I didn't really like it. I don't think it functioned well as a movie, and a lot of the satire was kind of boring and masturbatory. I dunno, maybe it was more fresh in the 70s.

>>63783796
Nothing
I hated this movie too.
It seems like cool scenes the screen writer thought of during his time in the shitter that has been attached together. There is no main plot, no main message, it's trying to tell too many stories at once that doesn't relate.
I think edgy teens who listen to the monologue were the only fans of the movie because "it expressed what I was thinking in word form and stuff!!"
I see nothing great about this movie.

>>63783827
This shit won awards in its day, I can't quite work it out. must have been so "brave" to say this sort of stuff back then. But that only makes it sort of historically significant now.

>>63783796
One of the best movies ever

>>63783975
You say that without saying why

>>63783975
for the acting yeah?

all the venerating and exalting of the main woman seems cheapish when you give her the big unorthodox but ultimately successful prediction to go up against other bumbling buffoons for 90 mintues.

>>63783924
I think the main message is feminist and anti-capitalist while also being a bit meta on the film/TV critique. Must have seemed like a good reason to have a movie at the time, it is hard to critique it for the acting or ending though.

>arabs are the bad guys who're going to own all american corporation if you goyim don't wake up

I thought it was going to be a redpill movie.

Just off hand, a few things stated by this movie that are relevant to this day
>creation of social movements for profit
>media being the sole source of life experience for people
>every line of beal's monologues is relevant today (often more than it was then) if the word "television" is replaced with "internet."

I'd have to watch it again to get more. But the movie is basically a roadmap of society when mass media is controlled by profit seeking entities.

>>63784703
The second point was probably the better part of the social commentary, even if it wasn't executed very well (imo the whole relationship subplot just didn't carry)

>>63784703
but that is about 6 minutes of dialogue, and really if you are so attached to a non-interactive medium (or one that controls you with self-censorship) you are destined to never create your own opinions anyway and so what ever they are, they can be drowned out with say, I dunno, two hours of feminist tripe.

>>63784861
You seem to be missing how beal's description of television applies to the internet better than it does television.

Furthermore, confusing a story of how an empowered feminist would be the last person anyone would want to be involved with with pro-feminism. Somehow.

>>63784985
Only because that relationship/woman is most of the movie. If it was side plot, fine, I'd leave it alone, it really is asking for it being a central point though.

I don't think the critique applies to the net as much as the one direction of broadcasting, there is interaction on the internet, we can participate, vote and like or create-a-new for way more things ever thought imaginable and in parallel too. That extra choice for social interaction is the difference, before though we were powerless, the best we could do was complain about the foul language or keep watching.

>>63785261
Broadcast television could only push a limited number of simple narratives, tailored to have as much mass appeal as possible. The internet can validate any narrative. So the line about "we'll tell you anything you want to hear" is more relevant to the internet than it was to television. So instead of culture being controlled by a small group of entities through a small number of avenues, culture is controlled by an even smaller group of entities through one avenue, that gives the illusion it is a limitless number of avenues.

Then your "interactivity" on the internet amounts to sticking your head out the window and yelling. It amounts to nothing, because it can't amount to anything, but it makes you feel better, even though it's lulling you into a dull complacency by neutralizing any motivation you may have to actually do something by giving you the illusion you've done something.

But hey, if you want to ignore all of that to whine about faye dunaway having too much screen time, even though shes a representation of the mindless, self-absorbed, damaged people corporate controlled culture produces, more power to ya.

>>63785644
Only women want to be validated mate, and they should be ignored as they are only ever out of unison with each other to appear uniquely valuable for men. I agree with the "what you wanna hear/safe space" line and that opinions generally count for bunk, (or as Pascal says: might is king and opinion can only ever be its queen) that is until they don't.

That yelling may start as repeating an instruction as a claim to status (god is great) and die out for some, but I've found that we generally dismiss the people who tell us what we want to hear after a very short time as flatterers with their own agenda. And we quickly move to the next significant thing in proportion to the anxiety of not being able to say the first thing aloud caused... i.e. we'll have to see if this interaction thing takes off and if people get a hell of a lot smarter or it becomes a complacency thing.