MovieChat Forums > Pleasantville (1998) Discussion > This film is EPIC FAIL of liberal propag...

This film is EPIC FAIL of liberal propaganda!

posted 8 years ago by Navaros
13 replies | jump to latest

Does anyone else notice that none of the shows that this stupid film allegedly parodies are anywhere near as stupid as is this film itself?

In other words, this film is so hellbent on pushing its evil liberal agenda that it has to construct strawmen and then beat up those same strawmen. And instead of representing those strawmen as the strawmen that they are, it misrepresents those strawmen as actual real-life 1950's TV shows.

For example, I defy anyone to name any TV show that has ever existed that said anything even remotely as dumb as this film does with its scene that has the imbecile teacher (backed by imbecile writers) say something like: "We only have two streets in our neighborhood, and the geography on one street is different than the geography on the other street."

No one will be able to name a show that did anything that dumb, because it doesn't exist. It's just a fake, non-existent, strawman.

The fact that this film had to resort to strawmen to push its liberal agenda proves beyond any doubt that it's full of crap and full of fail and worst of all, full of evil.

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

Speaking of EPIC FAIL, your whole post is an epic failure and simply shows that you understand nothing about what this movie comments on. If we didn't have dunces like you then it would be harder to appreciate the great minds.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

So, the first reply consists of an ad hom/logical fallacy attack against me.

Yet...conveniently absent from that reply is an answer to the question of what show that this film alleges to parody is even as remotely dumb as is this film itself.

I guess that's because that no such show exists, because this film needed to construct and then beat up its own strawmen, just like my OP says, because the OP's point is rock-solid and irrefutable.

Perhaps future replies will prove me wrong. But who are we kidding? No they won't.

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

OK, let's test if you are serious about discussing this, or if you just want to throw stones.

Summarize in one or two sentences what the writer/director says was his intent in making this movie, telling the story the way he did.

That would show you at least grasped the concept, if you didn't then there is no use discussing something you are ignorant of.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

if you just want to throw stones.

Throw stones? Are you on the crack, or something? This is text on a screen. Throwing stones would literally be impossible.

Summarize in one or two sentences what the writer/director says was his intent in making this movie, telling the story the way he did.

Why would I parrot the words of a liberal stooge like the writer/director of this film? I can summarize what the intent of the film is easily, but I need not put the kind of pro-liberal propaganda PR spin on as he would.

His intent was to oppose morality and promote evil - which is exactly what this film does to a "T". And as my OP points out with irrefutable proof, part of how he does that is by constructing strawmen that he then proceeds to beat up.

That would show you at least grasped the concept

ROFL! You make it sound like this film is rocket science, even though it's dumb as bricks! The concept is simple: according to liberal ideology, evil is great, and morality is bad.

[–] stevenackerman69 8 years ago

I just thought this film was overrated because I had problems with the story and the ending. I don't care about any liberal/conservative crap.

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

One difficulty with any movie that is an allegory at its core is the filmmaker knows exactly what he wants to communicate but different audience members react in different ways. Thus some understand his message while others don't. I found it instructive to hear/read precisely what he had in mind and why he presented the story the way he did, and in gaining that understanding made the movie more meaningful.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

I had problems with the story

By far the biggest problem with the story is that it promotes evil. All normal/moral people should have a problem with that.

[–] juviejay (456) 4 years ago

Navaros, you think the film promotes evil? In what way? Sexual promiscuity? Okay, I'll give you that one, even though I don't believe it is necessarily true. But what else? Painting? Reading books? Accepting new things? These are evil?

The reason the world of Pleasantville is set up the way it is is because if it wasn't, it would have already changed. True, not all change is good, but generally humans work to better their lot, and this instinct forces society to change, usually for the better. Our differences sometimes spark conflict, as was shown in the film, but over time these differences are often worked out, and adopted to make society more free and equitable.

[–] Kowalski (76346) 4 years ago

GARBAGE POST.

[–] raymondoz2007 (2098) 4 years ago

"No Coloreds allowed" That lines sums up this liberal trash of a movie.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14496) 4 years ago

I just write it off as a parody of 1950s sitcoms. It takes all the traits from shows such as "I Love Lucy" and "Leave It To Beaver," and exaggerates it to the point where it gets ridiculous. It also appears they took some parts of "To Kill A Mockingbird" for this movie too.

[–] Burgershmurger (1373) a year ago

I'm more bothered by abandoning the whole premise of living in a fake world midway. Eventually, Pleasantville is just another real life town with scripted characters who start acting like real life characters being mean-spirited and sexual. So what was the point of the whole sitcom premise? The siblings should have just traveled back in time.

[–] liscarkat (18605) 7 months ago

It's more of a parody of what people who haven't seen 1950s sitcoms imagine 1950s sitcoms to be like, rather than a parody of what 1950s sitcoms were actually like. It also plays on the cliches of 1950s life that people who weren't around in the 1950s think the 1950s were like. It's cleverly done, but it's clueless, for the clueless.