Oh dear. Has bobcat Goldthwaite gone too far with his movie God Bless America?

[cyberpj]

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/08/trailer-for-bobcat-goldthwaite.html

And is anyone else reminded of Falling Down with Michael Douglas?
That one may have been more acceptable because it was a drama.

This one looks like something one might envision in a hasty moment, but to illustrate it within a comedy...
and use a child?
I'm not sure how I feel about what, if any, effect that might have on the mentally unstable.

Yes, I know it's a movie and yes, I know it's Goldthwaite --but still...

Am I taking it all too seriously?

[seabeyond]

1. came up in videos and i had to look at it because alert. while deciding i read an article on syria

an the torture and killing of a family and handicapped children.

when i watched the video i truly thought, just another disgusting we feed our society.

when i read the article about syria and thinking about the film, i adjusted to our "entertainment" is anothers reality.

[greytdemocrat]

2. He's still alive???

Yikes!!!

[TwilightGardener]

5. I was going to post exactly that. And then I remembered I was confusing him

with Sam Kinison.

[ellenfl]

11. my 1st reaction . . . eom

[Arugula Latte]

20. I thought he'd died years ago, too!

Weird.

[geardaddy]

21. That was my first thought.

[Ohio Joe]

3. Are you taking a Bobcat comedy too seriously?

Yes, yes you are.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Since it appears to be about a huge killing spree

the question would seem to be whether it's really acceptable to make a comedy about that. To take it just a little further, would a comedy about 9/11 be taken 'too seriously'?

[Ohio Joe]

9. Comedies about killing sprees have been around a long time

See... Arsenic and Old Lace. I can't think of any topic that should be off limits for a comedy.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Doctor Strangelove is about nuclear war and it is hilarious....

Top that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. However, we've never had nutters launch nuclear war like that

We do continue to get nutters shooting Congresswomen and bystanders, children at a Norwegian summer camp, and much more. The number of people able to launch nuclear war is tiny; millions of Americans can go on a shooting spree, and some do, fairly often.

[ieoeja]

24. On the other hand, a rogue US general did attempt launching an unauthorized nuclear attack once.

The retired General who wrote The Forgotten War used the FOIA to include MacArthur's attempt to attack Chinese forces in North Korea with atomic weapons. He ordered the Pacific SAC commander to hit the Chinese forces with the A-bomb even going so far as to lie that he had authorization from Washington, but that it would take time to find the authorization during which American soliders would be dying.

Fortunately, the SAC commander refused to budge without first clearing it with Washington.

Just one of the many, many reasons Truman accepted MacArthur's loss of command (well after forces in Korea ceased taking orders from Mac anyway).

[mactime]

4. Comedy

is a good way to handle touchy subjects. Judging from the trailer it appears to be a movie about an individual who has had enough and instead of killing himself sets out to fight back. Heavy subject that is more easily handled in a comedy. I can see how this reaches the anger and frustration many Americans are feeling at this point.

[Fumesucker]

7. It's like Grumpy Old Men met Thelma and Louise met Lord of the Flies..

I can see it becoming a cult classic..

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Um, 'use a child' is a funky term for employing a teen aged professional.

One hell of a loaded term. That actress has a Union, and personal legal representation. She is not a 'child used'. She is 18 years old, and has a nice resume that shows work for a few years prior to this film.
Films in which young people commit acts of violence are far from rare in cinema, particularly in America. A country that does make the occasional DC Sniper Duo that can not handle a satire of that reality is not healthy. There are in reality, mass murderer teens. Is talking truth not acceptable?
Did Swift cause the mentally ill to go eat children? Of course not. So yes, you are taking the film far too seriously.
Here is a review from Toronto, take a look and see what you think.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/toronto-review-bobcat-goldthwaits-wild-violent-god-bless-america/

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Perhaps 'use a child' refers to the character - a 16 year old (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Except it did not refer to the character. The OP said 'use a child'.

The satire is in part regarding the DC snipers. One of whom was a minor child. So. Art mirrors life.
And the actor is a person who legally can walk into an office and commit to contracts, an adult. An adult professional actor. She is somehow not equal to you or to me? Why? Her gender? Her age? She can take on a mortgage, yet she should only do films with talking animals?
Romeo's Juliet is say 14. 15 at most 16. At most. Her actions cause death, her own suicide, and much sorrow. She dies at her own hands in a crypt.
To pretend that young people are not people, or worse that young people are 'children' getting 'used' when they make a professional contract is dismissing of the person.
Old enough to marry, not old enough to make satire.
I wonder if any of you get hot when you see 16 year olds making minimum wage to make your lunch? Or if that is only for adults who get paid extremely well to engage in professional work? Should the actor go flip a patty for 8 an hour rather than making tens of thousands in a few weeks?
Just saying. The maid in your hotel is 18. She'd trade gigs with the actor just for the cash the respect, the company. So always tip the teenaged staff, and tell them they must thank God they are not film stars!

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. #18 confirms they were talking about the character

So I'll ignore the parts in your post about the age of the actor, since we now know they're irrelevant.

Art may 'mirror life', but that doesn't mean it's good comedy. Romeo and Juliet, is, after all, a tragedy. It will be interesting to see if this can be called 'satire' in any sense, because the trailer makes it look more like pandering to people's wish fulfillment, by making a list of people who annoy you, and then getting rid of them. The film will need more than that to qualify as 'satire'. The problem with films is that the main characters are almost always portrayed sympathetically; and by sharing a list of 'people who annoy me' with the typical viewer, that looks the way this one goes. "American Psycho" had a serial killer as the main character, but he was portrayed as a complete arsehole.

In what way do you think this could be a satire on the DC sniper duo? It's not taking an existing attitude that some people support, and then exaggerating it to show that it's actually wrong (as, for instance, "A Modest Proposal" did); no-one supported the DC snipers. Even (spoiler) 'Four Lions', which may be the closest to "unacceptable for comedy" we've had recently (it certainly got criticism for that), has the bombers dying in about equal numbers to their victims, and some of them having remorse, and a lot of it being accidental after they can't back out, or incompetence by the authorities. There's no "there's a prat - let's kill him - yay! He's dead!".

[Bluenorthwest]

25. I'd say that anyone seeing this as 'wish fulfilment' is part of the culture getting satirized

The DC snipers were an adult with issues who got a teenager to join his spree. It is not a necessary element of satire that the target of the satire is an exaggeration of a 'supported idea'. Any fact of reality is open to satire. It is that simple.
Of course, none of us here can critique the film with any honesty as we have not seen it. So any discussion of the content of the film much less of the larger message of the film, if that message is successful, if we agree with the premise, all of these aspects are unknown. You do not know that this film says '"there's a prat - let's kill him - yay! He's dead!" and while I also don't know that it does not, the work of the filmmaker would suggest that such joy in death is the opposite of what he does. To assume that the message is as you frame it, as you write it, as you create it is an assumption which comes from you, not from the filmmaker.
Nothing is "unacceptable for comedy" that is part of life. Nothing. This is a world where Dexter is a huge hit show. He kills people. It is amusing. It is meaningful. It is humorous. The theory that "unacceptable for comedy" exists is unsupported in the history of theater, film, and comedy itself. The only thing "unacceptable for comedy" is not getting laughs.
Comedies are often centered on people who are not supposed to function as heroic. Note that many, many comedies exist that in which all the characters are criminals, Mafia, hitmen, you name it. The list is endless. Endless. Characters of no decency are great comic fodder. That's why there are hundreds of such films. Hundreds.
Also the notion that 'tragedy' is high art which can address things mere comedy can not is a mistake. Dying is easy, comedy is hard. Comedy makes it easy to discuss issues that otherwise are taken as far too serious. Tragedy is far more limited in that regard. Not that there are 'off limits' areas for tragedy, just that the melodrama often takes the tragedy to maudlin places when it is 'too serious' or 'too like life'. A comedy fails if it is not funny. So it is really easy to find out if audiences as a whole find it funny. Show them the film, if they laugh, it worked. If they don't laugh, then it is not comedy at all, and most people will set the whole thing aside.
The idea of claiming a film is glorifying that which it mocks might hold merit if one has seen the film and has reasons to think that which they can communicate. To say '"unacceptable' sight unseen is without merit. Got to see that which you condemn or that which you praise.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. But we have seen the trailer

And most trailers are not designed to deceive about the real story in the film. The trailer is full of prats who are shot by the main characters, and has been cut to specify they are prats, have them shot, and then move on.

Any fact of reality may be open to satire, but I can't see that a couple of people murdering because of petty annoyances is satire of a couple who did it because of 'issues'. It would seem to trivialise it, if anything. If you can explain how this film is satire of the DC couple, then do it.

Yes, it's possible that the audience itself is the target of the satire; perhaps the film turns around at the end and says "you laughed at that? You cheered? Well, you're a psychopath just like the ones in the movie". The Canadian review gives no indication there is such an attempt to turn this into satire; indeed, it never mentions satire at all, just 'really, really black comedy'. You say you think Goldthwait wouldn't want to just do a "how funny it is to see annoying people get killed" movie; but it's possible that he's failed to get across any other message he tried to put in. The review sounds like that, anyway - he objects to it 'getting a little preachy' because he's looking for a film 'for everyone to enjoy'. If most viewers just end up laughing at the prats and the deaths, which seems to be what the reviewer did, then he should have reshot the film until it said more than "yay, another prat dead!".

No, there are subjects 'unacceptable for comedy'. You shouldn't make a film that tries to get laughs by being racist, for instance. It might be popular and get laughs in racist areas, but that doesn't make it acceptable. 'Dexter' involves killing evil people; there's a long distance between that and killing people whose cellphones go off during movies.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. I wildly disagree that trailers communicate the film with intention...they exist to sell

the film and they are often quite misleading intentionally. Here's the thing. You are insistent that you can judge a book from glancing at the jacket. I think it is really not at all reasoned to judge art works you did not see. To assume, to conjecture and to do that holding in your mind the worst of the worst, as if the filmmaker is a famous fascist and not a comic of the dark kind.
I simply do not take the critiques of those who have not seen a work as holding merit. How can they?
. And to take the extreme tack without knowledge of the facts is what it is.

What specifically is the difference in terms of Dexter, who is the hero and is heroic for his murders and this character as seen in 2 minutes of the whole cut to sell? Can you tell me? Saying 'well, it's different' is not really saying anything. In what way? Dexter kills, he is the character you are to relate to, the show is filled with humor and satire and jokes. Dexter is cast with a good looking actor, this film's cast with a pasty character actor. I think you know that lots of good films do or attempt to do this sort of comedy, and that the success and failure of such things lies in the execution, pun apologies, not in the 'idea of a kid with a gun' which is not new, and is not new to comedy, none of this is. If this film stinks, it will stink. To know that, one has to see the film. Dexter is a comedy whose hero is a handsome serial killer we are meant to relate to. It just is. To claim that is so different requires extreme detail. From the trailer alone, I could argue that Dexter is far more 'glamorizing' of killing. Easily. Of course, when I see the film I might find that I no longer agree. Got to see it to know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. I already did tell you the difference

Dexter kills killers; this pair kill annoying people. Dexter can claim that 'justice' is being done, especially if you believe in the death penalty. This can't.

I think the combination of the trailer and the review gives us a reasonable idea of the film; and that points to a high possibility that audiences will enjoy seeing the annoying people shot. The reviewer seems to have done so.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Addressing your comments on subjects 'unacceptable for comedy'.

I agree that HOW you go for laughs is important, and of course playing to racism is a shitty although rather commonly done thing. That does not address what I am saying at all. The subject of racism is of course open to comic treatment, and it has often gotten the comic treatment. To make a comedy which has racism as a subject is not the same thing as making a comedy that uses racism to get laughs. And that leads to an interesting point that I think you will enjoy.
The comic Dave Chappelle had a show that was hugely popular, often edgy as hell and did much humor regarding racism and racists. Chappelle walked away from a $50 million dollar deal to continue the show for reasons many did not understand. What he later said was that he was unsure if he could continue making the comedy he was making and not cross from satirizing racism and race stuff in general into exploitation of those things, particularly in mass audience material. His question was in part 'are other people laughing at the right part of the joke'. I think highly of him, he is a comic genius and he returned oh so much money for his mindfulness regarding just these things we are discussing. So it is not an area that is easily settled or defined, and good folks like you and me and Chappelle think it through. I say see the thing first. Then decide. And of course it can go either way. As Chappelle's choice demonstrates, a person can set out to make the right joke, and still some might laugh for the wrong reasons. It is tricky stuff.
Goldthwaite directed many of Chappelle's shows. Interesting. Comedy is hard. Comedy without malice the hardest of all.
Interesting stuff. Always see it prior to launching an attack. Then rip it to shreds if it fails to impress. That's how it's done. Once you see it, mercy is not at all required. You are suggesting he do a re-edit of a film you did not see. I can not take that seriously. Sorry.

[cyberpj]

18. I didn't mean 'use a child actress' I mean using a child in the plot of the film.

And yes, I know there are other films in which young people commit violence, most of those would be dramas.

I suppose I was actually asking about the line between what is considered satire vs. low-level comedy.
Always in the eye of the beholder I guess.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Did you read the link?

The writer saw the film. You did not. The eye of the beholder needs to first behold then judge.

[cyberpj]

30. Yep.

I read it.
I read it before my last post.
It's still only one opinion in a sea of movie critics.

In my original post I was simply wondering out loud, based on the preview I saw, then asking what others might think.
Calm down.
Hard day today?

[hifiguy]

12. Who??

I thought he was living under a bridge somewhere by now.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. this is his 3d or 4th feature film, he's also directed a ton of small scree stuff

He directed many episodes of 'Chappelle's Show' among other things. He works a lot. He's good at it.

[hifiguy]

14. I haven't heard anything of him in years.

But then I don't follow a lot of popular media.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Few pay attention to who directs or writes....

Which is what he's doing these days, mostly.

[Son of Gob]

32. World's Greatest Dad is a great movie

It's on Netflix streaming if anyone wants to check it out. Windy City Heat is a hilarious movie.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

33. I liked World's Greatest Dad. I've heard comedians say that his stand up act was political and

had a lot of social commentary but people just remember him for that Police Academy shit.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

27. meh, its just a movie.

A comedy at that. I'll watch it, I'm sure, but I'm not easily offended. I'm more offended by the dumbing down of movies to level of comic book characters, and CGI thats supposed to impress us like kids watching fireworks. I'll go out of my way to see movies thats are offbeat, which have become few and far between. 95% of Hollywood is garbage, and thats the stuff that draws crowds and wins academy awards. JMHO.

[Cleita]

28. Apparently, many DUers don't get gallows humor. Pity.

It's very cathartic. Get a sense of humor guys! You can spare your political correctness and need to nanny everything for the real world.

Cheesh!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

34. It looks funny to me. And I think I get what he's trying to say. nt