MovieChat Forums > The World's End (2013) Discussion > Criticism of the nanny state?

Criticism of the nanny state?

posted 10 years ago by rpgking
15 replies | jump to latest

Anyone else take that away from the movie? I mean it was hard not to since the message kind of slaps you in the face without throughout the film.

I mean replacing humans with blanks to force everyone into being more happy and "evolved" seemed like a criticism of a world of excessive political correctness. If you can't play nice and be civilized, then you're replaced.

Also, Gary's speech at the end how it's their human right to be *beep* ups seemed like a metaphor telling the government to piss off and let them continue their self destructive habits if its what makes them happy.

[–] MoviemanCin 9 years ago

I agree comepletely.

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar, and / or doesn't.

[–] nephihaha 9 years ago

It's as much about corporate conformity independent of government. It's not political correctness, it's "starbucking, man" as one character says.

[–] MoviemanCin 9 years ago

No, neph. It's about the nanny state.

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar, and / or doesn't.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nephihaha 9 years ago

The nanny state, as you put it, does not run bars or offer franchise opportunities. It also existed long before 1990.

On the other hand, bar and cafe chains have proliferated since the mid-nineties and destroyed many English towns. STARBUCKing as it is repeatedly called in the film. Could not be more clearly spelled out. Starbucks is not part of the state - in fact it barely pays UK taxes.

None of the blanks ever *stops* them from drinking incidentally - or tells them it's bad for their health etc - which is yet another gaping hole in the nanny state interpretation.

The guy who was teetotal remains human throughout.

--
It's not "Sci-Fi", it's SF!

"Calvinism is a very liberal religious ethos." - Truekiwijoker

[–] rayincumbria 9 years ago

"It's as much about corporate conformity independent of government. It's not political correctness, it's "starbucking, man" as one character says."

That is much more like I saw it..No-one preaching at them* for drinking, drugs etc. .. but they are finding all the pubs 'corporatised' to identical clones with no real personality (Yes, Starbucking') and not liking it.

*OK, their girlfriends may be unhappy at them getting so drunk, and 'The king' is an immature idiot, but he is shown moderately sympathetically in his rage against the bland modern world that is foisted on him.

few visible scars

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

I don't see how folk get a nanny state critique out of a couple of bland crap pubs that used to be dirty, smelly crap pubs.

It seemed to me that it was more about the idea of mainstream ubiquity, compliance and willful conformity. Nothing to do with nannying.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] tmf_scipio 8 years ago

Corporate conformity, not nanny state.

Hitler! C'mon, I'll buy you a glass of lemonade.

[–] nasal_hair_on_fire 8 years ago

I don't think the film criticises the idea of the nanny state.
"Nanny state" is a term for when a government legislates against the practice of people engaging in self-destructive behaviour.
In The World's End, what The Network was trying to impose on earthlings was a tyranny. That is, either you willingly submitted to The Network's absolute authority without question, or The Network murdered you.
Also, I agree with the previous people who posted in this thread who suggested that film can be interpreted as a criticism of conformist, corporate-imposed uniformity.

[–] nasal_hair_on_fire 8 years ago

I believe the film can also be interpreted as a criticism of colonialism.
There have been times throughout history when one nation has invaded another and considered the indigenous people of the nation they invaded as being less advanced. Therefore, the invader would justify the invasion and subjugation of the indigenous people with a paternalistic mindset, claiming that "we are more advanced than you and we know what is best for you". In reality, the invading nation would subject the indigenous people to horrendous human rights violations.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Thats exactly what I took from it.
I remember feeling guilty about the British Empire after watching it last night.

[–] ManToTrust 8 years ago

That is, either you willingly submitted to The Network's absolute authority without question, or The Network murdered you.

Honestly though, that IS the main critique of political correctness. Whether it comes from government or your regular Starbucks sipping social justice warrior: "either you willingly submitted to absolute PC without question, or SJW's will murder your career, reputation, punch you in the face, etc".

[–] Martoto (5049) 7 years ago

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

Absolutely. There’s a healthy anti-authoritarian and individualist streak in Edgar Wright’s films.

There’s even some patriotism with the heroes being named ‘King’, ‘Prince’, ‘Knightly’ etc, like they’re modern day defenders of the British realm against creeping Globalist conformism.

[–] TheArgentinian (7109) 2 months ago

No, the writers aren't political filmmakers.