Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Early Access: One Battle After Another - Group Reaction+Uncut (Patreon)

Published:
2026-03-14 15:35:43
Imported:
2026-03

Content

Enjoy!!

Uncut: https://thenormies.com/uncutmovies/

Edited reaction is in the thumbnail above!!

Files

One Battle After Another - Group Reaction

BECOME A Normies Premium or No Fomo MEMBER: Get 6 WEEKS AHEAD on most shows (excluding premier shows), exclusive movies and vote on what we watch: https://www.thenormies.com/ SEND US LETTERS/GIFTS: PO Box 785 Fishers, IN 46038 FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: linktr.ee/the_normies

Comments

JB

no idea? huh okay.

Michael Acuna

Definitely in my top five of the year, really hits you as a human being in the modern world. Even if the country is a mess and run by horrible people, at least there's some decent people who try to make things better.

Veya

finally got to the most acclaimed film of the year. it's pretty much this film vs sinners in terms of who's going to take home the oscar. one battle after another already won the other three big film awards and has better critic scores, though sinners has overall more nominations across the board and i think has more broad appeal in general (supported by it's box office vs obaa). part of what made this film overall more acclaimed though is that despite being influenced by and derivative of a number of other works, it still feels wholly unique. it's similar to tarantino films in that regard. the third act, especially compared to the third act of sinners, really stands out in this regard. it's a movie that i think is going to stand out more compared to the other movies of the year once more time goes by, which is probably why it's usually topping the lists.

GrayStark

3 hours of a whole lotta nothing

Ren Davis

This movie is my archenemy. I think it’s vastly overrated with some painfully uninteresting caricatures and gets by on its “important”subject matter. That said, I do think it’s an enjoyable time. The core of it is the father/daughter relationship and watching Leo bumblefuck his way trying to get his daughter back. Sean Penn is a hilarious cartoon and I, like most people, dug the up and down road scene. Not one of my favorites of the year, but it will almost certainly win Best Picture as Paul Thomas Anderson is an industry darling.

Zack Aranda

Still a pretty bad take on the film but I'll give you that it's more reasonable then most of the people who claim to hate it especially from people on the right who lie about it being "leftist propaganda".

SergeTroy

Crap, I’d hoped for something funner than this.

Chaos T

Watching The Normies reaction to OBAA is the first rewatch for me. I'm noticing little kernels of satire in this watch through that I missed in my initial watch through. For example early on in the film, Steven J. Lockjaw is awarded the Bedford-Forrest Medal of Honor. This medal is named after the first leader of the KKK. There aren't a lot of films that manage to skillfully weave high drama and satire cohesively. The praise P.T. Anderson is getting for this film is very warranted. It would be awesome if The Normies went down a PT Anderson rabbit-hole. Magnolia and There Will Be Blood are great films.

Chaos T

I can't unsee Greg Bovino when looking at Steven J. Lockjaw. Everything down to his hair is similar to the character.

Ren Davis

@Zack Aranda Nah. My take is correct. But I’ll give you that you actually are willing to hear me out as opposed to other fans who will just ignore and make strawman arguments completely side stepping my actual reasons for not caring about this film.

GrayStark

Anyone with a brain can tell this is a poorly put together movie. There is a SINGLE good moment. When he fell off the roof, that shit was genius comedy.

Ren Davis

@GrayStark Okay. That shit was hilarious. I balled out laughing when he fell off the roof 🤣

Ren Davis

Rana, you’re probably thinking of Inception. Matthew McConaughey is the lead in Interstellar.

Ren Davis

Someone once described Lockjaw as a parody of Quaritch (Stephen Lang) from Avatar. This is so deadly accurate 😂

Veya

Your take isn't correct and you mentioned strawmans but then didn't actually mention any specifics outside of saying caricature and subject matter. The characters aren't caricatures (outside of maybe the cabal, and even then they're obviously satire as well) and subject matter alone isn't going to get a film acclaim unless it's well crafted, which this film was. And saying PTA is going to win only because he's an industry darling isn't correct. He's had plenty of films that don't win big and certainly nothing on this level of award winning since there will be blood. plenty of his other films in between these two are relatively weaker and as a result don't have the same buzz. this film is widely acclaimed for a reason and i've yet to see any actual reasons for why it shouldn't be except for observations that don't really land on the mark.

Chaos T

Art is subjective. Claiming a take is "right" or "wrong" is a bit silly. I can see why some people didn't like this film. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. However, I disagree with you on the caricature issue you brought up. At its core, this film is satire. The genre is built on over-the-top characters to highlight the ridiculousness of the situation the film/literature is trying to portray. That said, we're living in a time where the characters shown in OBAA aren't that far off from reality. Steven J. Lockjaw is a spitting image of Greg Bovino all the way down to his Nazi haircut and being comically short when pictured (the shoe lifts for Lockjaw was a nice touch). The various Federal Agents and government officials with comically blatant racist views isn't all that different from the numerous Proud Boy ICE agents currently kidnapping people. You didn't like the film and wouldn't find the characters interesting however for many others the characters resonate because of the vileness from extreme power we're experiencing in the US atm. This film and the character hit a bit different when you're part of the demographic that could eventually be labeled for "remigration" (something DHS is pushing for).

Ren Davis

@Veya Nah. My take is correct. If the person who responds to me wants to say my take is “bad” then I am well within my rights to say my take is correct (because it is 😘). It’s quite simple. Saying that the characters are simplistic caricatures has nothing to do with the strawman point. I said other people in other conversations use strawmen arguments when I talk about my points. Not that anyone here did it. I have explained my points in detail in other forums because, in case you didn’t know, this is a popular movie where everyone has been talking about it. And yes, these characters are caricatures. Every one of them is a paper thin construction of tropes designed to evoke particular vibes without any underlying point or message. The prologue is extremely rudimentary praxis at best and insulting racial tropes at worst. It has no idea about wider political activism, but because it takes shot at racist xenophobes in a time plagued by this kind of mindset, people feel that it’s important. That “importance” is why people feel that this is “the most important film of the year. Maybe even the decade.” I have talked to a lot of people who have vocalized this. If this isn’t you, cool. I’m not talking about you. But I have seen this argument and argued against it many times. Saying PTA is going to win is due to him being an industry darling (which is absolutely true) and the buzz around this film. People have regularly talked about him being due an Oscar and this is his time. It’s a similar reason to Denzel Washington winning for Training Day when everyone said he should have already won for Malcolm X. The Oscars 100% work off of politics where they will reward you one if they feel it’s owed and as long as the current nomination is good enough. And yes I agree this film is widely acclaimed. I don’t think it’s widely acclaimed for any good reason beyond its impact.

Ren Davis

@Chaos T I agree art is subjective. So how about pointing this at the person who literally said I had a “bad take.” My statement that my take is correct is in response to that. Personally, I don’t care at all if someone wants to talk about their opinion with an air of fact. Who cares? I learned in elementary school that facts are facts and opinions are opinions and someone thinking their opinion is akin to fact doesn’t suddenly make me feel like I have to agree with them. My “correct take” is just a tongue in cheek way of countering their take. (But seriously my take is absolutely correct and the universe has decreed it 😉) You can say the film is satire. That’s fine. I don’t think it’s particularly good satire as its politics are wonky milquetoast centrism at best and insulting dismissive nonsense at worst. Satire still turns on messaging. It doesn’t get a pass for absurd depictions alone. Those absurd depictions are in service to a wider political statement. I personally judged that statement to be toothless and much ado about nothing. Thus, I didn’t care for it. Now if you like it, that’s fine. It doesn’t bother me. But if someone wants to treat their opinion as fact, I have no problem speaking to them in their language of choice………..because I am right 😏

Veya

preference is subjective but attributes are objective. and in this case nobody was actually saying you're not allowed to like a film. they just find the some of the observations lacking in depth and off-base. these characters aren't thin caricatures. as chaos t put it, some of their over the top characteristics are clearly satirical in nature. and in spite of that, there is still enough realism in the characters (i literally know people like danvers and sergio, danvers especially, is scarily realistic) AND there are still enough uncommon attributes (not completely rare, but not typical) imbued in many of them that goes against what "paper-thin" characterization is. lockjaw is a racist, but not many films actually explore the tension between someone really fetishzing/or even "loving" a person of the race that they're supposed to be hating. some of his reactions and obsession crosses well over a simple fetishization. Pat is a decent exploration of how much being burned out/paranoid and overly reliant on self-medication really takes over your life as well as being a good showcase of how time dulls everything about you (which isn't too common in the this genre, especially to this degree, the dude was a non-factor in the grand scheme of things). Perfidia is a decent showcase of how obsession and motive decay can completely destroy a good cause and how self-interest can muddle ideologies. i'm not going to go through all of them but i suggest reading the actual tvtropes pages for a number of the characters. are they the deepest bench in terms of characterization? no. but paper-thin collection of tropes? not really. and the reason the 'PTA being an industry darling' and that being the MAIN reason for him winning is weak (and this argument is silly for a lot of reasons in general) is because that never caused his other films to win before. why were his other films snubbed? obviously there's politics...but if politics were the main driver, why wouldn't he just win for some of the other entries. you know why? because a lot of them since there will be blood were genuinely weaker. why is it arbitrarily this film that's chosen to be "overrated" and not any of the others. did they flip a coin? i've said it before, this film has more going for it other than impact (plenty of other films have had "impactful current commentary", they aren't as acclaimed). look at the third act. how many films (especially in the current batch of films in the last couple of years) stage climaxes like this? you may be able to find some but it's not common. or the way this film integrates music with the film, not groundbreaking, but much less common. it's a relatively unique film and is well put together.

Veya

and in what way is the film centrist. and not sure how anti-authoritarianism is milquetoast centrism. is this mainly a reaction to them not romanticizing the rebels, judging by your comment that they don't understand wider political activism?

SergeTroy

Is it just me or does this post and thus the film have zero ❤️’s? I mean I hated it and really wish the Normies hadn’t chosen it BUT I would have thought someone would be happy’ish with it.

SergeTroy

I have to ask, because it’s surprised me: I didn’t give it a ❤️ because I had a polar opposite felling to yourself, but why didn’t you? Clearly you liked and respected it. And obviously this question can be applied to others here as well, I just threw a dart into the crowd.

Ren Davis

@Veya That’s fine because I find the defense of this film lacking in-depth and off base simply because the film has elements that make people feel good. Again. I don’t care if people disagree with my opinion. I just find the statement that me thinking my take is correct is some travesty yet thinking my take is bad is totally okay. This isn’t an argument. It’s just not liking my opinion because it doesn’t fit the norm. It’s tribal. That I don’t care for. I already acknowledged that you can say the film is satirical. Didn’t object to that at all. Now, I don’t think that’s an adequate defense because satire turns on incisive political commentary that is sharp and witty. I don’t find that to be the case with OBAA. Some funny scenes with some goofy characters doesn’t change that I think the film is toothless with little merit. It’s watered down centrism masquerading as radical because the time period that it’s currently released in is relevant with the current political zeitgest. Beyond that, I don’t see much value in the film. Personally, I think the film engages in the same fetishization that it claims to criticize in Lockjaw. It never provides an adequate critique and engages in the same depiction that it claims to satirize. I would advise listening and reading black radicals, particularly black female radicals, to get more of a sense of what I’m talking about. Perfidia is a cartoon with no actual real world sense of praxis and no clear sense of resistance depicted to meaningfully challenge the predominant political thought. I would say the strongest bit of activism is Sergio’s network. They actually organize and connect with grassroots power centers designed to survive against abusive power structures. Now that’s a very small part of the movie, and I would argue telling in that the power structure most opposed to those in power is the black one portrayed as cartoonish thrill seekers first and foremost. I think it says a lot that undercuts the movie. The reason why PTA is getting Oscar buzz now is the combination of industry darling, relevant messaging, and OBAA being moderately good enough to warrant the Oscar. Similar to the aforementioned Washington example. Now if you want to talk about the technical aspects of the filmmaking then I would agree. You mentioned the climax and I was thoroughly entertained by it. I think the film is a good time. But to me that’s all it is. It delivers a pleasant experience that is a nice and exciting cat and mouse of two fathers trying to find their daughter. I just don’t personally think it works beyond that. But once again, if you like the movie that’s fine. Don’t care one way or the other. I just find it funny that me saying my take is “correct” causes so much conflict when the comment I was responding to started off literally saying I had a “bad” take. How is the former any more problematic than the latter? Makes no sense.

Veya

ah this new weird pateron feature that lets people know who gave a like for the posts lol. no real reason, i just rarely click on the heart button. i don't really do it for comments either unless it's one i think is really great. it doesn't really reflect whether i like the film or not and it also doesn't really account for if i think the reaction or analysis by the reactors are good or bad though it probably should.

Ren Davis

@Veya It’s centrist because the film has nothing to say about any substantive political action other than crazy right-wingers are bad and crazy left-wingers are also bad. So the solution is just be a bumbling moron who only cares about his daughter and doesn’t really care about politics beyond that. All of its anti-authoritarianism is hollow because it takes cheap shots at the low-hanging fruit. It’s the bare minimum designed to make people feel good, but any deeper analysis shows practically nothing substantial has really been said. It’s just a story about fathers and daughters. That’s the only real message that had any narrative weight by the end.

Veya

i'm just gonna combine the response to both comments in this one: perfidia is supposed to be a praxis with her self-interest and obsession destroying any earnest political convinction. that was the point. the activism and fetishism are on a different axis here. it wanted to show one of the ways activism can degrade and while i have no experience with black radicals, activism in real life HAS degraded in the same manner. i also never said the film's chief criticism is the fetishism. pta himself is married to a mixed race women. the central element of lockjaw's character is the internal boomerang bigotry represented again, by the tension between his fetishization and his extreme hatred. i don't think it would be fair to reduce pta's relationship to fetishization but there is definitely an element of "i love woman of this race", he literally has leo's character say it at the start. but it's also not mutually exclusive with love. all this is to say, you didn't really address how these characters are thin caricatures and fetishism wasn't even the main defense. i don't have experience with black radicals but if we're looking at the film itself, and not as a one to one reflection of real life cultural touchstones of black activism, these characters aren't really thin in terms of general internal struggle and competing desires. it seems like you disliked the flavor and then pressed on to say there's little substance. "It’s centrist because the film has nothing to say about any substantive political action" this seems to scream that people wanted a more documentary-esque pure portrayal of activism as a strong parable rather than what pta wanted the film to be about. it's like criticizing goodfellas or any tarantino film for not being schindler's list in terms of being able to distill the film down to a single lane (and not necessarily more textured) central message. but the film was always meant to be a more thematically sprawling blend and even then, it isn't centrist nor toothless. "other than crazy right-wingers are bad and crazy left-wingers are also bad" it's flat-out criticizing ICE and racism. I'm confused by the take here. it also doesn't portray substantive political action because...have you seen what's happening in our world? It also doesn't say crazy left-wingers are bad, and certainly never portrays them as bad as....the main villains, that is by definition not centrist. it very clearly lands on "the current administration is worse". there also seems to be some projection of perfidia's arc onto the rest of french 75 (compare how she turns vs how other people have turned). outside of her, none of them were portrayed as PRIMARILY thrill seekers even if there were touches of that. the story specifically honed in on HER thrill seeking in contrast with the rest by showing how she went off the rails by shooting somebody and it doesn't really paint the others as not having conviction in what they're fighting for. and also "low hanging fruit"? have you seen the current political climate and the figures involved? like i said, i know people like danvers in real life. schindler's list is also not low hanging fruit for targeting nazis. it seems like part of your criticism is conflating "basic" with "depth". "I just find it funny that me saying my take is “correct” causes so much conflict when the comment I was responding to started off literally saying I had a “bad” take" brother it was never that big a deal and the syntax hasn't been the main point in like five comments.

Chaos T

"It’s centrist because the film has nothing to say about any substantive political action other than crazy right-wingers are bad and crazy left-wingers are also bad" I've heard this criticism from other people and can't agree with it. Beyond the issues Veya brings up, there's an underlying layer of criticism within the film towards the idea of rebellion in moderation and rebellion for rebellion's sake. I found it weird for as much as they "terrorized" the nation, the security guard seemingly is the first person that they killed. All the bombings took place at night. They didn't want to get their hands dirty and I got a sense they were playing at rebellion rather than actually rebelling with a goal in mind. Most successful rebellions have rivers of blood behind it. The US's own revolution, the Haitian Revolution, and the French Revolution are a testament to that. The French 75 were never going to be successful against a force that had a much greater will to succeed than them. The racist, bigots, and christian nationalists all violently believed in their cause; putting down anyone who got in the way. The French 75 didn't have the will to do what was needed to be done to match the Federal Government's ferocity. Even their name betrays them as their named after a canon which represents power yet their actions show them as weak, easily compromised/manipulated, and have no real conviction to follow through with anything. "I already acknowledged that you can say the film is satirical. Didn’t object to that at all. Now, I don’t think that’s an adequate defense because satire turns on incisive political commentary that is sharp and witty." There's a lot more to satire than just commentary; witty or otherwise. Setting and visuals are a major part of satire. "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", probably the best filmed satire, relied heavily on visuals to sell the absurdity of the situation. Kubrick knew he couldn't rely solely on the great script to convey his message. Most great satires do that. In my second watch through of OBAA, I caught more of the satire in the "show not tell" part of the film which made my second viewing more enjoyable than the first.

Ren Davis

@Veya Perfidia is a caricature because her entire conception of revolution is framed around thrill-seeking. It’s the lazy critique of revolution in that revolutionaries just want to enact some childish power fantasy instead of any substantive grassroots organization. Every single frame with Perfidia is a gross oversimplification that is designed to highlight her sexual fascination with violence and doesn’t even begin to touch on the coercive SA scenes that Lockjaw forced Perfidia to partake in. There is never once a counter to this messaging with the somewhat closest example being Regina Hall’s character…………who doesn’t do anything and gets arrested with implications that she probably ends up doing the same thing that Perfidia did in order to save herself. I would agree that Perfidia was a critique on self-interest and obsession betraying the heart of the movement if the movement was in any way viable outside of Perfidia. It wasn’t. Therefore, I truly couldn’t connect with them at all. PTA positions the film as Christmas Adventurers evil white supremacists while French 75 incompetent losers living out a childish fantasy. I did explain why the characters are caricatures. You simply disagreed with it. Those are two different things. My explanation does not hinge on you agreeing with it. It hinges on me making a claim and supporting that claim with textual evidence. This is why I can say I see your line of logic, but I disagree with all of it because I don’t think the film adequately says any of what you’re saying. The film purports to take shots at the fetishization of Perfidia, but I, and many others, would argue that it ends up doing exactly what it criticizes in Lockjaw. Perfidia’s main contribution to the story is her sexuality. It seeps into every facet of her character. Even her revolutionary spirit is largely informed by her sexual attraction to power. This is why she repeatedly asks Pat if he likes black girls after one of their missions. Love of black women is never framed as a holistic subjective experience between two equal people. It’s always framed around the objectifying male gaze, as if Perfidia really doesn’t matter outside of how much she titillates the white men in her life. She’s not a character. She’s a plot device designed to explore the contrasting fetishes of two white men. “this seems to scream that people wanted a more documentary-esque pure portrayal of activism as a strong parable rather than what pta wanted the film to be about.” No. I wanted an actual good movie. What PTA wanted was a fetishized cat and mouse movie about a father trying to find his daughter. I have no idea where you got “documentary-esque portrayal of activism” from. I simply wanted an actual narrative about the stated politics that people have constantly told me are “important.” I found the politics to be wanting. It’s not the revolutionary film people claim it to be. It’s just an exciting cat and mouse thrill ride. Which is fine. “it’s flat out criticizing ICE and racism.” Yeah. I know. That’s the “crazy right-wingers are bad” part. You seemed to have gotten that, so I don’t know why you’re specifically confused. What does the state of our world have to do with the film’s inability to portray substantive political action? It absolutely does say crazy left-wingers are bad because it uses its entire real estate lampooning left-wing activism that is most dedicated to fighting back against the racist power structure that it seems you also agree is a problem. The crazy left-wingers don’t have to be as bad as the crazy right-wingers, but they are by no means portrayed as good. The French 75 aren’t characters. We get passing glimpses of them but they are largely represented by Perfidia. The only ones that matter are Pat who has no conviction, Regina Hall who provides no counter other than pensive looks, Wood Harris’s character who seems turned on by his own interracial relationship, Wood Harris’s girlfriend Mae West who is…………there, and Jungle Pussy who is turned on by power. There is no room to suggest that any of these people are more than glorified thrill-seekers just looking for another fix. It’s low hanging fruit because it takes no effort saying “Trump bad,” “ICE bad” “white supremacists bad.” That’s becoming more and more popular as things further deteriorate. However, it does nothing to meaningfully attack the foundation that underpins the harmful ideas running rampant in society. The ones best positioned in the story to do so are basically a joke. And if by confusing “basic” with “depth” you mean that I find this film to be so utterly basic at best (poorly constructed at worst) that I fail to understand why people love it so dearly then you got me. If me saying my take is correct is not that big of a deal then why did you start out bringing it up as if it mattered. Kinda seems like it mattered to you. I agree it doesn’t matter so we no longer need to talk about objectivity and subjectivity.

Ren Davis

@Chaos T Completely agree that The French 75 was playing at revolution. I don’t have an issue with that in a vacuum. My problem is that there is no meaningful counter argument for actual praxis aside from The French 75. The closest thing is Sergio’s immigrant network. Problem is that is barely in the movie and it has the problem of that network being designed to merely survive white supremacy instead of attacking it. There is no larger movement that provides any meaningful check or balance on the ideas of The Christmas Adventurers. The most directly opposed to them are cartoonish thrill-seekers. So one side of the argument is grossly oversimplified to which, I would argue, undercuts the entire film. I agree that satire has to sell the absurdity of the situation. I have acknowledged how absurd this movie is and those moments are quite funny. But that doesn’t mean that I think it succeeding at the absurd gives it a pass for failing at the politics. Now on a deeper level, it seems that everyone here probably agrees with its politics. I think it’s safe to say that. However, my problem is that I don’t think it handles its politics in a thought-provoking or engaging way at all. I think it’s middling at best and offensive at worst. It didn’t work for me beyond the more superficial absurd humor and entertaining mechanics of the plot. Like if I turn my critical brain off, this film is quite fun. But once I turn it back on, I am just left wanting a LOT more. Better than Licorice Pizza and Inherent Vice though. Fuck those movies.

Veya

"I would agree that Perfidia was a critique on self-interest and obsession betraying the heart of the movement if the movement was in any way viable outside of Perfidia...Perfidia’s main contribution to the story is her sexuality. the biggest and easiest evidence against this is her letter to willa at the end of the film. it's not supposed to be viable outside of perfidia. that was the point of comparison with some of the films brought up that are thematic blends that have different parts of the films be representative of different thematic elements of the same whole (no country of old men is a good example of this). perfidia is one example of a movement decaying, just as bob is another example of it. obsession and complacency both are different aspects of rot that contributes to the movement's downfall. perfidia's final letter to willa is as clear of a showcase that the main thrust of her character is her selfishness, not sexuality. Again, it's a matter of disliking the flavor (sexuality as an attribute of the character) and dismissing the entire dish as substance-less. her selfishness was the core of her character, not her sexuality. "What does the state of our world have to do with the film’s inability to portray substantive political action?" by reflecting how ineffective many substantive political actions are? can you list me many real life activism that have effectively quelled any recent political actions of the current government? " The crazy left-wingers don’t have to be as bad as the crazy right-wingers, but they are by no means portrayed as good. " they are portrayed as good. they're just portrayed as more ineffective than the colder and harsher antagonists who as chaos t have said, are operating on a different level of ruthlessness and ultimate conviction. "I have no idea where you got “documentary-esque portrayal of activism” from." because you keep bringing up that the black activists were cartoonish and not adequately portrayed, when again, it's obvious they aren't just thin caricatures when we go by general characteristics. and sure you can agree or disagree with the various lines of logic presented. we can say it's subjective but ultimately there are some things that are obviously more sensible vs less sensible when it comes to analyzing media. somebody can say a holocaust film is thematically about third wave feminism and the harms of social media rather than the horrors of genocide. sure people can hide behind the subjectivity of art but there is a certain point where that becomes silly, especially when we're talking about something more structured rather than art that's meant to be more abstract. "If me saying my take is correct is not that big of a deal then why did you start out bringing it up as if it mattered. " because it was one aspect of your comment that was slightly annoying, but it should be plenty obvious that it ultimately wasn't the focus of the critique, judging by the fact that the bulk of the comments were about the caricature point and the thematic content. you're the one that brought it back up when there's been multiple comments at that point not really mentioning it. there's a lot more to refute in terms of the other things you wrote but there's already been a lot of long comments. we can just agree to disagree.

Stanley Etienne

I am so disappointed to know that Sinners might lose best picture because of this overrated piece of garbage film.

Ren Davis

@Veya I think the difference is that you’re content with the film’s basic statements in addressing the problem whereas my problem is that the conclusion to its argument is poorly defined at best and practically non-existent at worst. It’s not building a case for anything really at all. I would argue that the film just presents vibes based nonsense in lieu of actually understanding any of what it claims to be criticizing. It has no meaningful understanding of power dynamics and doesn’t catch the clear undertones of fetishization present in the movie. It’s shallow activism masquerading as something important in order to ride the zeitgeist. Sure, you can argue it means well, but none of its arguments hold up to scrutiny and quickly fall apart. The movie feels important. That’s its bread and butter. So instead of doing the hard work of understanding the crux of power dynamics, it simply decides to rest on the laurels of feeling like it has something to say. But yes, we can agree to disagree.

Ren Davis

I think Sinners struggles with its climax, but pound for pound, it delivers a much weightier, impactful narrative about colonization and the power of culture that it easily transcends any of what OBAA has to offer. I think people miss how great Sinners is because of its genre leanings. Ah well. To each their own. It wouldn’t be the first time that I disagreed with the Oscars and it CERTAINLY won’t be the last 😂

Veya

sinners is just more generic, predictable, and carries more basic themes. genre leanings didn't stop films like everything everywhere all at once from winning (and frankly tar probably deserved the win that year). it's usually a cop-out defense. And even eeaao had more off beat elements and unpredictability that adds a flair of uniqueness to the film. sinners is a crowd-pleaser that is on the edge of being a top notch film. it can still win since it has a lot of last minute momentum but i'm not at all surprised about its critical acclaim being worse.

Ren Davis

@Veya This is a bad take because Everything Everywhere All At Once is an exception and was controversial in Oscar circles because of its genre leanings. This is like saying fantasy films don’t have a bias because Lord of the Rings won 11 Oscars. Genre films do have a harder time. Literally anyone who follows the Academy understands this. Sinners having bigger genre leanings does affect its chances. It’s not an automatic deal breaker, but it’s true. And Sinners by no means has basic themes. Certainly no more basic than OBAA “ICE bad” takes 😂

Veya

you've missed my point. it's not that genre films don't have a harder time. it's that truly remarkable films can overpower the bias against genre films, especially as decades go by. eeaao is not on the level of lord of the rings in terms of remarkable filmmaking, but as i said above, it's more unique and has more character than sinners. also, you should know the voting demo of the academy HAS shifted over time and a number of the more meaningful discourse was surrounding that idea rather than old stooges repeating trite arguments over the merits of genre films. the themes in sinners, of colonization and power of culture ARE relatively more basic than what obaa explores (i mean isn't black panther a ryan coogler film as well?), especially if we filter it through the structure of the film. first act was very basic setup. second act was the true unique and remarkable section of the film. the third act was one degree away from a marvel climax (and completely saved by the wonderful stinger). and saying obaa's take is merely "ice is bad" despite the long discussions we already had about the different ways it explores how activism can degrade as well a number of other themes is ...a choice. i'm not surprised you're not budging on it but it's telling when you couldn't even refute some of the more basic points like how perfidia's main function isn't sexuality but selfishness and obsession, especially given that the letter at the end of the film was the intentional closing moment for the character. but whatever, you do you.

Ren Davis

@Veya I did “refute” your points. To be frank, I found all of your arguments to be quite trite and not all that interesting on any deeper level than “I know people like this in real life” and “well the film said it was about this therefore it was.” There’s just not that much depth in any of those takes. If we want to flip your argument, I could easily argue that the extensive detail that I had in breaking down why OBAA doesn’t work wasn’t refuted by you at all and that’s telling because you’re married to the simplistic vibes that the movie offered because it made you feel good. I didn’t do that because there is no need to tear down why you disagreed with me. If you seriously think a simple letter at the very end of the movie refutes the multiple scenes that frame Perfidia in a cartoonish, fetishized way that’s your prerogative. But I, and many others, find that to be a quite lazy refutation that isn’t really worth all that much thought to begin with. And Sinners is way more complex than OBAA in its depiction of colonialism, idea of whiteness, religion, cultural genocide, and freedom from racial supremacy by taking ownership of your identity even in the face of death. All of that is doled out in a much more comprehensive way than OBAA which is just a simple father/daughter cat and mouse story with some revolutionary aesthetic. Again, I actually enjoyed our conversation so we can end on a good note. However, you seem to conflate disagreement with misunderstanding. It’s not that I couldn’t understand or refute your arguments about OBAA. It’s that I found them to be quite lacking and didn’t engage any critical thinking at all. It’s fine if you disagreed with my counter arguments. But you were probably never going to budge on that yourself. Also Sinners blows Black Panther out of the water. It’s not even a fair comparison. The fact that you put them in the same ballpark is indicative of how much you missed the mark on Sinners.

Veya

Okay look, i actually respect your efforts, i'll give a final push and give really honest thoughts (that you'll likely find rude but feel free to just turn it back on me). i think if you don't think the letter drives home the fact that the main thrust of the character was not her sexuality when that was a big part of your writing off of the character's depth (remember this whole thread started with the idea of cartoonish caricatures and in your own words: "perfidia’s MAIN contribution to the story is her sexuality."), then it really speaks to the idea of heavy bias clouding media literacy. I don't mean this in an inflammatory way. sexuality would have factored in the endgame of the character if that was the case. “I know people like this in real life” knowing people like this in real life is a direct counter to the idea of cartoonish caricatures and when talking about real life examples, a certain level of depth in the comparison is assumed. “well the film said it was about this therefore it was.” i'm sorry but pointing out a film is about slavery when it's clearly about slavery is just a fundamental part of media literacy. your points are mainly ignoring but not really refuting the logic put forth and then going "well no, the film is actually about this". i'm not conflating disagreement with misunderstanding. for instance we can disagree on whether the film is fun or if leo's character rocks the facial hair. that's a different type of disagreement than stuff that just makes me question if one remembers important details of the film or if they're tunneling too much on certain elements that it muddles everything else, to the point that even the director/writers would question what was being watched. anyways feel free to disagree with this. i think enough has been said on the film.

Ren Davis

@Veya I’ll try one more time to clarify what I mean. It’s quite astonishing it has to go on this long, but sometimes conversations be like that. The reason why the letter refutes nothing is because you are essentially using PTA’s words to refute his stated actions. If I have a film where I repeatedly show someone constantly berating their spouse, refusing to listen their spouse’s concerns, and emotionally manipulating said spouse to the point where someone comes away thinking “wow this is a very abusive person” then some random ass letter at the very tail end of the movie says “I never meant to hurt anyone. I was just raised to believe that tough love was the best kind of love” it would not be reasonable to expect those last few seconds to overwrite everything else we saw with that character. That’s essentially how I read your take about the letter. The constant depiction of Perfidia equating revolution with power fantasy and sex, and that depiction showcasing fetishization is not refuted by some random letter. Especially when her fundamental connection to both Pat and Lockjaw is the sexual allure of black women. Nothing deeper than that. Now if you don’t see that then that’s fine. But don’t act like I didn’t explain in detail why the film didn’t work for me. At that point I have to say that your heavy bias is clouding your ability to understand dissenting opinions about OBAA. I would argue sexuality did factor into the endgame of the character because one of her last words before she exits the plot is writing “This pussy don’t pop for you” which caps off an entire coercive sexual relationship that only happened because Lockjaw fetishized her and this contrasts Pat’s relationship with her that is also fetishized. These sexual relationships frame the entire plot. So yes, I can comfortably argue that Perfidia’s main contribution to the film is her sexuality. Even her revolutionary action is framed through the lens of sex as we see it literally turns her on. No, you randomly knowing people in real life that happen to be similar to the characters in the film does not make them less of a caricature. I find it telling that you have to rely on random real life people you claim to know before using actual textual evidence from the film. If the claim is that the characters are thinly veiled caricatures primarily constructed to exude vibes that people like that doesn’t suddenly go away if I hear “well I met a dude that was like that one time.” I don’t care. That has nothing to do with how the narrative constructs and frames the characters. It’s just extra information that makes me think “good for you.” Pointing out a film is about slavery when it’s about slavery is the simplest text of the plot. I don’t need an analysis about that. If I’m arguing that the themes of the film don’t work because the subtext chafes against the text then saying “but the text said it though” means nothing. Of course the text will defend itself. My problem is that the subtext, the beating heart of the film’s message is poorly constructed and doesn’t say much of anything. Hopefully that clears things up. If not oh well 🤷🏾‍♂️

Veya

looks like the better film won best picture. "The reason why the letter refutes nothing is because you are essentially using PTA’s words to refute his stated actions." stated actions like having her biggest moments in the story be her ratting on her associates and leaving pat with a baby to raise alone? your first paragraph with the abuse analogy just doesn't make sense because you're treating it like it's either sexuality OR selfishness when i never said they were mutually exclusive. i said the selfishness was the primary driver of the character and the sexuality is the flavoring. did not say the letter would refute that sexuality is part of her character lol, just reinforce that pta's main point with her is her selfishness. "No, you randomly knowing people in real life that happen to be similar to the characters in the film does not make them less of a caricature." yes, it does. especially with the common connotations associated the term in media and literature. i skimmed through the rest of your points and it seems they're just arguments for the sake of arguments. so yeah, it was pretty clear before that this was going in circles, but now it's REALLY clear.

Ren Davis

@Veya For someone who seems to want to stop, you seem incapable of stopping 😂 Yes, the vast majority of film fans have called OBAA winning Best Picture. This is literally what everyone has said for months because we all saw the momentum. I literally said multiple times this would happen and called nearly all of the wins because it’s really that obvious. Why you feel that this is some important news is beyond me 🤣 And this idea that the “better” film wins is nonsense. The film that a majority of Academy voters want to win, for whatever reason, wins. Case in point, Crash winning over Brokeback Mountain even though almost no film fan thinks Crash is a good movie and was just the easiest film for the Oscars to paint themselves as progressive. Everyone says Brokeback Mountain is leagues better. Yet Crash won. That’s how it works a lot of the time. Denzel Washington not winning for Malcolm X for example. Jamie Lee Curtis winning for Everything Everywhere All At Once as a recent example even though she probably had the most who gives a shit role in the movie. It happens. My abuse point does work because you can (and real life people have) easily paint abuse as just one facet of a person that believes in tough love. If you show anyone those scenes they would easily see that person as simply abusive regardless of what the narrative says. It’s the same thing with Perfidia. I literally do not care one iota if you said they are or are not mutually exclusive. My argument is that her main contribution is her sexuality. Your argument is that it isn’t. So what does it matter if you think they aren’t mutually exclusive? We clearly disagree on her main contribution to the narrative, so that’s all that matters. So yes, Perfidia is little more than a fetishized sex object and the fact that you use a 12 second latter at the very end of the movie after perception of her is already set reads to me as grasping at straws. It’s funny you say my points are arguments for the sake of arguments because you literally offered no new arguments after saying you were done, played defense the entire time, and then didn’t even bother to read the rest. And all of that after starting with the most basic, easily predictable Oscars take that even Stevie Wonder could see. If that’s all you had to offer, you could have simply not. I’m left to conclude that it must really bother you that I don’t think OBAA is all that good. There’s no other reason to continue to belabor the same points and offer no new information after stating that we can agree to disagree. The movie isn’t that good. It’s okay if you like it. The world spins on.

Veya

i only commented again last night because the film won best picture and wanted to engage in some playful gloating and only saw this reply because i got a notification for another comment in this thread an hour ago. i'm not going to bother fully addressing this one because it’s clear you’re not really engaging with the points i’m bringing up and you’re arguing just to argue. case in point: i say: "stated actions like having her biggest moments in the story be her ratting on her associates and leaving pat with a baby to raise alone?" and you go: "my argument is that her main contribution is her sexuality. your argument is that it isn’t. " "offer no new information after stating that we can agree to disagree. " lol you're not even reading. we're done here.

Ren Davis

@Veya Ah. Sorry for misunderstanding your playful gloating. My bad for being dumb 😅 I did read your comment. You just didn’t write anything interesting beyond the very basic plot and never offered insight beyond that. Not really much to go on there. But yes we can agree to disagree.

T.Benz

Crazy how many haters coming out to comment on this awesome movie