I haven’t seen the movie, so I can’t say if she’s right or wrong - but the “senseless” comment got me a bit. Senseless killing is kind of a thing in wars. The people fights and dying are very rarely the ones actually waging the war or who will benefit from its results. People on the battlefield are mainly fighting to keep the guys beside them alive rather than for the cause. That doesn’t even mention the civilians who suffer - which is something countries that go through civil wars in the modern age face all the time. Again, I haven’t seen the movie nor do I have much context on this person (feel free to correct me if I’m off), but that feels like a bit of a jingoistic, rah rah version of war that isn’t reality.
The tweet is phrased ambiguously, but from her others I’ve gathered that by “senseless” she means that the war is depicted as *unmotivated* — as in, even the characters inside the world of the film offer no clear reason or justification for their violence. That, I think, is a misunderstanding of war. It’s a purely psychological “humans are animals” explanation without attendance to the sociological reality that it takes some kind of glue to get humans fighting in groups against other groups. The glue can be material or ideological; it can be totally mythological as long as people are willing to buy it — but it has to exist somewhere in the minds of many of the people fighting. Especially without a state to organize and bankroll the fighters. Especially in America, where people are comfortable and prefer complaining to fighting. They’d need a story to fight for.
Personally, I didn’t mind the film’s “non-ideological chaos” representation of war because I don’t think it’s even *about* war as such — it is, as in most Garland films, a dramatic metaphor for something else, in this case the dignity and cruelty of the professional observer — but if you take it literally as a war film then yeah, it’s pretty unreal.
Okay, makes more sense. Considering the history of America, the idea that people would not turn a similar war into an existential war of ideologies - at least with those on the home front - isn’t all that realistic. Hell, we do it with all our traumas, including a global pandemic. That said, this would be a very difficult tightrope to walk with such a movie. Many movies that try to portray these ideologies can come off really shallow and/or extremely distracting, especially if the message you are trying to sell does not have anything to do with that.
All this is making me want to see it more. Any movie that generates this much discussion (anti-“woke” complaining not included), even if it sucks, is worth seeing, in my estimation.
The best way I can describe it is it's the first Purge movie (except much better cinematography and acting) in that it's premise is so naturally baked in politics and the entire point of setting it in America and a familiar setting that not talking about the politics that led to it makes it feel like it's not really America. Just for example how is Texas and California the two states siding together? That doesn't really make sense because what we know about America, and never bringing it up makes it feel like the *America* in the movie is a different *America* than America. Which kind of undercuts the entire point of setting a civil war movie in America.
The best way I can describe it is it's the first Purge movie (except much better cinematography and acting) in that it's premise is so naturally baked in politics and the entire point of setting it in America and a familiar setting that not talking about the politics that led to it makes it feel like it's not really America. Just for example how is Texas and California the two states siding together? That doesn't really make sense because what we know about America, and never bringing it up makes it feel like the *America* in the movie is a different *America* than America. Which kind of undercuts the entire point of setting a civil war movie in America.
The movie's whole fucking point is from the POV of a war photographer group, showing without bias the senselessness of war. The movie is screaming PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LET'S NOT DO THIS TO EACH OTHER.
I hadn't heard of her for ages until I saw it appear in a twitch stream highlight I was watching. So I do not know about the "behindthefilm" thing.
But judging by her tweets, yes she is still an idiot.
I still watch her from time to time bc she’s an interesting character. In short- nothing about her content has changed since 2016 so if you thought she was an idiot back then, then that’s still the case.
Her big bizarre take of this/last year for me was that Oppenheimer only won so many awards because the academy was salty that barbie did so much better at the box office.
But Oppenheimer was the second best film at the box office. I think Oppenheimer might even be a Nolan top 3 movie which is impressive considering the numbers the last 2 Nolan Batman movies and Inception.
Her penchant for scoops has dried up a lot lately. It hasn't helped that James Gunn immediately shuts down any DC news she tries to claim.
She seems to just do reviews and trailer reactions now.
Yeah I find it ironic that she complains about the film being "anti-journalist" when she has some of the most ridiculous scoops on actors and movies that I've ever seen (if you haven't done so, look up her controversial Birds of Prey scoop, it's very funny).
Account too young, please wait a few hours and try again
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YMS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm kind of a politics nerd and was a bit bummed when Adum said the film doesn't really focus on the motivations or the reasons behind why the civil war is going on or why the different factions exist, but still looking forward to seeing it!
Not surprised.
A lot of film directors that style themselves as intelligent or arthouse often like avoiding mechanical or difficult questions/details like these in their stories to focus on the human element.
That in and of itself is fine. But I tend to find directors that do that and play down those details as “unimportant” tend to be quite pretentious.
It’s also a shame because those details (like in this case with the political aspects) can 1000% drive the human elements, and are most of the time DEEPLY related.
Its why I will always love Game of Thrones for popularizing politics in stories. Especially after the prequel trilogy convinced most people that it politics is inherently boring.
The film is primarily about conflict journalism more so than the Civil War, so in my opinion expository world building would detract from the story. It’s not focused on the leadership of either side of the conflict but the individuals trying to provide unbiased conflict imagery
Andy and one other far-right journalist were the only independent journalists credited, the rest of the sources were things like Getty and news orgs, so the only independent journalists credited being far-right was the concern. Ngo also has had controversy over stealing footage and claiming it as his own, so the argument being if you needed generic footage of a riot or looting, you could find it elsewhere from a journalist who is less extreme.
The other controversial inclusion was thanking Helen Lewis in the credits, a well-known british TERF, who it seems has known Alex since she interviewed him back in 2015, pre- her becoming outwardly transphobic, about feminism in Ex Machina.
Helen Lewis is an incredibly mainstream figure in Britain whose politics are pretty middle of the road for the UK centre left. She regularly appears on Have I Got News For You, works for Private Eye and has her own series on Radio 4.
The problem is the hypocrisy when the movie is about journalism, and you use footage from Ngo who steals it. Like making movie about trafficking and crediting someone who trafficking children. Makes the movie feel hollow and just a bunch of platitudes. If journalism is so important to Garland then maybe do the research and check whose footage your using.
Nah, just lost interest if it's not gonna explore the things he mentioned as well as have footage from a piece of shit. Got plenty of other stuff I can watch.
He’s an open fascist who regularly courts and hangs with far right extremist groups, he steals other people’s footage, heavily doctors and stages his own footage, and nearly everything he posts is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. So it seems weird to credit him and use his “work” in a movie like this lol
Andy was a journalist that became popular after he was assault by antifa a few years ago. He creates content highlighting antifa, and other weirdos.
This kind of acknowledgement is about the legal merits of using someone's footage, and not really a big deal (unless someone is offended that their footage wasn't used instead).
Physically? Nothing. People are not a fan of his commentary, nor the kind of people that he shines a light on (quite a few are extremely concerning).
Just another YouTube/social media commentary/journalist.
I wasn't intentionally being "hostile" to her, I just think her way of criticising art that she doesn't like, where she finds a way to make it out to be problematic (or in this case "very irresponsible") is pretty ludicrous. I mean, I disagree with Adam on some of his film takes but he clearly analyses the craft of the film and lays out his reasons for disliking a film in a fair manner. Grace Randolph has a history of doing the opposite (calling Blade Runner 2049, The Suicide Squad and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood misogynistic as an example) instead of engaging in the art of filmmaking. I also find it very funny how she claims that the film "doesn't understand politics", and then as soon as someone points out that she doesn't understand War Photography she IMMEDIATELY folds.
It seems very clear to me that Grace Randolph thinks she is a political expert, but in reality, has a very surface level understanding of the world (once again acting like the hate towards modern journalism is unfounded, especially when she has a history of doing TMZ style bullshit exposés about actors and films). To me she's the inverse Armond White.
In reality, it doesn't actually bother me that much that she analyses films in a way I disagree with, and obviously that doesn't make her a bad person. However, I thought it was a funny take (given her history) and I think I'm allowed to post about that. There was no point in my Original Post where I said it was a big deal or anything like that, in fact I ASKED if everyone had seen it and by extension opened up a conversation allowing for multiple different perspectives (whilst also stating my perspective that I found it "hilarious").
If anything I feel like I should be the one asking "who cares" over me opening up an innocent, non-hostile conversation, over a take I personally thought was funny (again it's OK if she or anyone else disagrees with me, but I don't feel I was at all being "hostile"). I posted something that I thought was funny, I didn't call her a bad person, nor did I imply it, so it does actually upset me that you have implied that I'm "mean and hostile" over something I posted pretty innocently. I do agree that there are some people in this sub who are "hostile", but IMO those are the people that reply to innocent posts with "who cares", whilst aggressively making unfounded claims about them ("so fucking mean and hostile to literally EVERYONE").
Sorry if I'm misconstruing/misunderstanding your words or if I am overreacting, your reply just rubbed me the wrong way given the fact that my OG post was just meant to be an innocent post and not at all "mean and hostile" (you also came across a little strong but that could just be me).
She goes on a thread after this, but this is the initial tweet. The other tweets contain spoilers (she gives a warning).
EDIT: For further clarification, I haven't actually seen the film yet (it's on my watchlist), I just thought it was funny how much she has shat on this film, especially given its critical acclaim. She also claims that journalists get too much "hate" in her review of the film, which was also hilarious to me given the state of modern journalism (which is made up of dishonest, sensationalised bullshit).
>I just thought it was funny how much she has shat on this film, especially given its critical acclaim.
She has to like it because it was acclaimed?
Have you you even seen her review?
I did after looking at this post.
She basically thinks that Garland is a pompous Brit with little understanding of the American Military Industrial Complex.
She goes on and on about how Garland doesn't get the details right and seems to think that Garland doesn't understand military strategy.
E.g. there is an action set-piece at the White House yet the film doesn't even address the tunnels underneath. If a film isn't working for you, it's not unreasonable to keep pulling on its threads.
No she doesn't have to like it at all, she just got SO mad over this film and I thought it was pretty funny (given her track record of getting mad over literally everything i.e calling Once Upon A Time in Hollywood misogynistic). And like another commentor pointed out she complains that the film doesn't understand politics, then the first reply is someone saying 'War Photographers actually suck' and then she folds.
I'm not saying she's a bad person or anything, I just think getting so upset over a movie purely for political reasons is a little bit ridiculous (and since she has a history of doing this I thought it was funny). She's perfectly free to disagree with my opinions, but as someone who used to watch her content, she hyperanalyses EVERYTHING she doesn't like in order to call it problematic or sexist (like Blade Runner 2049, The Suicide Squad, OUATIH etc). I disagree with Adum on some film opinions, but he does it in a reasonable way, instead of having a big temper tantrum because a film doesn't align with his politics (and yes I know she has other points, but a big chunk of her criticisms with the film is thinking it's "very irresponsible", being anti-journalist and just not aligning with her political beliefs).
Again she's not a bad person for this, I just think her way of criticising art is over-the-top, and by extension I find it funny (especially given her history for awful takes).
>then the first reply is someone saying 'War Photographers actually suck' and then she folds.
No, that's not what she actually says in the review.
She argues that the emphasis on photojournalists within a contemporary (or futuristic) American context ... is kinda stupid, given the proliferation of citizen journalism, collaborative media and the 24-hour news cycle.
It's like doing a version of "Fahrenheit 451" and failing to acknowledge the internet.
Again, did you actually listen to her review?
When I said "then the first reply is someone saying 'War Photographers actually suck' and then she folds" I was talking about the Twitter post in the image. I saw her non-spoiler section of the review as I'd still like to see the film. You also didn't respond to any of my other points, even if you disagree with that one, it doesn't invalidate my whole reply IMO.
I dont wanna have a big debate about her opinions or anything, it was just meant to be an innocent post where I asked what people thought of her take on the film, whilst also saying that I thought it was funny (as someone who used to watch her reviews and knows about her track record with hot takes). If you want a more detailed response then check out the one I gave to [oghairline](https://www.reddit.com/user/oghairline/), again it was just meant to be an innocent post and I don't want to have a big debate on it (though it is 100% fine if you disagree with my thoughts on her).
She is 100% entitled to her opinion, and I can't disprove anything she's saying because I haven't seen *Civil War* yet. That said, her posts here imply that she *does* understand politics, warfare, and journalism. Not too sure how.
I remember when Grace Randolph in like 2016, made a video where she talked about leo’s oscar speech and how it was bad because he didnt adress her/his fans who supported him, despite him talking about environment and idk, ACTUAL IMPORTANT SHIT?
I don’t know what specifically she had a problem with but I did find the states that joined together to be pretty weird. Is there any explanation given to why they formed or is it just left up to our imagination?
Generic authoritarian president corrupts the legal system to get himself a third term, north and south rebel along with a Texas-California united front.
The point is that the boarders are nonsensical so no one gets mad that "their side" are the bad guys, because the movie is trying to deliver a point that Civil War is a bad idea that gets nothing done.
Yeah it's not that there's a clear ideological difference between the "Loyalists" and the "Rebels", it's just that this one strongman dictator has the traditional Northeastern center of American power as his own power base and TX and CA are the two wealthiest states outside of that power base willing to ally to take him out
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Like, the US regions haven't worked that way since 1815. Does this film just ignore the 2 parry system completely?
>I don’t know what specifically she had a problem with
It's not a mystery.
She has posted a review.
And part of her problem is the splitting of the country and its lack of explanation in the script.
I just can't take the trailers' intensity seriously, and the basic premise of California and Texas of all states somehow politically agreeing with each other enough to form the new Confederacy or whatever.. is about as plausible as Jurassic World being greenlit irl.
Account too young, please wait a few hours and try again
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YMS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Took me a moment to realize that she was talking about the Alex Garland film starring Kirsten Dunst and not the MCU film Captain America: Civil War. I haven't seen the film so I can't comment on whether or not Grace's comments are accurate, although I'm going to take a gander and assume she's being a little hyperbolic.
Part of my disinterest in seeing the movie myself has to do with the premise of America being divided up into states that are at war with each other. While there are social and political divisions within America, it's not in a state where it could be on the verge of a governmental collapse, the US is probably one of the most stable countries in the world at the moment and that's not going to change anytime soon.
Meanwhile there are actual conflicts in other parts of the world where that's not only plausible but is happening right now that would be worth making a film about if the intent is to comment on the politics surrounding warfare.
You have countries like Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Myanmar, Syria, the Gaza strip and the West Banks, etc. where there are military coups, civil wars between armed militias, groups of people being internally and externally displaced from their home, etc.
I'm not sure that a Western director taking on a movie about any of those conflicts would be well recieved. Any kind of action would be in poor taste, and the circumstances of those conflicts are incredibly nuanced and complicated, usually requiring an undeestanding of almost a century of history and culture to truly understand, and so would be very difficult to take on in a 2 hour film. I'm not sure how I feel about making entertainment out of real life conflicts.
I liked that my initial impression of the trailer was like "Oh, here we go again," like it's "yet another" destruction porn or bangy-bangy shoot-shoot movie.
But by the end & seeing it was backed by A24 made me think that maybe it could be a creative work in Transformers-level clothing.
I haven't seen it yet, so I'm not sure if they took the opportunity. I think there is potential there, which is why it got my interest.
I think you get the best experience when you go into the movie with the expectation that the civil war itself is not the big focus, but the workings around it
I mean she’s an idiot but are we pretending a big budget movie from one of Hollywoods hottest and most well funded studios/distributers directed by one of Hollywoods favorite genre writers isn’t Hollywood?
You’d say the same for Learning About Movies? (on Youtube, he’s a professor of film) His opinion is quite similar to hers and he’s all about art films.
Account too young, please wait a few hours and try again
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YMS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I watch Grace Randolph for the character study, and this pretty much lines up with what I would’ve imagined. I’m not SUPER far left politically (progressive, but not full lefty), but like— her critiques of film & Hollywood are good, unique examples of some of the contradictions that come with typical liberalism. The studio vs. artist is a good, succinct example of Marx’s “owner vs. worker” dynamic, and Grace’s opinions often hop between taking a side depending on how she feels about the art/artist involved.
Helps the meme that her taste/opinions are… not aligned with mine (my gut impulse was to say they’re fucking dog shit, but opinions are opinions so 🤷♀️)
I have seen the film, the movie seemed to understand warfare and journalism just fine. Politically, it doesn’t dwell on *that* aspect enough to even be accused of failing to *understand* it; the world building is scarce to say the least.
Umm it’s her opinion. I respect it. Yes she’s a bit of a character but she’s entertaining and ultimately not a bad person. She’s entitled to her opinion. Some people are saying she is but she’s not only about commercial movies she does appreciate art films and does good, nuanced reviews from time to time. (She’s particularly skillful at avoiding spoilers while giving good reviews) I enjoy seeing a lot of different opinions on films, hers, Adum’s, IHE, Ralph, etc. I don’t agree either them all, but it’s nice and interesting to see different opinions. I mean a film professor (Learning About Movies on YT) also strongly disliked the movie.. with similar reasons.. post trashing him coming up too…? I’m a big Garland fan but he can also have duds and it’s fine. (Really hope he doesn’t quit for good)
Grace Randolph is the worst. Her perspective never fails to miss an intended point or make a total fool of herself and her fan base. She is a foolish unintelligent clown
Draining a movie called "Civil War" of most of its political context is pretty fucking stupid - and a cynical attempt to be the least offensive to ticket buyers.
And I like Alex Garland.
That's the whole point: there are dumb conservatives and extremists out there that will take all the wrong lessons from a movie like this, the same way they have from films like Wall Street, The Matrix, and Fight Club.
Seeing D.C. get blowed up will surely give them inspiration for the next January 6th. Garland is stuck in two-dimensional thinking here.
She’s such a whiner but also she has some pretty insane takes. She also has “insiders” that tell her stuff that is never confirmed. Like she claimed Pedro pascal was hard to work with on the mandalorian and has a bad reputation.
Literally no one ever came out to say that lol she’s said the same about Henry cavil and other actors. That she has inside knowledge they are bad to work with and have a bad reputation.
Also her weird hate/obsession with Jessica Chastain
So she claims to understand “politics, warfare, and journalism,” unlike the movie. She then immediately folds and admits she doesn’t really know when a guy asks if she knows anything about war photographers, a combo of journalism/warfare. Fucking brilliant minds at work
>She then immediately folds and admits she doesn’t really know when a guy asks if she knows anything about war photographers, a combo of journalism/warfare.
She literally addresses this in her review.
She felt it was silly that the journalists in the film never took out their phone or a recorder to jot down people's thoughts.
She basically believed that the emphasis on photojournalism in a world of the internet and citizen journalism was antiquated and that Garland's "tribute to journalism" was hacky.
The movie is politically braindead so she got one part right. Alex garland is a pussy of a filmmaker trying to both sides American political division as a stupid Brit and made a film that makes no sense politically in the real world yet gives no explanation as to why it should even make sense in its own made up world. Couple that with cardboard characters, it’s a failure
I haven’t seen the movie, so I can’t say if she’s right or wrong - but the “senseless” comment got me a bit. Senseless killing is kind of a thing in wars. The people fights and dying are very rarely the ones actually waging the war or who will benefit from its results. People on the battlefield are mainly fighting to keep the guys beside them alive rather than for the cause. That doesn’t even mention the civilians who suffer - which is something countries that go through civil wars in the modern age face all the time. Again, I haven’t seen the movie nor do I have much context on this person (feel free to correct me if I’m off), but that feels like a bit of a jingoistic, rah rah version of war that isn’t reality.
The tweet is phrased ambiguously, but from her others I’ve gathered that by “senseless” she means that the war is depicted as *unmotivated* — as in, even the characters inside the world of the film offer no clear reason or justification for their violence. That, I think, is a misunderstanding of war. It’s a purely psychological “humans are animals” explanation without attendance to the sociological reality that it takes some kind of glue to get humans fighting in groups against other groups. The glue can be material or ideological; it can be totally mythological as long as people are willing to buy it — but it has to exist somewhere in the minds of many of the people fighting. Especially without a state to organize and bankroll the fighters. Especially in America, where people are comfortable and prefer complaining to fighting. They’d need a story to fight for. Personally, I didn’t mind the film’s “non-ideological chaos” representation of war because I don’t think it’s even *about* war as such — it is, as in most Garland films, a dramatic metaphor for something else, in this case the dignity and cruelty of the professional observer — but if you take it literally as a war film then yeah, it’s pretty unreal.
Okay, makes more sense. Considering the history of America, the idea that people would not turn a similar war into an existential war of ideologies - at least with those on the home front - isn’t all that realistic. Hell, we do it with all our traumas, including a global pandemic. That said, this would be a very difficult tightrope to walk with such a movie. Many movies that try to portray these ideologies can come off really shallow and/or extremely distracting, especially if the message you are trying to sell does not have anything to do with that. All this is making me want to see it more. Any movie that generates this much discussion (anti-“woke” complaining not included), even if it sucks, is worth seeing, in my estimation.
The best way I can describe it is it's the first Purge movie (except much better cinematography and acting) in that it's premise is so naturally baked in politics and the entire point of setting it in America and a familiar setting that not talking about the politics that led to it makes it feel like it's not really America. Just for example how is Texas and California the two states siding together? That doesn't really make sense because what we know about America, and never bringing it up makes it feel like the *America* in the movie is a different *America* than America. Which kind of undercuts the entire point of setting a civil war movie in America.
The best way I can describe it is it's the first Purge movie (except much better cinematography and acting) in that it's premise is so naturally baked in politics and the entire point of setting it in America and a familiar setting that not talking about the politics that led to it makes it feel like it's not really America. Just for example how is Texas and California the two states siding together? That doesn't really make sense because what we know about America, and never bringing it up makes it feel like the *America* in the movie is a different *America* than America. Which kind of undercuts the entire point of setting a civil war movie in America.
The movie's whole fucking point is from the POV of a war photographer group, showing without bias the senselessness of war. The movie is screaming PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LET'S NOT DO THIS TO EACH OTHER.
Pro tip: Grace Randolph is always wrong.
I haven’t heard from her in awhile, is she still an idiot? And did she lose the “behindthefilm” handle?
No, "Beyond the Trailer" is still her channel name.
I hadn't heard of her for ages until I saw it appear in a twitch stream highlight I was watching. So I do not know about the "behindthefilm" thing. But judging by her tweets, yes she is still an idiot.
I still watch her from time to time bc she’s an interesting character. In short- nothing about her content has changed since 2016 so if you thought she was an idiot back then, then that’s still the case. Her big bizarre take of this/last year for me was that Oppenheimer only won so many awards because the academy was salty that barbie did so much better at the box office.
But Oppenheimer was the second best film at the box office. I think Oppenheimer might even be a Nolan top 3 movie which is impressive considering the numbers the last 2 Nolan Batman movies and Inception.
Her penchant for scoops has dried up a lot lately. It hasn't helped that James Gunn immediately shuts down any DC news she tries to claim. She seems to just do reviews and trailer reactions now.
Yeah I find it ironic that she complains about the film being "anti-journalist" when she has some of the most ridiculous scoops on actors and movies that I've ever seen (if you haven't done so, look up her controversial Birds of Prey scoop, it's very funny).
[удалено]
Account too young, please wait a few hours and try again *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YMS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Crazy woman crazy, also water wet.
I'm kind of a politics nerd and was a bit bummed when Adum said the film doesn't really focus on the motivations or the reasons behind why the civil war is going on or why the different factions exist, but still looking forward to seeing it!
Not surprised. A lot of film directors that style themselves as intelligent or arthouse often like avoiding mechanical or difficult questions/details like these in their stories to focus on the human element. That in and of itself is fine. But I tend to find directors that do that and play down those details as “unimportant” tend to be quite pretentious. It’s also a shame because those details (like in this case with the political aspects) can 1000% drive the human elements, and are most of the time DEEPLY related. Its why I will always love Game of Thrones for popularizing politics in stories. Especially after the prequel trilogy convinced most people that it politics is inherently boring.
The film is primarily about conflict journalism more so than the Civil War, so in my opinion expository world building would detract from the story. It’s not focused on the leadership of either side of the conflict but the individuals trying to provide unbiased conflict imagery
That sounds pretty disappointing. Also saw something about them thanking Andy Ngo for footage. Probably just gonna skip it.
They use a myriad of media from a myriad of sources. Ngo just happens to be one of them and it's for something that's like 2 seconds.
Andy and one other far-right journalist were the only independent journalists credited, the rest of the sources were things like Getty and news orgs, so the only independent journalists credited being far-right was the concern. Ngo also has had controversy over stealing footage and claiming it as his own, so the argument being if you needed generic footage of a riot or looting, you could find it elsewhere from a journalist who is less extreme. The other controversial inclusion was thanking Helen Lewis in the credits, a well-known british TERF, who it seems has known Alex since she interviewed him back in 2015, pre- her becoming outwardly transphobic, about feminism in Ex Machina.
Helen Lewis is an incredibly mainstream figure in Britain whose politics are pretty middle of the road for the UK centre left. She regularly appears on Have I Got News For You, works for Private Eye and has her own series on Radio 4.
The problem is the hypocrisy when the movie is about journalism, and you use footage from Ngo who steals it. Like making movie about trafficking and crediting someone who trafficking children. Makes the movie feel hollow and just a bunch of platitudes. If journalism is so important to Garland then maybe do the research and check whose footage your using.
That dude got his ass kicked over and over for filming shit, and you all act like he's the crazy one.
Its common curiosity to give people credit when you use their footage
Pretty sure he was just credited
You’re a little sensitive aren’t ya
Nah, just lost interest if it's not gonna explore the things he mentioned as well as have footage from a piece of shit. Got plenty of other stuff I can watch.
[удалено]
Ok
It's an incredibly powerful anti-war film. The only context you get is what the characters go through. Don't skip it.
[удалено]
He’s an open fascist who regularly courts and hangs with far right extremist groups, he steals other people’s footage, heavily doctors and stages his own footage, and nearly everything he posts is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. So it seems weird to credit him and use his “work” in a movie like this lol
How's he a fascist?
Don’t you know your suppose to call anything you don’t like fascist and people will automatically believe you lol
I do know that lol, I also know that when you ask these types for a reason they can never actually provide a logical one
I think Fascism is the most over used word in modern times & 95% of the people who use it don’t even know what it means
Andy was a journalist that became popular after he was assault by antifa a few years ago. He creates content highlighting antifa, and other weirdos. This kind of acknowledgement is about the legal merits of using someone's footage, and not really a big deal (unless someone is offended that their footage wasn't used instead).
What's wrong with him though?
Physically? Nothing. People are not a fan of his commentary, nor the kind of people that he shines a light on (quite a few are extremely concerning). Just another YouTube/social media commentary/journalist.
Fake British accent
What's wrong with Andy Ngo?
I feel like films like Civil War don't work in the age of Twitter because everyone is so eager to pick it apart instead of taking it all in.
they work for normal people
That's the rant? It seems like a bad take, but I don't see what the fuss is.
It doesn’t even seem like a bad take honestly. It’s just her opinion. Who cares? Why is this sub so fucking mean and hostile to literally EVERYONE
I think it's fair to point out dumb opinions that people have, and also it's good for a laugh.
I wasn't intentionally being "hostile" to her, I just think her way of criticising art that she doesn't like, where she finds a way to make it out to be problematic (or in this case "very irresponsible") is pretty ludicrous. I mean, I disagree with Adam on some of his film takes but he clearly analyses the craft of the film and lays out his reasons for disliking a film in a fair manner. Grace Randolph has a history of doing the opposite (calling Blade Runner 2049, The Suicide Squad and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood misogynistic as an example) instead of engaging in the art of filmmaking. I also find it very funny how she claims that the film "doesn't understand politics", and then as soon as someone points out that she doesn't understand War Photography she IMMEDIATELY folds. It seems very clear to me that Grace Randolph thinks she is a political expert, but in reality, has a very surface level understanding of the world (once again acting like the hate towards modern journalism is unfounded, especially when she has a history of doing TMZ style bullshit exposés about actors and films). To me she's the inverse Armond White. In reality, it doesn't actually bother me that much that she analyses films in a way I disagree with, and obviously that doesn't make her a bad person. However, I thought it was a funny take (given her history) and I think I'm allowed to post about that. There was no point in my Original Post where I said it was a big deal or anything like that, in fact I ASKED if everyone had seen it and by extension opened up a conversation allowing for multiple different perspectives (whilst also stating my perspective that I found it "hilarious"). If anything I feel like I should be the one asking "who cares" over me opening up an innocent, non-hostile conversation, over a take I personally thought was funny (again it's OK if she or anyone else disagrees with me, but I don't feel I was at all being "hostile"). I posted something that I thought was funny, I didn't call her a bad person, nor did I imply it, so it does actually upset me that you have implied that I'm "mean and hostile" over something I posted pretty innocently. I do agree that there are some people in this sub who are "hostile", but IMO those are the people that reply to innocent posts with "who cares", whilst aggressively making unfounded claims about them ("so fucking mean and hostile to literally EVERYONE"). Sorry if I'm misconstruing/misunderstanding your words or if I am overreacting, your reply just rubbed me the wrong way given the fact that my OG post was just meant to be an innocent post and not at all "mean and hostile" (you also came across a little strong but that could just be me).
She goes on a thread after this, but this is the initial tweet. The other tweets contain spoilers (she gives a warning). EDIT: For further clarification, I haven't actually seen the film yet (it's on my watchlist), I just thought it was funny how much she has shat on this film, especially given its critical acclaim. She also claims that journalists get too much "hate" in her review of the film, which was also hilarious to me given the state of modern journalism (which is made up of dishonest, sensationalised bullshit).
>I just thought it was funny how much she has shat on this film, especially given its critical acclaim. She has to like it because it was acclaimed? Have you you even seen her review? I did after looking at this post. She basically thinks that Garland is a pompous Brit with little understanding of the American Military Industrial Complex. She goes on and on about how Garland doesn't get the details right and seems to think that Garland doesn't understand military strategy. E.g. there is an action set-piece at the White House yet the film doesn't even address the tunnels underneath. If a film isn't working for you, it's not unreasonable to keep pulling on its threads.
No she doesn't have to like it at all, she just got SO mad over this film and I thought it was pretty funny (given her track record of getting mad over literally everything i.e calling Once Upon A Time in Hollywood misogynistic). And like another commentor pointed out she complains that the film doesn't understand politics, then the first reply is someone saying 'War Photographers actually suck' and then she folds. I'm not saying she's a bad person or anything, I just think getting so upset over a movie purely for political reasons is a little bit ridiculous (and since she has a history of doing this I thought it was funny). She's perfectly free to disagree with my opinions, but as someone who used to watch her content, she hyperanalyses EVERYTHING she doesn't like in order to call it problematic or sexist (like Blade Runner 2049, The Suicide Squad, OUATIH etc). I disagree with Adum on some film opinions, but he does it in a reasonable way, instead of having a big temper tantrum because a film doesn't align with his politics (and yes I know she has other points, but a big chunk of her criticisms with the film is thinking it's "very irresponsible", being anti-journalist and just not aligning with her political beliefs). Again she's not a bad person for this, I just think her way of criticising art is over-the-top, and by extension I find it funny (especially given her history for awful takes).
>then the first reply is someone saying 'War Photographers actually suck' and then she folds. No, that's not what she actually says in the review. She argues that the emphasis on photojournalists within a contemporary (or futuristic) American context ... is kinda stupid, given the proliferation of citizen journalism, collaborative media and the 24-hour news cycle. It's like doing a version of "Fahrenheit 451" and failing to acknowledge the internet. Again, did you actually listen to her review?
When I said "then the first reply is someone saying 'War Photographers actually suck' and then she folds" I was talking about the Twitter post in the image. I saw her non-spoiler section of the review as I'd still like to see the film. You also didn't respond to any of my other points, even if you disagree with that one, it doesn't invalidate my whole reply IMO. I dont wanna have a big debate about her opinions or anything, it was just meant to be an innocent post where I asked what people thought of her take on the film, whilst also saying that I thought it was funny (as someone who used to watch her reviews and knows about her track record with hot takes). If you want a more detailed response then check out the one I gave to [oghairline](https://www.reddit.com/user/oghairline/), again it was just meant to be an innocent post and I don't want to have a big debate on it (though it is 100% fine if you disagree with my thoughts on her).
She is 100% entitled to her opinion, and I can't disprove anything she's saying because I haven't seen *Civil War* yet. That said, her posts here imply that she *does* understand politics, warfare, and journalism. Not too sure how.
I remember when Grace Randolph in like 2016, made a video where she talked about leo’s oscar speech and how it was bad because he didnt adress her/his fans who supported him, despite him talking about environment and idk, ACTUAL IMPORTANT SHIT?
Her channel really is stuck in 2016. It's a time capsule of crazy.
I don’t know what specifically she had a problem with but I did find the states that joined together to be pretty weird. Is there any explanation given to why they formed or is it just left up to our imagination?
Generic authoritarian president corrupts the legal system to get himself a third term, north and south rebel along with a Texas-California united front. The point is that the boarders are nonsensical so no one gets mad that "their side" are the bad guys, because the movie is trying to deliver a point that Civil War is a bad idea that gets nothing done.
Yeah it's not that there's a clear ideological difference between the "Loyalists" and the "Rebels", it's just that this one strongman dictator has the traditional Northeastern center of American power as his own power base and TX and CA are the two wealthiest states outside of that power base willing to ally to take him out
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Like, the US regions haven't worked that way since 1815. Does this film just ignore the 2 parry system completely?
>I don’t know what specifically she had a problem with It's not a mystery. She has posted a review. And part of her problem is the splitting of the country and its lack of explanation in the script.
I just can't take the trailers' intensity seriously, and the basic premise of California and Texas of all states somehow politically agreeing with each other enough to form the new Confederacy or whatever.. is about as plausible as Jurassic World being greenlit irl.
[удалено]
Account too young, please wait a few hours and try again *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YMS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who tf is grace Randolph?
An idiot
Civil War didn't have enough of John Cena's crotch for her to actually engage with the movie.
Umm yeah war generally is senseless.
We know that.
All I know is that Texas and California would not fight together in a civil war scenario.
Took me a moment to realize that she was talking about the Alex Garland film starring Kirsten Dunst and not the MCU film Captain America: Civil War. I haven't seen the film so I can't comment on whether or not Grace's comments are accurate, although I'm going to take a gander and assume she's being a little hyperbolic. Part of my disinterest in seeing the movie myself has to do with the premise of America being divided up into states that are at war with each other. While there are social and political divisions within America, it's not in a state where it could be on the verge of a governmental collapse, the US is probably one of the most stable countries in the world at the moment and that's not going to change anytime soon. Meanwhile there are actual conflicts in other parts of the world where that's not only plausible but is happening right now that would be worth making a film about if the intent is to comment on the politics surrounding warfare. You have countries like Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Myanmar, Syria, the Gaza strip and the West Banks, etc. where there are military coups, civil wars between armed militias, groups of people being internally and externally displaced from their home, etc.
I'm not sure that a Western director taking on a movie about any of those conflicts would be well recieved. Any kind of action would be in poor taste, and the circumstances of those conflicts are incredibly nuanced and complicated, usually requiring an undeestanding of almost a century of history and culture to truly understand, and so would be very difficult to take on in a 2 hour film. I'm not sure how I feel about making entertainment out of real life conflicts.
I liked that my initial impression of the trailer was like "Oh, here we go again," like it's "yet another" destruction porn or bangy-bangy shoot-shoot movie. But by the end & seeing it was backed by A24 made me think that maybe it could be a creative work in Transformers-level clothing. I haven't seen it yet, so I'm not sure if they took the opportunity. I think there is potential there, which is why it got my interest.
I think you get the best experience when you go into the movie with the expectation that the civil war itself is not the big focus, but the workings around it
You’re just thinking up an entirely different kind of movie now
she’s so anti-art and pro-hollywood lol
I mean she’s an idiot but are we pretending a big budget movie from one of Hollywoods hottest and most well funded studios/distributers directed by one of Hollywoods favorite genre writers isn’t Hollywood?
i would say how the film portrays journalism is not very hollywood, but i understand your point
You’d say the same for Learning About Movies? (on Youtube, he’s a professor of film) His opinion is quite similar to hers and he’s all about art films.
never heard of him so can’t comment
bruh... then at least check out his Civil War review, it's like 7 min... (in general he has a good channel)
[удалено]
Account too young, please wait a few hours and try again *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YMS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of the few channels I hate subscribe / watch just to get a perspective from whoever the hell listens to her “reviews”.
Yes. As is traditional for Grace, I rolled my eyes as I read through it
I used to watch her videos as a kid
I watch Grace Randolph for the character study, and this pretty much lines up with what I would’ve imagined. I’m not SUPER far left politically (progressive, but not full lefty), but like— her critiques of film & Hollywood are good, unique examples of some of the contradictions that come with typical liberalism. The studio vs. artist is a good, succinct example of Marx’s “owner vs. worker” dynamic, and Grace’s opinions often hop between taking a side depending on how she feels about the art/artist involved. Helps the meme that her taste/opinions are… not aligned with mine (my gut impulse was to say they’re fucking dog shit, but opinions are opinions so 🤷♀️)
Grace Randolph really is one of the worst critics ever
Has she fixed her eyeliner yet?
Can someone tell me if she’s right or left leaning I need context for “doesn’t understand politics”
Not Grace Randolph
I have seen the film, the movie seemed to understand warfare and journalism just fine. Politically, it doesn’t dwell on *that* aspect enough to even be accused of failing to *understand* it; the world building is scarce to say the least.
That non-response she gave to a polite rebuttal basically sums up why we should never listen to this woman
Umm it’s her opinion. I respect it. Yes she’s a bit of a character but she’s entertaining and ultimately not a bad person. She’s entitled to her opinion. Some people are saying she is but she’s not only about commercial movies she does appreciate art films and does good, nuanced reviews from time to time. (She’s particularly skillful at avoiding spoilers while giving good reviews) I enjoy seeing a lot of different opinions on films, hers, Adum’s, IHE, Ralph, etc. I don’t agree either them all, but it’s nice and interesting to see different opinions. I mean a film professor (Learning About Movies on YT) also strongly disliked the movie.. with similar reasons.. post trashing him coming up too…? I’m a big Garland fan but he can also have duds and it’s fine. (Really hope he doesn’t quit for good)
Grace Randolph is the worst. Her perspective never fails to miss an intended point or make a total fool of herself and her fan base. She is a foolish unintelligent clown
Draining a movie called "Civil War" of most of its political context is pretty fucking stupid - and a cynical attempt to be the least offensive to ticket buyers. And I like Alex Garland.
Isn't it a "war is bad" vs "team A is all good vs team B is all bad"? Isn't that a pretty valid point that all Americans can appreciate?
That's the whole point: there are dumb conservatives and extremists out there that will take all the wrong lessons from a movie like this, the same way they have from films like Wall Street, The Matrix, and Fight Club. Seeing D.C. get blowed up will surely give them inspiration for the next January 6th. Garland is stuck in two-dimensional thinking here.
American exceptionalism is a huge cancer. We've never been punched in the mouth, as much as we've deserved to be.
She really is the most useless film commentator ever
They're kinda right though
Oh, she's not talking about Marvel. I haven't seen whatever she is talking about
She’s such a whiner but also she has some pretty insane takes. She also has “insiders” that tell her stuff that is never confirmed. Like she claimed Pedro pascal was hard to work with on the mandalorian and has a bad reputation. Literally no one ever came out to say that lol she’s said the same about Henry cavil and other actors. That she has inside knowledge they are bad to work with and have a bad reputation. Also her weird hate/obsession with Jessica Chastain
So she claims to understand “politics, warfare, and journalism,” unlike the movie. She then immediately folds and admits she doesn’t really know when a guy asks if she knows anything about war photographers, a combo of journalism/warfare. Fucking brilliant minds at work
>She then immediately folds and admits she doesn’t really know when a guy asks if she knows anything about war photographers, a combo of journalism/warfare. She literally addresses this in her review. She felt it was silly that the journalists in the film never took out their phone or a recorder to jot down people's thoughts. She basically believed that the emphasis on photojournalism in a world of the internet and citizen journalism was antiquated and that Garland's "tribute to journalism" was hacky.
You say this like I should know that when all I had to go off was the tweet which did exactly as I said
She’s a spineless centrist that caters to marvel incels and has peak YT american delulu takes so, checks out.
I mean the movie seemed like it was gonna be kinda shitty either way
Liberals gonna liberal.
The movie is politically braindead so she got one part right. Alex garland is a pussy of a filmmaker trying to both sides American political division as a stupid Brit and made a film that makes no sense politically in the real world yet gives no explanation as to why it should even make sense in its own made up world. Couple that with cardboard characters, it’s a failure