Most Intellectually Insulting Films

5. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - Because Nazis are so bad and so evil that only the magic monkey in the sky can beat them. This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't EXACTLY HOW THE FIRST MOVIE IN THE SERIES ENDED.

4. IZO - For trying to palm off 2 hours of unremitting crappy swordfights as a Nietzschean philosophical journey.

3. Starship Troopers - For teaching me that in the future, the Marines will have co-ed showers. And 'science' will be primarily concerned with sodomizing bugs.

2. Schindler's List - For being one of the most simplistic, moralizing, propagandistic films in modern history. And for one of the most pandering scenes in film history, the Graveside Hokum ending.

1. Saving Private Ryan - For assuming that Americans won't know who to pull for if you don't have the only German character in the film turn out to be a lying, sadistic psychopath. And they sure as hell won't know what happened to Tom Hanks if you don't close the film with Graveside Hokum, Pt. II.

Actually I kinda get what you are saying, but not really. I mean to complain about Starship Troopers in terms of intellectual quirks is kinda like complaining about your popcorn being too salty.


Not disagreeing with what you are saying in general, but specifically I think in all the films you mentioned the directors knew what they were doing when they "insulted" you.

Just my 2 cents (That means two pennies for those who do not understand)

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Oh, I absolutely think they knew what they were doing, which is what makes those films insulting in the first place.

Hmm, I'm guessing most of the generic Hollywood family movies/comedies/dramas that get churned out year after year. It would be hard to name just one.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

"The magic monkey in the sky?" Grow up and stop baiting people every time you state your opinion.

Ummm, how exactly is Schindler's List propaganda? If nobody saw it would we somehow like the Nazis more? and it's hardly simplistic. Schindler isn't portrayed as a totally heroic type, he's really exploiting the prisoners, making a profit while he's saving them, and even Ralph Fiennes' character is a study in shades of gray, he's a sadistic murderer, but he also tries to save the jewish girl he's in love with and hide her from the camps...You're just being "provocative" once again. It's okay not to like the film, but be prepared to back up your arguments.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

I'm not baiting anyone, just depicting 'god' as he appears in the Indiana Jones films (where god is always silent until he shows up at the end to work some sort of killer magic trick on the villains).

In a world where the Arab-Israeli conflict remains perhaps the fulcrum on which geopolitics swings, how can any film portraying Jews as perfect, sainted victims be anything BUT propaganda?

The film's Jewish characters are almost invariably one-dimensional suffering saints, and Germans, with the exception of Schindler, almost never display a shred of humanity except when it suits their own self-interest.

Okay, the Arab-Israeli conflict did not exist at the time that the film portrays. If the film were about that conflict and it portrayed Israelis as saints, then yes, it would be propaganda. As it is, it's a film about the Holocaust, where a lot of innocent people (who were Europeans, not israelis, since Israel did not exist then) lost their lives. By your reasoning, they should be portrayed as bad because of things their children and grandchildren and so on down the line have done? Does this make sense? Should every Jewish person world wide be held accountable for the actions of the Israelis? Certainly not.

Munich, by the same director, is about that situation, and is probably a film you should watch.

Israel is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF THE HOLOCAUST, you can't seperate the existence of Israel from Western reactions to the Holocaust, and any film designed to reinforce the image of Jews as perfect, sinless victims is inherently propagandistic.

Nice job, Monkeypunch!

Purandara, I'm sorry, but your logic is pretty poor. Everything you said about "Schindler's List" as a propaganda film makes no sense whatsoever. I understand how the Germans are portrayed as completely evil but you have to look at how the Jews portrayed them. The Jews portrayed the Germans as evil, so Spielberg portrays them as the Jews did. And, like Monkeypunch said, the Arab-Israeli conflict was non-existent at the time.

Spielberg had to have known that the Israelis aren't perfect saints when he made the film, but how could he portray them otherwise if at the time, the Israelis didn't exist and did not have a bad reputation.

__________________
"All the confusion of my life... has been a reflection of myself! Myself as I am, not as I'd like to be." - Guido, 8 1/2

I don't see this as relevant. Spielberg didn't have to portray them as they were portrayed by Jews, he had the option of creating a nuanced portrayal of both Germans and Jews, and he instead chose to portray emotional caricatures, which is a classic example of the propagandist's 'art.'

I understand. I agree, I didn't like how he portrayed the Germans as completely evil, and many other World War II films do the same.

But honestly, give me a break. I don't think Spielberg tried making "Schindler's List" with the intent of purposely making a propanganda film/tool.

I don't think Spielberg ever consciously sets out to do much of anything except tell stories in broad strokes that will appeal to large audiences. Propaganda is a side effect rather than an intended outcome.

If you are right, then your main reason for Schindler's List place on your countdown is skewed.

Spielberg was creating a propoganda piece, and he accomplished it brilliantly. It is not the responsibility of a filmaker (or any other artist) to portray a situation through an unbiased lens. Holding a mirror to nature will only create lifeless, unopionionated, bland movies. You are assuming because Schindler's is biased, it is not intellectual. Would you say the same thing of The Inferno? Dante was trying to inspire change in the Catholic Church, and showing only the bad parts of the Church allowed for this. Did Stowe owe an unbiased portrayal of slaveholders? Of course not. So why does Spielberg owe the same to the Nazis.

The Germans of the movie were all portrayed as devils, but this was done with a purposeful hand.

The ending was pretty crappy though.

Welcome to Mofo.
Please, post often.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

He accomplished it, but brilliantly? No. Spielberg doesn't have a brilliant bone in his body, and Schindler's List is like most of his better work, a technically excellent (though lacking in any real style or flair) presentation of a simplistic morality tale.

What I find insulting is not so much the propaganda itself as the heavy-handed way in which it is executed. Triumph of the Will is pure propaganda, and makes no pretense of being anything else. Yet its execution is often incredibly subtle. You know you're being manipulated, but you can't see the wires.

Schindler's List, on the other hand, is about as subtle as a campaign commercial. It's like Spielberg can't even credit his audience with being smart enough to know that the Holocaust was a Very Bad Thing without portraying every Jew as a holy martyr and every German as an unmitigated monster.

Other films have handled similar subject matter with similar intent, but without the condscending simplicity. Night and Fog is, if anything, more openly propagandistic in its expression, but it isn't an insult to the viewer. It is Triumph of the Will inverted. Schindler's List is the mirror image of The Eternal Jew.

You thought Triumph of the Will was subtle? Hitler falls from the sky like a god. That's about as subtle as rotten milk on a summer's day.

Is your problem the "Hollywood"-esque spin he puts on his films? I need to know that before we can continue this discussion.

Just a quick observation? You seem to really want someone to show a symapthetic portrayal of Nazis in film, and you think Triumph of the Will, which is insanely over the top at points, is subtle...

Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Nazi Party? I'm not being sarcastic or making a joke, and I don't think I'm the only person thinking this by now...

It's a hell of a lot more subtle than a world where there are only two kinds of people: horrible monsters and sinless victims.

But I was thinking more of the juxtaposition of incongruous elements to create a Hitler-as-unifier motif (it would make more logical sense group the film's rally sequences chronologically or thematically, but Riefenstahl does neither, and the psychological impact is greater for this editing decision). It's the sort of subtlety totally lacking in Schindler's List.

That depends on what you mean by Hollywood-esqe. Spielberg's films often rely on a terribly pared down moral dualism that panders to the prejudices of the public, and I find that almost inherently insulting.

No. I just hate the patented Spielberg moralism, and since Nazis have been the villains in about half of his movies...

I can't agree more