WANTED

[Grant]

Has this movie been approved/sanctioned by Leonard Peikoff? Does it have the full official backing of the Ayn Rand Institute? Has it been/will it be screened for everyone there? I never go in for stuff otherwise.

So, I see the movie WANTED got a bad rep on the front page of Objectivism Online, courtesy of Greg Perkins from NoodleFood.

The review:

We went to see the new Angelina Jolie flick, Wanted, the other night. Having watched the trailers, and noting that 75% or so of 150+ reviews were coming out positive, our expectation was of basically mindless summer action in a slick package.

We got all that: the production values were excellent, and the acting was just fine -- most of all, the action sequences were extremely stylish and fantastically unrealistic, though a bit over the top on gore at times. All of this is what you would expect. It's the "message" that is so horrid.

*** MILD SPOLIAGE ALERT ***

The movie started out pretty quirky and random, and I was fine with cutting it slack even while Tammy was alternately squirming with boredom and revulsion at gory stuff as we waited for things to unfold. Soon enough, we got to see the main protagonist -- someone we are supposed like -- struggle briefly with and then accept the idea of killing innocent people on nothing more than blind faith in a mysterious, unseen and unfathomable authority saying they must be killed now to prevent never-specified future harms. Yes, the movie presents the issue that clearly, and then basically endorses the cold-blooded murder of innocents on faith. Our jaws dropped.

Oh, but it gets worse. Even after the danger of such blind faith and obedience was demonstrated to be problematic in the course of the plot, a second important character who we are to sympathize with and enjoy the action of goes and deliberately acts on such faith in the face of that demonstration -- and in a gigantically self-sacrificial manner! Our eyes boggled.

As if all that isn't horrid enough to be whacked in the face with, the movie underscores it by closing with a direct challenge addressed to the audience, along the lines of "see how I took splendid control of my life -- well, what have you done lately?"

We stood up and shuffled out, numb at the Columbine-level insanity of it's message... and of so many people thinking it is just fine, if not great.

Having just seen this movie for the 2nd time - and loved it just as much this time round - I must disagree with Mr. Perkins.

While certain points of his are valid, for the most part, he seems to have missed the point of the movie.

It is difficult to point out his flaws without giving too much of the movie away.

The movie in no way endorses murdering innocents on faith. In fact, quite the opposite. This is why, in the end, when the system (of faith) is shown to be flawed, Jolie decides to murder everyone in the group (as well as herself) for their horrific crimes.

I'm not sure which character he's referring to who was self-sacrificial? Is he referring to Jolie going after Wesley (who was going after Cross)? If so, she did it because it was her job (and purpose) and she was willing to risk her life for it.

Beyond the unrealistic physics, I truly enjoyed this movie.

I never realised before how amazingly sexy Angelina Jolie really is. She oozes confidence, strength, sex-appeal and feminity. I look forward to her playing Dagny (if it ever materializes).

Freeman and McAvoy were great too.

[~Sophia~]

The movie in no way endorses murdering innocents on faith. In fact, quite the opposite. This is why, in the end, when the system (of faith) is shown to be flawed, Jolie decides to murder everyone in the group (as well as herself) for their horrific crimes.

Do we know that for sure?

It is as equally plausible that she did it because their names came up and she decided to follow the prophesy as she always did - on faith that it is the right thing to do. One of the guys shortly before that said something similar to: The hell with prophesy. She decided to stick with it.

What made you think otherwise?

[Grant]

Do we know that for sure?

It is as equally plausible that she did it because their names came up and she decided to follow the prophesy as she always did - on faith that it is the right thing to do. One of the guys shortly before that said something similar to: The hell with prophesy. She decided to stick with it.

What made you think otherwise?

If she trusted in the code, she'd have killed Wesley too (or let the black guy kill him) instead of handing him the gun to go after Sloan.

Edit:

Actually, I may be wrong. I forgot that Sloan MADE Wesley a target. Let me think about this one.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Grant

[~Sophia~]

If she trusted in the code, she'd have killed Wesley too (or let the black guy kill him) instead of handing him the gun to go after Sloan.

No she would not.

His name did not trully came up. She knew that their leader started to select his own targets and Wesley was one of those picked by him and not the code (and so was his father).

[Grant]

No she would not.

His name did not trully came up. She knew that their leader started to select his own targets and Wesley was one of those picked by him and not the code (and so was his father).

OK, so having thought about it again, here's my conclusion:

The black guy says "Screw the code" i.e. Let's be all powerful and kill the kid. Fox now realizes that 'fate' was right, that these people deserve to die, and therefore decides to stick to the code and help the kid. Either way, if fate is wrong, they all deserve to die for being cold-blooded murderers. If fate is right, they deserve to die for being on the list. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

EW Interview with Jolie: "I don't think like in Wanted — which is an action movie — people should [just] be killed. I think there should be trials and justice. But the idea behind Wanted is not that she's a badass assassin that just likes to kill people. It's that, if you ran into Hitler before he did everything, and you knew, should you shoot him? And I would. These assassins are getting lists: They find out who is going to slaughter other people ahead of time and they remove them."

No she would not.

His name did not trully came up. She knew that their leader started to select his own targets and Wesley was one of those picked by him and not the code (and so was his father).

Yeh, I edited my post

Edited July 14, 2008 by Grant

[eriatarka]

I agree with the criticisms in the original post - the message of the film regarding magic spirits living in enchanted looms is horrible. The film reminded my of Batman Begins, in that the first half was very well done with a lot of potential, but went rapidly downhill as soon as all the sillyness started.

Aside from all that, the idea of being preached to by a Hollywood action film is just hilarious. The 'What have you done with your life' bit at the end is one of the most obnoxious and cringeworthy things I've seen in a cinema.

The thing I found most interesting about Wanted is the way that disillusionment towards middle-class office work is becoming part of the Hollywood mainstream to the point where it's a central 'theme' in a big summer blockbuster, rather than just a feature of more niche films like Fight Club. It seems to be part of a cultural trend.

Edited July 14, 2008 by eriatarka

[Mimpy]

Sophia is right. Angelina does what she does because of the prophecy. It is a sacrificial killing.

[musenji]

Okay, it's really funny to read this thread if you aren't reading the spoilers.

The thing I found most interesting about Wanted is the way that disillusionment towards middle-class office work is becoming part of the Hollywood mainstream to the point where it's a central 'theme' in a big summer blockbuster, rather than just a feature of more niche films like Fight Club. It seems to be part of a cultural trend.

Is becoming? Niche? How about the Matrix? (Office Space was admittedly more of a "cult favorite", but it's been a pretty mainstream favorite on video as far as I know.)

[edit] Of course disliking office work was not the central theme of the Matrix, but it was part of it. I don't think it's a coincidence that Neo worked in a cubicle. Also, I certainly agree that disillusionment with office work is a cultural trend. It's pretty common.

Edited July 14, 2008 by musenji

[themadkat]

[edit] Of course disliking office work was not the central theme of the Matrix, but it was part of it. I don't think it's a coincidence that Neo worked in a cubicle. Also, I certainly agree that disillusionment with office work is a cultural trend. It's pretty common.

That's because most cubicle office work completely sucks. Office Space is a pretty accurate representation - you're a peon sitting in a box with too many bosses who may or may not have a clue and you may or may not be generating any real value, but even if you are generating real value it may get destroyed at the next level on the ladder by some moron's poor decision making. Also your schedule is managed to the minute, you can't hardly get up and walk around, you don't see sunlight, you watch your body get soft and lumpy and lame over time, it just completely takes everything out of you, and for what? Nothing you ever get to see or touch or be proud of.

P.S. I have less than a month left at my job.

[Matus1976]

**spoilers**

Within the context of this movie "Faith" is not 'belief without evidence' but is actually a belief based on evidence. Assuming the errors in the loom where not mere statistical fluctuations, as they seem to reliably spell out people's names (curious how the loom's 'binary' language stayed up to date with changes in languages among cultures) this is evidence that some real tangible force is acting and selecting these names.

What they chose to do with that information is an entirely different question, but to suggest it is "faith" in the way that some Bishop demanding you kill someone on his word is "faith" is not an accurate comparison. One could build a loom of their own to check the information, and in fact another loom existed. Additionally, the only historical example of checking the name given against evidence of that persons life shown in the movie in fact demonstrates someone who had no only previously tortured and killed many people, but after his name came up would still torture and kill in the future. The only evidence relayed about one of the targets was that he was in fact a murderous bastard, nothing suggests these targets were random nor innocent.

Why at the final stand off they were so willing to believe Morgan Freeman characters claim about how every one's names came up when he had an established track record of falsifying names is beyond me. One would think any such system would have multiple people independently read and check the names, and not leave the reading in the hands of a single person, for obvious reasons.

Physics wise, bullets spin all the time, it makes them go straighter, not fly in a curved trajectory. I thought from the previews they were swinging their arms rapidly to the side, imparting a small amount of horizontal velocity to the bullet enabling it to hit a target behind an obstacle. Although the concept and visuals made for some interesting movie eye candy.

Aside from all that, the idea of being preached to by a Hollywood action film is just hilarious. The 'What have you done with your life' bit at the end is one of the most obnoxious and cringeworthy things I've seen in a cinema.

Indeed, especially since the guy saying it was a hitman! As if that makes for the most fulfilling kind of life. Personally I think I'd choose office worker over hitman. Ironic that his father kept him out of that hitman life so he could have a 'normal' life, and yet he despised his 'normal' life and took up the life his father hated.

[Grant]

Indeed, especially since the guy saying it was a hitman! As if that makes for the most fulfilling kind of life. Personally I think I'd choose office worker over hitman. Ironic that his father kept him out of that hitman life so he could have a 'normal' life, and yet he despised his 'normal' life and took up the life his father hated.

In the end he was not a hitman per say, nor did he 'take up the life his father hated'. He was merely destroying the establishment which resulted in his father's death and killing those who would try kill him (Morgan Freeman). We can't speculate as to what would happen after.

[JMeganSnow]

I'm kind of ambivalent and apathetic about this movie. I agree with Mr. Perkins that there was basically no benevolence or good philosophy of any kind on display, and the initial characterization (done by means of narration instead of dramatization) was so inept that it basically rendered the whole into a dissociated series of cool stunts and neat special effects.

It was an improvement over the graphic novel, which was so profoundly nihilist that it was genuinely disturbing.