Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sin City

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I suppose it may have been somewhat of a lapse in judgement going to see this movie, but I had hoped for more from Frank Miller. I've seen worse movies, and it certainly wasn't filled with liberal hogwash.

There where three stories, each witha different hero.

The bigest problem I had with it was that all three heros seemed very defeatist in a way, the classic "I will do this one thing, then I can die." attitude.

They all fight for something, but even if they win, things don't realy seem any better off for anyone then they did before. Basically a realy lousy sense of life.

The only redeeming qualities where possibly some sense of individualism, and an okay sense of justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to see it with no delusions about its philosophy (though I was fairly impressed with Bruce Willis' character).

Consequently, I loved it. The cinematagraphy was spot-on. The characters were entertaining and well-developed. The story was enthralling. It was perfect plot-driven storytelling, IMHO.

But definitely NOT for the faint of heart. It was by far the goriest and most disturbing film I've ever seen. I don't know if I liked it in spite of or because of this quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved this movie too. It was visually very artistic and appealing with well-written stories and well-defined characters, though the gore was indeed pretty over-the-top as already pointed out. But some of the humor derived from the extremely gory violence and that provided some relief to the disturbing visuals. The devotedly comic-like style also tended to make the gore less disturbing, I thought. As was the case with the other views expressed here, I didn't expect much philosophically, and I wasn't pleasantly surprised either. Most of the characters were morally gray, with Bruce Willis' character being the only exception, which is why he was impressive. But Willis' character was laced with traces of altruism, specifically with respect to what motivates him throughout his story, and especially the action he takes in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came from Sin City tonight. I was very impressed by it. I thought that all of the characters had a very black vs. white moral compass. They had principles, some confused and some misguided, but for the most part pretty admirable. I loved seeing those strong and masculine vaules put into reality. It made me want to go home and eat 5 raw eggs and started weightlifting like a madman.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also saw it today and would highly recommend it, it's an 8 or 9 out of 10. Principled characters (both good, bad, and mixed), plenty of violence, beautiful women, what else can you ask for in a movie?! :D :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it and I enjoyed the stylistic elements, as well as the peculiar narrative style, however I thought the sense of life was terrible and I didn't enjoy the movie as a whole.

I think this was largely a result of the fact that I wanted to smack most of the characters and yell "MOVE TO KENTUCKY AND GET A JOB QUIT BOOZING AND WHORING AND SHOOTING PEOPLE HOW DIFFICULT IS THIS TO COMPREHEND?!?!"

Ahem.

The only characters that were "white" in any way were a small selection of the females. The male characters were all either depraved and evil or nihilistic "anti-hero" types . . . Bruce Willis's character was the ONLY possible exception and his lack of respect for due process of law kind of broke that off at the very beginning. (I understand that the system he worked for was corrupt; the only way to deal with that situation is to refuse to work for the corrupt system, not to attempt some sort of compromise. It was his attempt to compromise his principles with the nature of the source of his position that landed him in jail, actually.)

It was a good illustration of what happens to principled people that attempt to function with mixed premises.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw it and I enjoyed the stylistic elements, as well as the peculiar narrative style, however I thought the sense of life was terrible and I didn't enjoy the movie as a whole.

I think this was largely a result of the fact that I wanted to smack most of the characters and yell "MOVE TO KENTUCKY AND GET A JOB QUIT BOOZING AND WHORING AND SHOOTING PEOPLE HOW DIFFICULT IS THIS TO COMPREHEND?!?!"

Ahem.

The only characters that were "white" in any way were a small selection of the females.  The male characters were all either depraved and evil or nihilistic "anti-hero" types . . . Bruce Willis's character was the ONLY possible exception and his lack of respect for due process of law kind of broke that off at the very beginning.  (I understand that the system he worked for was corrupt; the only way to deal with that situation is to refuse to work for the corrupt system, not to attempt some sort of compromise.  It was his attempt to compromise his principles with the nature of the source of his position that landed him in jail, actually.)

It was a good illustration of what happens to principled people that attempt to function with mixed premises.

Just out of curiousity, which female characters did you think were "white". The only one I can think of was the little girl Willis saves in the beginning who grows to fall in love with him. I also thought that respect for due process of law was a pretty meaningless concept in the society they portrayed, so Willis' character in my eyes became all the more admirable for ignoring it to save the girl's life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put on my moderator hat here for a sec . . .

It's not really necessary to quote the post that's directly above yours, and don't quote the whole thing, it's a waste of space.

That being said . . .

I thought Marv's parole officer (Angela?) was also reasonably white, which is why I used the plural.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Marv's parole officer (Angela?) was also reasonably white, which is why I used the plural.

I think the use of color is a pretty faithful adaptation of Frank Miller. Reading to much into what is color and what is grey etc. is a bit like the arguments that raged about the use of selective black and white film in the movie If....starring Malcom McDowell. I seem to remember in my film class that there were raging arguments over the true meaning of color when our instructor read an interview with the director and he said it was a case of they ran out of money and could only afford black and white film which was cheaper. So instead of cutting out critical parts of the film they just shot it in black and white.

Similar to the argument involving the Wizard of Oz being a thinly veiled political work about fiat currency, central banking, and the gold standard.

Edited by scottkursk
Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Marv's parole officer (Angela?) was also reasonably white, which is why I used the plural.

I don't know - I got the impression Marv was not a good character to begin with, and he only turned to the good side when they killed the woman lying by his side. So, technically, that would make his parole officer corrupt for supporting him. But, then again, I am making a lot of suppositions on the story before the characters are introduced to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was by far the goriest and most disturbing film I've ever seen.

I'm just guessing that you have not seen Saw. (If you haven't, this should not be read as a recommendation.)

Sin City was visually appealing for the most part. The cinematography was somewhat refreshing, but not as good as it probably could have been. While I have not read the graphic novels, I think the interweaving of the plots could have been much better. By the end, it's just like watching four separate stories that really have nothing to do with one another, other than the fact that they all happen in the same proximity.

[spoilerS]

Some of the violent scenes benefited from the filming style, but some were just not successfully portrayed. There was one in particular where it simply looked like a man who had just been shot 15 or so times (I forget who, possibly Willis' character) actually looked like he had just been standing under a large flock of fiber-loving seagulls.

Personally, I had a bit of a struggle watching the Kevin character fight.. as he looks so much like a cross between Harry Potter and Charlie Brown.

As for the morality of the stories or characters, I didn't go into this film with any disillusion that it would be anything other than an action/eye-candy fest. That said, I agree with the above poster who mentioned that the vast majority of the main characters land on the nihilistic and/or altruistic side. The stories overall seemed like poorly constructed lifeboat scenarios in which most of the characters are purposefully so single-minded that their ultimate actions, I think, were supposed to be viewed as the best/only (or most exciting.. maybe to the directors that's one and the same) course of action.

This left me thinking that while visually, the movie has very nice elements, the stories are flat and weak.

Also, this movie made me glad I am not a male. I'm not sure how many times I heard guys in the audience groaning from the various castrations. :pimp:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know - I got the impression Marv was not a good character to begin with, and he only turned to the good side when they killed the woman lying by his side. So, technically, that would make his parole officer corrupt for supporting him. But, then again, I am making a lot of suppositions on the story before the characters are introduced to us.

The point of Blondie was that Marv had been an amoral his whole life. He even remarked that Blondie showed him that he could be a normal person (for those who haven't seen it, think REALLY ugly rugby player) and that was a capacity in life for "goodness." It was the fact that someone killed her and less that he was framed for her death that caused him to go on the rampage. His sole purpose became in life became destroying (for him at least) all that was right in life. Yes, he understood that she was using him but he was used to that but admired that she was willing to acknowledge that of all people in the world that could protect her, he was that person and he failed.

As for his parole officer, it was downplayed in the movie but she really knew he had a cpactiy for being good. That was why she gave him the meds (some graphic novel zoloft or haldol, along those lines) because she knows it helps keep him under control. In Frank Miller World, assume that he wasn't able to get the help he needed and she knew it helped control his evil side. No, Marv isn't an angel by any means. For lack of a clear example, I'd liken him to the Wet Nurse. He lived an immoral/amoral life but something finally snapped to make him see that there is good in life and it is worth defending.

Again, given his malevolant view of the universe (and the one specifically constructed by Miller) the only way of getting revenge/justice was by killing his way up the food chain. He died knowing that he had encated his revenge and given that the people who did wrong (the gazillion bad guys) so his being given the electric chair really didn't matter. It had become an unjust prosecution for killing lots of evil. So it is a bit like the Wet Nurse getting shot defending the plant. Yes, this is a VERY big stretch and is far from justifying his actions.

Also note, it was pointed out that he never had actually killed any of the cops that were chasing him just anyone who had even the slightest hand in Goldies death. The same goes for the guy from ER. He couldn't figure out if the cop that pulled him over was a bad cop or a rare good one. He was good so he lived. Same goes for Bruce Willis. The cops he murdered were directly on the payroll of the cannibals in the government. The only way he could protect his only source of good in the world was to kill himself. His remaining alive would not only cause the innocent girl from (best case) going through more years of knowing an innocent man is in prison or (worst case) being tortured and raped to death. So the only way to protect good was by his dying. His death was not one of self sacrifice but the one thing that could save all that he loved and held highest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...