'This film is Anti-American!' So what?

[deleted]

i agree with everything you said

people are just too easily offended

As a French student that never stepped foot in the USA but have been flooded by american novels and movie, I can only say this is not in my opinion completly anti-american.

It is a wee bit and i kind of liked the way Lars did it (some parts made me really laugh, the absurdity of the lost town, secluded and outside any other influence and yet that is engorged with a weird kind of patriotism)

However as for the moral message or the storyline, I believe it is about human nature, to say it is anti-americans is almost arrogant.

And I also think the fact the criticism comes from a name like Lars Von Trier makes it somewhat agressive. (Can a name possibly sound more european ?)
I think Steinbeck, Shyamalan or even Hemingway go way further when clashing American ideals and way of life.
(These author often do so while loving their country, you guys say "tough love" no ?)

Rather Anti-human if you want to call it anti-something. Other countries aren't really much better than America (most of them).

---

You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?

I don't believe it is anti-american. Although you could make a case for the closing credits, but I'll discuss those later. The closing credits didn't seem to have anything to do with the film. To say this film is anti American is to say Clint Eastwood is anti American for making High Plains Drifter and Unforgiven. Which is what this film reminded me of. Those films came first, so this film ripped off those films. And it is possible those films ripped off films that came before it. Not too many people are going to say Clint Eastwood is anti American for making dark movies of evil towns. The only reason they are saying this here is because the director is European.

The closing credits however, are a little different. But they seemed to be a cheap dig at capitalism. I say cheap, because it's easy to paint the worst of capitalism, but it's cheap because you aren't portraying the best of capitalism. If I may be so presumptuous, I'll include myself as the best of capitalism. I rose up from poor to upper middle class. I have no debt, and significant assets. People act like only the rich can invest in the stock market. That is not true. Much of my money was made that way. The rest was made using my brain (I do physical labor too, but that's not a major part of my job). Work smarter, not harder. Get an education, and by education I don't mean BS classes for a piece of paper, I mean actually improve how your brain thinks, and try to learn to think logically and problem solve. The left will have you believe it is impossible to raise to a higher economic class in this country, I call BS because I have done it. And if I had kids, I have enough money to send them to an ivy league school, and they could be even richer than I. That's how you build wealth.

It's also cheap because you are not showing the worst of socialism. I didn't see any pictures of Caracas in the ending. Why not? Because the director was a weenie. He made a great movie, and almost ruined it by the closing credits. The closing credits had nothing to do with the movie. Unless the director is trying to imply that had the town's residents been wealthy with the extravagant wealth Socialism brings, they wouldn't have committed such evil acts. But I don't even think the director is that stupid. Only liberals in the U.S. are.