So, what's the solution? Do we have a 100% wealth tax when someone's wealth hits $1 billion? Would the world have been better off if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had just packed it in when they made their first billion?
Mostly preaching to the choir here, but the vast majority of people (in online English speaking discourses at least) seem unable to think in terms of structural critique, but only in terms of individual dunking/ cancellation etc. [Which, not coincidentally, has proved very useful for the likes of oil companies pushing concepts like the individual's carbon foorprint, etc.]
There have been a lot of these cathartic but ultimately toothless films and programmes about sociopathetic rich people over the last couple of years - Glass Onion, The Menu, Violent Night, Succession, etc.
Sure in capitalist systems having more capital means you have more power, but what’s the alternative. Curbing the incentive to make money? In this case would leave us without the best space program in the world (10x cheaper than NASA?) best EV company in the world, solar panel roof tiles, PayPal and a less government controlled Twitter. And not to mention the satellite internet company that’s currently providing internet to underserved areas of the world- including free internet in Ukraine. Don’t most billionaire also pay astronomical taxes? I would argue that the kardashian millionaires of the world, or Bill gates doing dubious things with farm land and vegan products are of more concern. But again what’s the alternative? America has the most free to make money society and has the most billionaires, but also has the most innovation. And in a Democracy the people have an oversized influence on who gets elected, it’s fair to say the best person for the job and for a country rarely gets elected and it’s more typical to get flip flopping inadequacy or above average performance.
Ps I think the idiot billionaire in the movie was doomed because of the Mona Lisa being destroyed. The argument was that bad press would destroy his reputation. His new energy source blowing up the Mona Lisa, which he had borrowed - would crater his goals at the company and show the world how stupid he was. I also got the Elon take but felt it was much too obvious, same with the Joe Rogan take. Having more than a 1% knowledge of the real people you can see these are total make fun caricatures, not serious poking fun. Elon and Joe actually have depth and intelligence and values to them. I am also sure there actually are idiot billionaires and millionaires out there.
Overall I agree though, the movie was interesting but missed any deeper takes. It’s was all surface level fun and social commentary
While I don’t agree with your reliance on socialism as the antidote for capitalism, and understand you dislike a system that produces Elon Musks, I am stunned that Musk is viewed as an incompetent fool: PayPal, SpaceX and especially the Tesla are major innovations. And as the owner of a small business, I know that managing a large corporation is extraordinarily challenging and difficult. I can understand disliking him, but people who sneer at Elon Musk are simply blinded by their jealousy or are otherwise revealing their own lack of understanding of the world.
glass onion fucking sucks (i was at the TIFF premiere and it was a genuinely bizarre experience to be the only person totally quiet throughout), but its class politics are pretty rote at this point, even in indie circles.
it’s strange that a batman movie had more to say about the ethics of the “do-gooder” billionaire or the estrangement that wealth causes than most of the explicitly political art released this year did. at least that paul schrader-but-high-camp film has the gall to suggest that pattinson’s crusade might be genuinely fucked up and totally unhelpful.
The real resources involved in billionaire-level consumption like the private island complex, art commissions, etc. are resources that then don’t go to more socially beneficial ends. But I find it a fairly tenuous claim that owning a company you founded deprives anyone of anything by itself. Like, “Oh no, an enterprise that isn’t state owned!” isn’t going to make people believe your character is a villain.
Totally agree on the movie review, like you took the words straight out of my head. Although I will say that star power can salvage a viewing experience of a mediocre movie, and in this case Craig, Hahn, Norton, the always delightful Dave Bautista, and most especially Janelle Monae, are all fun to watch for two hours regardless.
As to your second point I don’t see how we can have a system that incentivizes human progress without the resultant financial success. I can’t think of a time in human history when there weren’t vast disparities in power and wealth, but historically these hierarchies were hereditary or religious.
Of course this still continues today, but at least THEORETICALLY anyone can become a billionaire through their own ingenuity and hard work, which is unique to modern times. EDIT: for me this fact alone means there is no such thing as an undeserving billionaire or a deserving one, save in cases of inherited wealth (which the movie does not present). If we believe that anyone can become a billionaire by whichever [legal] means they can, then every non-legacy billionaire is deserving.
<this is a quickly drafted and not thoroughly thought out comment which I may revise later >
Completely agree with your movie review, I had identical thoughts.
Regarding billionaires, I love that we have a lot of them. The more the better. So obviously I have different opinions on how to relieve human suffering. As silly as these caricatures of the rich are in this movie, the idea that some sort of equalization will relieve any suffering strikes me the same way.
Elon Musk might make a convenient bad guy today due to the latest with Twitter and his seemingly ideological pivot right, but trying to paint the guy who revolutionized electric cars and space travel as incompetent or stupid is an incredibly weak argument. Just say you don't like his politics.
Also, people are taking this movie way too seriously. It was an easy holiday watch that I chuckled at a few times, and that I will never think about again. That the bad guy and the politics and the "twist" don't make any sense is just not very important.
If you want to shit on a movie, go hate watch Babylon.
Well put and i think balanced. "If" you think all billionaires are bad, do you also believe all politicians are good?
The answers really show your world view. For all their wealth, these billionaires have created more public good (jobs, college education, available resouces) than most any politician ever. You can argue whether how much wealth is deserved, but even the most miserly greedy billionaire is a net positive on society.
It seems like this is a good place for Glass Onion discussion. One thing that stuck out to me is the derision towards Dave Bautista's character, who's called a "Men's rights activist", as well as focus on the "red-pilling" of Ed Norton. Obviously, both of these caricatures (there are no characters in this movie, as Freddie points out, only exaggerated versions of humans that can be easily recognized by the Twitterati seeking acknowledgment and eye-winks from their entertainment) are gross people with cruel intentions. They're in no way sympathetic.
What the movie doesn't seem to recognize is that Kathryn Hahn's character, the supposedly beloved liberal politician, is the embodiment of why people get disillusioned with liberal politics in the current era. She says the right things, but for the sake of her careerist goals, she cozies up with terrible people and willingly sacrifices her ethics for political gain. With politicians like that, why the fuck would you ever want to believe in any party? If no one in government gives a fuck about the public, most especially the ones who claim to give a fuck about the public, then is it a great mystery why there's an attraction to extreme self-interest from the public?
I continued watching the movie hoping for some interesting twist, but there wasn't any - it was one of the more boring mysteries I've seen in a while. It's been said in many places, but the modern attraction toward incompetent villains doesn't make for good entertainment. Creators seem to be fearful that making someone like Norton evil but also intelligent would validate him as a human, so they have to make villains comically inept to show how much they "know" the villains are in the wrong. This isn't interesting, it's playing video games on easy mode - it's the kind of thing that appeals to children and not adults. Every Holmes should face a Moriarty; here, Benoit Blanc faces Elmer Fudd.
Also, somehow they made Kathryn Hahn not funny, which I thought was impossible, and they gave Janelle Monae's character literally nothing to do except look wooden for two hours.
I didn't see the new movie, but the "characters were all such broad caricatures that it deadened its obvious satirical pretensions" was precisely what annoyed me about the first Knives Out film.
There is an additional angle that most people don't consider - billionaires are suffering, and tend to have an incredibly poor quality of life. All of those alienation tokens piled high render them subhuman, and their inability to identify with those who aren't totally alienated like themselves leads to misery. Kanye is a good example of this.
We would be doing billionaires a favor by taking their wealth. They are much like rabid dogs: dangerous to others while living pathetic lives bereft of meaning.
I dont think you're really meant to think too hard about the politics here.
Also, the ending has nothing to do with the napkin and everything to do with his new technology destroying the most famous piece of art in the world.
Love the Unforgiven reference in the subtitle
So, what's the solution? Do we have a 100% wealth tax when someone's wealth hits $1 billion? Would the world have been better off if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had just packed it in when they made their first billion?
I don't hate billionaires. I hate sociopaths, and it's hard to become a billionaire without being a sociopath.
Mostly preaching to the choir here, but the vast majority of people (in online English speaking discourses at least) seem unable to think in terms of structural critique, but only in terms of individual dunking/ cancellation etc. [Which, not coincidentally, has proved very useful for the likes of oil companies pushing concepts like the individual's carbon foorprint, etc.]
There have been a lot of these cathartic but ultimately toothless films and programmes about sociopathetic rich people over the last couple of years - Glass Onion, The Menu, Violent Night, Succession, etc.
Sure in capitalist systems having more capital means you have more power, but what’s the alternative. Curbing the incentive to make money? In this case would leave us without the best space program in the world (10x cheaper than NASA?) best EV company in the world, solar panel roof tiles, PayPal and a less government controlled Twitter. And not to mention the satellite internet company that’s currently providing internet to underserved areas of the world- including free internet in Ukraine. Don’t most billionaire also pay astronomical taxes? I would argue that the kardashian millionaires of the world, or Bill gates doing dubious things with farm land and vegan products are of more concern. But again what’s the alternative? America has the most free to make money society and has the most billionaires, but also has the most innovation. And in a Democracy the people have an oversized influence on who gets elected, it’s fair to say the best person for the job and for a country rarely gets elected and it’s more typical to get flip flopping inadequacy or above average performance.
Ps I think the idiot billionaire in the movie was doomed because of the Mona Lisa being destroyed. The argument was that bad press would destroy his reputation. His new energy source blowing up the Mona Lisa, which he had borrowed - would crater his goals at the company and show the world how stupid he was. I also got the Elon take but felt it was much too obvious, same with the Joe Rogan take. Having more than a 1% knowledge of the real people you can see these are total make fun caricatures, not serious poking fun. Elon and Joe actually have depth and intelligence and values to them. I am also sure there actually are idiot billionaires and millionaires out there.
Overall I agree though, the movie was interesting but missed any deeper takes. It’s was all surface level fun and social commentary
While I don’t agree with your reliance on socialism as the antidote for capitalism, and understand you dislike a system that produces Elon Musks, I am stunned that Musk is viewed as an incompetent fool: PayPal, SpaceX and especially the Tesla are major innovations. And as the owner of a small business, I know that managing a large corporation is extraordinarily challenging and difficult. I can understand disliking him, but people who sneer at Elon Musk are simply blinded by their jealousy or are otherwise revealing their own lack of understanding of the world.
glass onion fucking sucks (i was at the TIFF premiere and it was a genuinely bizarre experience to be the only person totally quiet throughout), but its class politics are pretty rote at this point, even in indie circles.
it’s strange that a batman movie had more to say about the ethics of the “do-gooder” billionaire or the estrangement that wealth causes than most of the explicitly political art released this year did. at least that paul schrader-but-high-camp film has the gall to suggest that pattinson’s crusade might be genuinely fucked up and totally unhelpful.
The real resources involved in billionaire-level consumption like the private island complex, art commissions, etc. are resources that then don’t go to more socially beneficial ends. But I find it a fairly tenuous claim that owning a company you founded deprives anyone of anything by itself. Like, “Oh no, an enterprise that isn’t state owned!” isn’t going to make people believe your character is a villain.
Totally agree on the movie review, like you took the words straight out of my head. Although I will say that star power can salvage a viewing experience of a mediocre movie, and in this case Craig, Hahn, Norton, the always delightful Dave Bautista, and most especially Janelle Monae, are all fun to watch for two hours regardless.
As to your second point I don’t see how we can have a system that incentivizes human progress without the resultant financial success. I can’t think of a time in human history when there weren’t vast disparities in power and wealth, but historically these hierarchies were hereditary or religious.
Of course this still continues today, but at least THEORETICALLY anyone can become a billionaire through their own ingenuity and hard work, which is unique to modern times. EDIT: for me this fact alone means there is no such thing as an undeserving billionaire or a deserving one, save in cases of inherited wealth (which the movie does not present). If we believe that anyone can become a billionaire by whichever [legal] means they can, then every non-legacy billionaire is deserving.
<this is a quickly drafted and not thoroughly thought out comment which I may revise later >
Completely agree with your movie review, I had identical thoughts.
Regarding billionaires, I love that we have a lot of them. The more the better. So obviously I have different opinions on how to relieve human suffering. As silly as these caricatures of the rich are in this movie, the idea that some sort of equalization will relieve any suffering strikes me the same way.
Elon Musk might make a convenient bad guy today due to the latest with Twitter and his seemingly ideological pivot right, but trying to paint the guy who revolutionized electric cars and space travel as incompetent or stupid is an incredibly weak argument. Just say you don't like his politics.
Also, people are taking this movie way too seriously. It was an easy holiday watch that I chuckled at a few times, and that I will never think about again. That the bad guy and the politics and the "twist" don't make any sense is just not very important.
If you want to shit on a movie, go hate watch Babylon.
Well put and i think balanced. "If" you think all billionaires are bad, do you also believe all politicians are good?
The answers really show your world view. For all their wealth, these billionaires have created more public good (jobs, college education, available resouces) than most any politician ever. You can argue whether how much wealth is deserved, but even the most miserly greedy billionaire is a net positive on society.
It seems like this is a good place for Glass Onion discussion. One thing that stuck out to me is the derision towards Dave Bautista's character, who's called a "Men's rights activist", as well as focus on the "red-pilling" of Ed Norton. Obviously, both of these caricatures (there are no characters in this movie, as Freddie points out, only exaggerated versions of humans that can be easily recognized by the Twitterati seeking acknowledgment and eye-winks from their entertainment) are gross people with cruel intentions. They're in no way sympathetic.
What the movie doesn't seem to recognize is that Kathryn Hahn's character, the supposedly beloved liberal politician, is the embodiment of why people get disillusioned with liberal politics in the current era. She says the right things, but for the sake of her careerist goals, she cozies up with terrible people and willingly sacrifices her ethics for political gain. With politicians like that, why the fuck would you ever want to believe in any party? If no one in government gives a fuck about the public, most especially the ones who claim to give a fuck about the public, then is it a great mystery why there's an attraction to extreme self-interest from the public?
I continued watching the movie hoping for some interesting twist, but there wasn't any - it was one of the more boring mysteries I've seen in a while. It's been said in many places, but the modern attraction toward incompetent villains doesn't make for good entertainment. Creators seem to be fearful that making someone like Norton evil but also intelligent would validate him as a human, so they have to make villains comically inept to show how much they "know" the villains are in the wrong. This isn't interesting, it's playing video games on easy mode - it's the kind of thing that appeals to children and not adults. Every Holmes should face a Moriarty; here, Benoit Blanc faces Elmer Fudd.
Also, somehow they made Kathryn Hahn not funny, which I thought was impossible, and they gave Janelle Monae's character literally nothing to do except look wooden for two hours.
I didn't see the new movie, but the "characters were all such broad caricatures that it deadened its obvious satirical pretensions" was precisely what annoyed me about the first Knives Out film.
There is an additional angle that most people don't consider - billionaires are suffering, and tend to have an incredibly poor quality of life. All of those alienation tokens piled high render them subhuman, and their inability to identify with those who aren't totally alienated like themselves leads to misery. Kanye is a good example of this.
We would be doing billionaires a favor by taking their wealth. They are much like rabid dogs: dangerous to others while living pathetic lives bereft of meaning.