted]


Why must it propagandize a message?

Also, the original ending of the film had Derek return to Nazism after his brother was murdered. The studio changed it so that Derek renounced white supremacism at the end. That's an anti-racist message doctored in by the studios.

reply

The original ending sounds more authentic and believable, but in view of how overly-stylised and inauthentic the rest of the film was, I'm glad they went with the pat, safe, studio-sanctioned ending.

A more matter-of-fact, documentary-style film that eschewed any egregious editorialising and commentary, might have gotten away with the original ending, but the danger with such an overly-dramatised and broad approach to such material, is that you can't help but seem to take sides, and if Derek had returned to Nazism, it might have appeared as if the film was endorsing that choice.

reply

It was ostensibly anti-racist. It was very poorly done.

And to be fair, whilst many of the Black characters are 'thugs', the most admirable character is the Black professor and mentor of the main character, and the most loathesome characters are the hateful and frankly stupid neo-Nazis, especially the fat moron who constantly hangs around Derek.

In some ways, the fact that most of the Black characters were apathy-inducing ciphers with no real personality beyond 'criminal' is almost a saving grace, because by contrast the majority of white characters are hideous and cartoonish grotesques that evoke a visceral hatred.

Like I say, I think the film was ostensibly 'anti-racist', but it was a poorly made film that made Derek this weird mix of both hopefully naive and impressionable, and almost super-human in his intelligence, wisdom and athletic prowess, and the scenes of the white racists attacking Asian shopkeepers were filmed in an offensively comic and stylised way, which played down the matter-of-fact impact of the bigotry on display.

I have little doubt that the filmmakers intended to make a righteous, honourable, anti-racist film, but they ended up making a bizarre misanthropic cartoon that belittled all of its characters, regardless of race.

reply

I took from the movie that anger and hate destroys lives rather than whether the blacks were doing more harm. *If* they were (we only see outlines of the people and their groups rather than having a complete, statistical summary of their actions) i would say it's only a testament to the movie's brilliance that it wasn't scared to include that angle. Because it's not a competition.

The choices WE make has an impact on OUR lives. Derek made some bad ones and it had a terrible impact on his whole family.

You could argue that Danny did less yet suffered way worse. Their father getting killed too. The movie isn't "karma wins out every time" or tit-for-tat justice. Sometimes things are just unfair. It still doesn't detract from the overall message that anger and hate destroys us. You can see it in the face of the guy who shoots Danny that he feels regret when the impact of what he has done hits him.

reply