4 posts tagged “the goggles they do nothing”

Am I an asshole if I say this is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen?  At the very least it wins the award for Most Disturbing.

The thing I can't get past is that these are CHILDREN.  Kids look to adults for guidance and approval, and a lot of them don't have the ability when they're young to think critically and question the world around them.  To see these little kids - one only 9 years old - happily declare that they are excited to be warriors in "God's Army" and that they're not afraid to die because of indoctrination fed to them by a zealot?  That is fucked up, full stop.  That wasn't even the youngest child there at the camp.

It honestly terrifies me that Becky Fischer, the Evangelical most prominent in the film, actively seeks out children and cites them as being "useful tools" in this crusade she has going on in her head against people who follow Islam.  It's horrible that certain sects of Islam are teaching their children how to become suicide bombers, nobody will argue that.  But that does not make it appropriate (or sane) for you to convince little kids you have scared half to death to "lay down their lives for the Gospel" to somehow show Islam that you're morally superior.  And then to wrap all of this hate and ignorance up in the name of Jesus Christ?  I'm not even a Christian and I find that offensive on every level possible.

I realize that the "blame" (can you blame somebody for teaching their child their own beliefs?) ultimately lies with their parents for hooking these kids up with people like Fischer.  I understand that a lot of people want to raise their children to share their beliefs.  It's just so sad and disturbing to me that these people are so wound up and paranoid that they think this brand of faith - where propaganda and a distinct hive-mind mentality rule - is okay, even lauded.  The vast majority of humanity has progressed so that people of all faiths can live together in relative harmony.  Why are they so hell-bent on dragging us back into the Dark Ages?

In bullet form, because I am lazy today:

• Much funnier than I expected
  
• I was a bit surprised by how...tolerant, I guess, the people at the Southern dinner party were
  
• I thought it was pretty funny that the one feminist that seemed to catch on to the Borat gimmick was the elderly lady - a lot of the time older people are kind of uppity and don't like being "duped" (e.g.: the rodeo guy)
• There is not enough alcohol in the world to erase some of this movie from my brain, and I really wish there was (though oddly enough it was much less horrifying than Kids)
• Alan Keyes's appearance was really unexpected and made 5000% funnier in light of all the nonsense he spouted when he ran for Congress here in 2004
  
• I am amazed that Sacha Baron Cohen was able to stay in character the whole time
• The biting social commentary is ultimately worth all of the horrifingly awkward and cringeworthy moments.  The church and fratboy scenes were scary, no doubt.  But I thought the most important scene in the entire movie was the rodeo one.  The fact that his ridiculous statements had to go as far as implying nuclear holocaust before he got any kind of reaction besides approval was very telling of the mindset of a small but very powerful segment of the population.
• The funniest scene for me was actually a deleted scene.  Borat telling the doctor about his retarded brother's lobotomy really hit my comedy funny bone.  I think it might have had something to do with the completely random inclusion of a woman's tooth in the procedure.
  

I have a strange fascination with David Lynch.  I've seen a couple of his movies now and half of Twin Peaks (don't spoil me!), and even though I don't particularly like or dislike his films (or know what the hell is going on half the time) I am compelled to continue watching them.

I think part of the allure is I feel like there's some point he's trying to make, but I just haven't figured out how his fucked up head works yet so until I do, his movies are going to leave me confused.  That if I see enough of his work suddenly something will finally click and everything will be revealed.  Part of me is concerned that he's being weird just to be weird and that I'm being conned into thinking that there's brilliance beneath the surface.  I'm cynical.  But so many people love him, so there has to be something deeper there, right?

That said, Blue Velvet was surprisingly straightforward as far as plot is concerned.  You have to keep in mind that the other movie of Lynch's that I've seen is Mulholland Dr., so I wasn't really expecting things to make sense.  That's not to say that there was't a plethora of WTF moments, like everything that came out of Frank's mouth and, basically, every scene Frank was involved in.  There are many parts of the movie that still make little sense to me, but I was able to follow the main plot easily.  Huzzah for me!

What sort of annoyed me though is we're never told why Frank does these things to Dorothy or why he's involved with the man in the yellow jacket.  Mysteries are fun, but if there's no explanation as to why a character has done X, Y or Z, then it's ultimately a waste of time.  I've read that the original edit was four (!) hours long, so perhaps some of the exposition I want was left on the cutting room floor.  I can't help but wonder if more of the cuts could have been left in the story if the scenes - dialog in particular - were tighter editing-wise (who talks like that in real life?!), but that's neither here nor there, as it seems to be a quirk in Lynch's style of directing.

I can't say I enjoyed Blue Velvet, but I didn't actively hate it while I watched it, either (I'm looking at you, Kids!).