Kick-Ass (the movie)

[Adrift]

Dude, I never made the argument the film had a "political subtext," or even attempted one. You're missing the point. But whatever.

I think you either didn't read my post closely enough, or maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I didn't say that you made an argument that the film had a political subtext. In fact, I was saying kind of the opposite.

Let me see if I can break down what I thought you were saying, and what I was replying to.

1.) You believe the creators of Kick-Ass, like much of Hollywood, is left leaning.

2.) Though you believe the creators of Kick-Ass are likely left-leaning, the film they created was largely derivative, the characters had few redeeming characteristics, and was NOT left-leaning, rather it was hypocritically anti-Politically Correct (hypocritically for those who lean left anyways).

A.) I agree with you that much of Hollywood is left leaning.

B.) Even though I agree with you that much of Hollywood is left leaning, not every movie in Hollywood necessarily needs to lean left, or be PC. Sometimes left (or right) leaning artists create fantasy that doesn't align with whatever political/social values they hold. So I see nothing inherently hypocritical about left-leaning movie creators creating films that are, for all intents and purposes, non-PC, and not particularly left-leaning.

Does that clarify things a bit for you?

Pulp Fiction was a dark comedy, as was Kill Bill, both of which I liked for different reasons which I tried, though I guess unsuccessfully, explained.

No, I understood what you meant when you said this the first time, but I find it difficult to compare Tarantino's films to something like Kick-Ass. While I agree that Tarantino's films do contain black humor, I think they sometimes take themselves too seriously. They're dark, but not as dark as say, God Bless America, or Four Lions, or Welcome to the Dollhouse. All films that, in my opinion, are pitch black in a way that Tarantino's films rarely get. Well, maybe Reservoir Dogs gets there. And while I don't think Kick-Ass gets nearly as dark as those films, I guess my point is that it's a different style of dark comedy that some people may just not appreciate. It's a sometimes uncomfortable dark humor. The only reason I bring up the dark comedic element of the film is because that's the only area I can think of that someone might find confusing. If that doesn't apply to you, then disregard.

Anyways, the film belongs in a side-genre of superhero film that asks the question, "What if comic book superheroes were real? What if they lived in the real world?" Other films in this side-genre include Watchmen, Super, Special, Hancock, and maybe, to a degree, Unbreakable and, on a more comedic take, Mystery Men. With that in mind, I think the film asks some interesting questions, and, though it's been a long time since I've seen it, I do remember a character arc where the main protagonist goes from wimp who idolizes the concept of superheroes, decides against all odds, and rationality to become one, struggles through it, finds that it can be accomplished, but in the end sort of outgrows it. It's a typical coming of age story.

[seanD]

I think you either didn't read my post closely enough, or maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I didn't say that you made an argument that the film had a political subtext. In fact, I was saying kind of the opposite.

Let me see if I can break down what I thought you were saying, and what I was replying to.

1.) You believe the creators of Kick-Ass, like much of Hollywood, is left leaning.

2.) Though you believe the creators of Kick-Ass are likely left-leaning, the film they created was largely derivative, the characters had few redeeming characteristics, and was NOT left-leaning, rather it was hypocritically anti-Politically Correct (hypocritically for those who lean left anyways).

A.) I agree with you that much of Hollywood is left leaning.

B.) Even though I agree with you that much of Hollywood is left leaning, not every movie in Hollywood necessarily needs to lean left, or be PC. Sometimes left (or right) leaning artists create fantasy that doesn't align with whatever political/social values they hold. So I see nothing inherently hypocritical about left-leaning movie creators creating films that are, for all intents and purposes, non-PC, and not particularly left-leaning.

Does that clarify things a bit for you?



No, I understood what you meant when you said this the first time, but I find it difficult to compare Tarantino's films to something like Kick-Ass. While I agree that Tarantino's films do contain black humor, I think they sometimes take themselves too seriously. They're dark, but not as dark as say, God Bless America, or Four Lions, or Welcome to the Dollhouse. All films that, in my opinion, are pitch black in a way that Tarantino's films rarely get. Well, maybe Reservoir Dogs gets there. And while I don't think Kick-Ass gets nearly as dark as those films, I guess my point is that it's a different style of dark comedy that some people may just not appreciate. It's a sometimes uncomfortable dark humor. The only reason I bring up the dark comedic element of the film is because that's the only area I can think of that someone might find confusing. If that doesn't apply to you, then disregard.

Anyways, the film belongs in a side-genre of superhero film that asks the question, "What if comic book superheroes were real? What if they lived in the real world?" Other films in this side-genre include Watchmen, Super, Special, Hancock, and maybe, to a degree, Unbreakable and, on a more comedic take, Mystery Men. With that in mind, I think the film asks some interesting questions, and, though it's been a long time since I've seen it, I do remember a character arc where the main protagonist goes from wimp who idolizes the concept of superheroes, decides against all odds, and rationality to become one, struggles through it, finds that it can be accomplished, but in the end sort of outgrows it. It's a typical coming of age story.

Okay, well then I guess I just disagree with you on B. I think it reeks of hypocrisy for the left to push PC tolerance on us in every aspect of our lives all day everyday when they don't have any interest reflecting this in the movies they make (which we all know has at least some influence on society). Sure it's all fantasy, but it's supposed to at least reflect millennial culture to some realistic degree. It wasn't like a Star Wars movie that takes place at a different time in some totally different environment. But I guess that could easily lead into the whole "how much does media influence our society" and how much responsibility should Hollywood have debate. Not sure if I want to even have that debate.

In all honesty, I'm not sure what the message was in the end, and that's the problem. If there was a character arc, I missed it pretty badly. It actually started out with a pretty clear message where he decides, since people look the other way when crime is being committed, to take matters into his own hand and change that. But then it just sort of devolved into selfish motives where he wanted to get the girl by pretending to be gay, and then it just kind of got convoluted from that point. And the idea he was supposed to be a geek was kind of disingenuous too. The kid was tall, reasonably fit and pretty good looking without his glasses. Toby Mcguire who played Peter Parker... now there's a geek turned superhero with a clear character arc that's believable to me. But that's a minor detail. Maybe I'm just thinking about it way too hard. Maybe since I fall into the Generation X category, I'm too old to figure out what the arc or the message was. From what little knowledge I have, Dave apparently never quit the superhero life because he continues training with Hit Girl in the sequel, though I haven't seen the sequel. Maybe the message I lost in the first one was in the sequel?

[Adrift]

Okay, well then I guess I just disagree with you on B. I think it reeks of hypocrisy for the left to push PC tolerance on us in every aspect of our lives all day everyday when they don't have any interest reflecting this in the movies they make (which we all know has at least some influence on society). Sure it's all fantasy, but it's supposed to at least reflect millennial culture to some realistic degree. It wasn't like a Star Wars movie that takes place at a different time in some totally different environment. But I guess that could easily lead into the whole "how much does media influence our society" and how much responsibility should Hollywood have debate. Not sure if I want to even have that debate.

In all honesty, I'm not sure what the message was in the end, and that's the problem. If there was a character arc, I missed it pretty badly. It actually started out with a pretty clear message where he decides, since people look the other way when crime is being committed, to take matters into his own hand and change that. But then it just sort of devolved into selfish motives where he wanted to get the girl by pretending to be gay, and then it just kind of got convoluted from that point. And the idea he was supposed to be a geek was kind of disingenuous too. The kid was tall, reasonably fit and pretty good looking without his glasses. Toby Mcguire who played Peter Parker... now there's a geek turned superhero with a clear character arc that's believable to me. But that's a minor detail. Maybe I'm just thinking about it way too hard. Maybe since I fall into the Generation X category, I'm too old to figure out what the arc or the message was. From what little knowledge I have, Dave apparently never quit the superhero life because he continues training with Hit Girl in the sequel, though I haven't seen the sequel. Maybe the message I lost in the first one was in the sequel?

I think I'm probably at least your age if not older, and I don't think the message was lost on me (I'm 41). So, I'm not sure its a Millennial/Gen X thing. But yes, we definitely disagree about B. I mean, you brought up Tarantino, and how you enjoy his films, and people are always coming against him about the violence in his films, and they attempt to appeal to his, I suppose, liberal sensibilities about how violence may affect people, especially young kids, and he's extremely outspoken about the the division between fantasy and reality, and he sees zero hypocrisy in what he does as an artist who brings fantasy to the screen.

So yeah, there's that.


And yeah, I don't think you'll get anything more out of this film by watching the sequel. It's okay. Not that great. Doesn't really add anything as far as I could tell.

[seanD]

I think I'm probably at least your age if not older, and I don't think the message was lost on me (I'm 41). So, I'm not sure its a Millennial/Gen X thing. But yes, we definitely disagree about B. I mean, you brought up Tarantino, and how you enjoy his films, and people are always coming against him about the violence in his films, and they attempt to appeal to his, I suppose, liberal sensibilities about how violence may affect people, especially young kids, and he's extremely outspoken about the the division between fantasy and reality, and he sees zero hypocrisy in what he does as an artist who brings fantasy to the screen.

So yeah, there's that.


And yeah, I don't think you'll get anything more out of this film by watching the sequel. It's okay. Not that great. Doesn't really add anything as far as I could tell.

The difference with Tarantino is that I wasn't necessarily talking about violence. That type of flak comes mainly from the right. You're confusing the issues. He actually has multi-dimensional minority characters in his roles. They don't just serve as momentary thug props for the story with no character development. The only (fake) PC flak he gets from the left is the fact his characters use the N-word a lot, but that's just how real minorities talk to each other in the streets. It's not the hypocrisy I was speaking of.