This is pretty much the one movie that gets everyone in Film Twitter world to stop screaming and start purring like kittens. It truly is a modern classic; seeing it in theaters back in 2015 was an exhilarating, exhausting experience that most big budget blockbusters can't even sniff, let alone touch.
Dang. I have it on Blu Ray but haven’t seen it in years. I loved it but admit to being one of the “durs” who thought it’s “wokeness” was it’s weakness. I’m over 50 so I’ll always love The Road Warrior more, which I also have on Blu Ray, (yeah, I’m that guy), but after reading this I’ll give it another shot. (Also, I’ve got a huge man crush on Tom Hardy now after going on a Peaky Blinders binge.)
Back in 2015 I was somewhat woke and didn't feel alienated by the idiocy just yet (that started happening in 2017). So I loved every second of MM:FR.
Fast forward to today and you know what? I still love it. Like Freddie points out, it's a progressive and inclusive movie in a truly positive way, not an identitarian Fuck You kind of way.
And it's all packaged in an action movie that's just so damn entertaining that even those who don't care for progressive politics will enjoy it.
Reading this comment of yours actually gave me nostalgia for 2015, when "wokeness" as we now know it was a novel thing and when everyone going "whoa, this action movie is progressive!" actually felt sincere and organic.
Yeah... before Metoo and before #ImWithHer as well. Back then it felt like wokeness just meant enjoying and loving how they made a good action fantasy with women that didn't sexualize them too much. Really want to watch it again - I bet it holds up.
It's been a long time since I took a film study class, but the way Charlize Theron is framed, lit, and shot plays a role in how much weight and power the viewer attributes to her. It's been a few years since I saw the movie (so I'm behind on my film study AND behind on watching the movie) but I think she really gets the Big Hero treatment in the photography. You're paying careful attention to the dialogue and narrative, Freddie, but if you look at it just from a visual standpoint, I think Max is filmed less heroically and less like a Big Movie Star. I suppose I should watch it again.
I am certainly open to the interpretation that he isn't the hero. But I would argue that the film's structure and themes agitate against the big hero treatment in general, and anyway specific claim is (as they put it in the Honest Trailer) Max is "hardly in the movie."
I think its pretty consistent in the Mad Max series, after the first one, that Mad Max operates as a character in what is essentially someone else's story. Which is not to say he doesn't have anything to contribute or is "hardly in the movie" but it is stylistically quite different than most big action movies which really make the whole thing all about the bad ass star of the movie.
I think (and it has similarly been a few years since I watched it) that you could call Furiosa the protagonist and Max the main character--the story is ultimately about Furiosa's journey, but Max is the "narrator" through which we view her story. Max is still an active participant in the story, and does drive events himself and have his own arc, but (again, so far as I can remember) all the big emotional beats center on Furiosa.
This is compounded by how little Max speaks. It's not a dialogue-heavy movie, but Max is nearly silent throughout it, which does kinda make him seem less "present" than he really is.
Yeah, I was thinking Watson and Sherlock Holmes, although I'd argue that Max is more important to the narrative than Watson tends to be, or than Nick is.
It's a great device to explore more "closed" characters. Neither Max nor Furiosa are open about their emotions or thoughts, but you learn a lot about them by watching them ping off each other.
It's a good movie, and a collectivist movie. It says a lot about capitalist culture that people could only interpret it through an extremely individualistic lens.
Thanks for this. These days I find myself in a constant state of despair over the general state of film criticism, interpretation, and appreciation. Nice to read something clean, clear-headed, and based on what is actually in the film. I'd love to read your take on Raiders as well.
Articles like this are why I'm a paid subscriber. I remember thinking exactly these thoughts when I first saw the movie - the scene where Max gives up the gun is one of the greatest in modern cinematic history. It's an incredible moment where two strangers who are facing insurmountable odds become an unstoppable team through a leap of faith.
The real life mirror which I think often gets missed however, is how this is also a total inversion of the image of masculinity represented by Chris Kyle and glorified in American Sniper (2014) and the mainstream media of the day. In Mad Max Fury Road, two battle scarred veterans of a forever war find a way to turn the tables and find peace. IRL, one shot the other instead.
I enjoyed the movie (and this piece) quite a lot and generally agree. The thing which most undercut that message, to me, was a necessary part of the Mad Max films.
The part where he rides off into the sunset, rather than doing as he's just convinced them to do and stick around to do the work necessary to keep a brand new and extremely vulnerable society working and safe.
The arc of the character in previous films was that he was an amoral survivor who had to undergo some sort of redemptive character transformation before he would risk his life for the underdog. You can't do that multiple times because it just doesn't make sense in the context of the character. For that reason Fury Road really only stands on its own and not as a member of the franchise. And even on those terms I would say that it is a far weaker film than examples like "The Searchers", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", "Red River", etc. that examine the same question. Or even "The Road Warrior".
Plus he would be in a powerful position in a city with plenty of water. He could live a comfortable life. Why give that up for a life or hardship in the desert?
I think the theory is either that he's continuing to punish himself for the initial failure which (quite literally) haunts him throughout the entire movie. Or that he's moving on to help other people? I mean, it's a staple of the genre, the drifter comes in 'fixes' the problem and moves on.
But I actually think building something new is far more interesting then tearing down something old, which is definitely not what most media is interested in.
How many times can the Max character tread the path of "world weary mercenary undergoes a character transformation and redeems himself to fight the good fight and defend the weak?" Putting him through the same character arc and over and over doesn't make any sense.
Aesop amnesia is a real problem, though to be fair, patterns of behavior are hard to change, especially if you keep removing yourself from all positive influences in your life. Maybe a point in favor of self-destructive self-punishment?
Like most movie series, this one degraded as each sequel came out. The original was an interesting dystopian vision filmed seemingly on Super 8 as a college cinematography class project. It peaked with "The Road Warrior", jumped the shark with "Beyond Thunderdome", Tina or no Tina, and then flat-lined. Charlize's talents were wasted. And I should have been. Ho hum.
THANK YOU. I also didn't understand at all why people said it was Furiosa's movie and Max was sidelined or that the real heroes were the women who saved themselves all on their own - things I'd heard before I watched it. In fact, I was almost disappointed to realize none of this was true - Max was definitely a crucial character and he and Nux saved the women's lives !
It's all posturing, really. I don't think the people claiming this have thought about it very heard or even genuinely believe it... some very online men's rights activists were complaining about the movie before it was released (their complaints were based on the trailer, not the actual film), saying that it was unfairly putting Furiosa in the spotlight to Max's expense. Ironically enough, the idea kind of flourished online, and it became fashionable to repeat it verbatim and praise the movie to own the MRAs. I think that if you refuse to recognize that Furiosa is the actual hero of the movie, you can even be accused of being anti-feminist these days... it's a cheap way to show how progressive you are. "Yes, Furiosa completely steals the movie, and I don't mind this at all and I think it's great, because I'm one of the good guys."
It's always weird to me, as a former film studies student, how many adult humans don't know how to watch a mainstream narrative film or TV show and actually understand it. There's like some sort of media literacy gap there that needs to be further explored...
I only just recently saw this movie for the first time. I am also someone who generally avoids most film discussion online (at least since the AV Club murderes its comments section).
As such, I find the revelation that this is the prevailing narrative shocking. It was obvious to me that this film had a very traditional "people coming together to fight for a common goal" structure. And not in any subtle way. That is clearly what is happening in the movie!
There's not even any sort of classic hero's journey for Furiosa. My recollection is that she starts the movie as a hero. If anything, it is Max - who is desperately trying to survive - that undergoes the more archetypal hero's journey.
Further, the conflict within the group on the fancy truck drives the action. It's then resolved by them learning that they need each other and have to trust each other.
Frankly, this popular narrative Freddie deconstructs is baffling and seems like something people wanted to be able to say about the movie and ran with regardless of the actual story.
Near as I can tell, the prevailing narrative came about because someone noted that Furiosa was the protagonist of the film (true) and then it ran away like a game of telephone, with each take getting stupider and farther away from what the movie actually contained as critics reacted to what other critics were saying, instead of the movie itself.
This gives me an idea. Going forward, I can still pay attention to movies but just stay away from Twitter. It'll be a lot easier to ground my own opinions without being assaulted by hot takes every which way I look.
I watched the film and was completely underwhelmed. Even now I can barely remember it. The first two movies had a very jagged, grindhouse edge to them while the third felt much more like mainstream Hollywood entertainment and "Fury Road" unfortunately continued that progression. Plus the action scenes were nowhere as good as "Road Warrior", the pinnacle of the series.
I would argue that the Road Warrior is a far better and more memorable film. It is a far gritter and less shiny product than the last two films in the series. I last saw it years ago and I can still remember scenes like the one where Max brandishes an empty shotgun to bluff his way out of an attack--it communicates that he is living in an environment of scarcity. Plus in a Chekhov like sense it does a great job of setting up the action when he actually does find some shells.
And I'll take the Feral Kid over Furiosa any day. Kick ass women are just a cliché in movies: I rolled my eyes when Shrek's girlfriend revealed her kung fu skills because of course she is. The symbolism of a child who has regressed out of civilization and the indifferent adults around him? Far more interesting.
Loved the movie, but as usual thought the preposterously large crowd in front of the mountain were a bunch of idiots, standing around all day in the hot sun waiting for crumbs from on high. (Ironically, according to an Australian friend of mine, the formerly real life rugged individualism of Australians has been totally erased in the last 18 months, much to her disgust. The movie was a preview)
This brings up a pet peeve of mine: most of these dystopian movies have about a thousand times as many people in their horde gangs as could be supported by the amount of food available. Where do all those damn people in that mountain canyon sleep? How do they grow or herd food in a desert? Why do the evil ones always ride motorcycles which have paltry gas tanks and even on good road have trouble going more than a hundred miles without a gas refill? It’s clear the movie creative element lacks the basic STEM background to represent a real dystopian nightmare . If you want some insight into what a real primitive situation looks and feels like, I suggest you read ‘SHTF Survival Stories’ by Selco Begovic. It’s a lot more horrifying than any dystomovie. It’s not a single dictator, it’s a bunch of them, each controlling a small, brutal roving band with territories of a few blocks.
From what I recall both sides could only muster a few dozen combatants and that was literally their entire population. Plus the conflict driving the narrative was that one side could refine gasoline--and it is strongly implied that the warlord/marauder antagonists were perfectly willing to leave them alone as long as they could keep producing fuel. All in all a much more interesting and nuanced film than the more black and white Fury Road I think.
The refinery had 10-15. Remember the huge line of attackers and their vehicles? I’d say maybe 40-50. Heck, gas filling up all those dune buggies and 30mpg motorcycles would be prohibitively expensive right now! :)
To bastardize a quote: Professionals study logistics, filmmakers study visual presentation. It bugs me too, but at the same time, I've tried a few times to dramatize logistics work and have failed every time.
This is pretty much the one movie that gets everyone in Film Twitter world to stop screaming and start purring like kittens. It truly is a modern classic; seeing it in theaters back in 2015 was an exhilarating, exhausting experience that most big budget blockbusters can't even sniff, let alone touch.
Dang. I have it on Blu Ray but haven’t seen it in years. I loved it but admit to being one of the “durs” who thought it’s “wokeness” was it’s weakness. I’m over 50 so I’ll always love The Road Warrior more, which I also have on Blu Ray, (yeah, I’m that guy), but after reading this I’ll give it another shot. (Also, I’ve got a huge man crush on Tom Hardy now after going on a Peaky Blinders binge.)
Back in 2015 I was somewhat woke and didn't feel alienated by the idiocy just yet (that started happening in 2017). So I loved every second of MM:FR.
Fast forward to today and you know what? I still love it. Like Freddie points out, it's a progressive and inclusive movie in a truly positive way, not an identitarian Fuck You kind of way.
And it's all packaged in an action movie that's just so damn entertaining that even those who don't care for progressive politics will enjoy it.
Reading this comment of yours actually gave me nostalgia for 2015, when "wokeness" as we now know it was a novel thing and when everyone going "whoa, this action movie is progressive!" actually felt sincere and organic.
It was kind of pre-"Me Too" too, right? That said, I'm surprised Theron hasn't been canceled yet for taking work away from an actual amputee.
Whatever. It was and is a great film. Gonna' watch it again tonight.
Yeah... before Metoo and before #ImWithHer as well. Back then it felt like wokeness just meant enjoying and loving how they made a good action fantasy with women that didn't sexualize them too much. Really want to watch it again - I bet it holds up.
It's been a long time since I took a film study class, but the way Charlize Theron is framed, lit, and shot plays a role in how much weight and power the viewer attributes to her. It's been a few years since I saw the movie (so I'm behind on my film study AND behind on watching the movie) but I think she really gets the Big Hero treatment in the photography. You're paying careful attention to the dialogue and narrative, Freddie, but if you look at it just from a visual standpoint, I think Max is filmed less heroically and less like a Big Movie Star. I suppose I should watch it again.
I am certainly open to the interpretation that he isn't the hero. But I would argue that the film's structure and themes agitate against the big hero treatment in general, and anyway specific claim is (as they put it in the Honest Trailer) Max is "hardly in the movie."
I think its pretty consistent in the Mad Max series, after the first one, that Mad Max operates as a character in what is essentially someone else's story. Which is not to say he doesn't have anything to contribute or is "hardly in the movie" but it is stylistically quite different than most big action movies which really make the whole thing all about the bad ass star of the movie.
This was one of the (many) failings of Beyond Thunderdome - it gave Max way too much dialog and too little to do.
I think (and it has similarly been a few years since I watched it) that you could call Furiosa the protagonist and Max the main character--the story is ultimately about Furiosa's journey, but Max is the "narrator" through which we view her story. Max is still an active participant in the story, and does drive events himself and have his own arc, but (again, so far as I can remember) all the big emotional beats center on Furiosa.
This is compounded by how little Max speaks. It's not a dialogue-heavy movie, but Max is nearly silent throughout it, which does kinda make him seem less "present" than he really is.
Maybe this is too cute, but it's kind of like Nick and Gatsby from the Great Gatsby.
Yeah, I was thinking Watson and Sherlock Holmes, although I'd argue that Max is more important to the narrative than Watson tends to be, or than Nick is.
It's a great device to explore more "closed" characters. Neither Max nor Furiosa are open about their emotions or thoughts, but you learn a lot about them by watching them ping off each other.
It's a good movie, and a collectivist movie. It says a lot about capitalist culture that people could only interpret it through an extremely individualistic lens.
Thanks for this. These days I find myself in a constant state of despair over the general state of film criticism, interpretation, and appreciation. Nice to read something clean, clear-headed, and based on what is actually in the film. I'd love to read your take on Raiders as well.
Articles like this are why I'm a paid subscriber. I remember thinking exactly these thoughts when I first saw the movie - the scene where Max gives up the gun is one of the greatest in modern cinematic history. It's an incredible moment where two strangers who are facing insurmountable odds become an unstoppable team through a leap of faith.
The real life mirror which I think often gets missed however, is how this is also a total inversion of the image of masculinity represented by Chris Kyle and glorified in American Sniper (2014) and the mainstream media of the day. In Mad Max Fury Road, two battle scarred veterans of a forever war find a way to turn the tables and find peace. IRL, one shot the other instead.
Good analysis, and a good reminder to revisit a great film.
And on that note - you should do Parasite next.
I enjoyed the movie (and this piece) quite a lot and generally agree. The thing which most undercut that message, to me, was a necessary part of the Mad Max films.
The part where he rides off into the sunset, rather than doing as he's just convinced them to do and stick around to do the work necessary to keep a brand new and extremely vulnerable society working and safe.
The arc of the character in previous films was that he was an amoral survivor who had to undergo some sort of redemptive character transformation before he would risk his life for the underdog. You can't do that multiple times because it just doesn't make sense in the context of the character. For that reason Fury Road really only stands on its own and not as a member of the franchise. And even on those terms I would say that it is a far weaker film than examples like "The Searchers", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", "Red River", etc. that examine the same question. Or even "The Road Warrior".
Totally
Plus he would be in a powerful position in a city with plenty of water. He could live a comfortable life. Why give that up for a life or hardship in the desert?
I think the theory is either that he's continuing to punish himself for the initial failure which (quite literally) haunts him throughout the entire movie. Or that he's moving on to help other people? I mean, it's a staple of the genre, the drifter comes in 'fixes' the problem and moves on.
But I actually think building something new is far more interesting then tearing down something old, which is definitely not what most media is interested in.
How many times can the Max character tread the path of "world weary mercenary undergoes a character transformation and redeems himself to fight the good fight and defend the weak?" Putting him through the same character arc and over and over doesn't make any sense.
Aesop amnesia is a real problem, though to be fair, patterns of behavior are hard to change, especially if you keep removing yourself from all positive influences in your life. Maybe a point in favor of self-destructive self-punishment?
Like most movie series, this one degraded as each sequel came out. The original was an interesting dystopian vision filmed seemingly on Super 8 as a college cinematography class project. It peaked with "The Road Warrior", jumped the shark with "Beyond Thunderdome", Tina or no Tina, and then flat-lined. Charlize's talents were wasted. And I should have been. Ho hum.
I made my post making the same point before I saw yours.
THANK YOU. I also didn't understand at all why people said it was Furiosa's movie and Max was sidelined or that the real heroes were the women who saved themselves all on their own - things I'd heard before I watched it. In fact, I was almost disappointed to realize none of this was true - Max was definitely a crucial character and he and Nux saved the women's lives !
It's all posturing, really. I don't think the people claiming this have thought about it very heard or even genuinely believe it... some very online men's rights activists were complaining about the movie before it was released (their complaints were based on the trailer, not the actual film), saying that it was unfairly putting Furiosa in the spotlight to Max's expense. Ironically enough, the idea kind of flourished online, and it became fashionable to repeat it verbatim and praise the movie to own the MRAs. I think that if you refuse to recognize that Furiosa is the actual hero of the movie, you can even be accused of being anti-feminist these days... it's a cheap way to show how progressive you are. "Yes, Furiosa completely steals the movie, and I don't mind this at all and I think it's great, because I'm one of the good guys."
It's always weird to me, as a former film studies student, how many adult humans don't know how to watch a mainstream narrative film or TV show and actually understand it. There's like some sort of media literacy gap there that needs to be further explored...
I only just recently saw this movie for the first time. I am also someone who generally avoids most film discussion online (at least since the AV Club murderes its comments section).
As such, I find the revelation that this is the prevailing narrative shocking. It was obvious to me that this film had a very traditional "people coming together to fight for a common goal" structure. And not in any subtle way. That is clearly what is happening in the movie!
There's not even any sort of classic hero's journey for Furiosa. My recollection is that she starts the movie as a hero. If anything, it is Max - who is desperately trying to survive - that undergoes the more archetypal hero's journey.
Further, the conflict within the group on the fancy truck drives the action. It's then resolved by them learning that they need each other and have to trust each other.
Frankly, this popular narrative Freddie deconstructs is baffling and seems like something people wanted to be able to say about the movie and ran with regardless of the actual story.
Near as I can tell, the prevailing narrative came about because someone noted that Furiosa was the protagonist of the film (true) and then it ran away like a game of telephone, with each take getting stupider and farther away from what the movie actually contained as critics reacted to what other critics were saying, instead of the movie itself.
This gives me an idea. Going forward, I can still pay attention to movies but just stay away from Twitter. It'll be a lot easier to ground my own opinions without being assaulted by hot takes every which way I look.
Great review Freddie. Thank you!
I watched the film and was completely underwhelmed. Even now I can barely remember it. The first two movies had a very jagged, grindhouse edge to them while the third felt much more like mainstream Hollywood entertainment and "Fury Road" unfortunately continued that progression. Plus the action scenes were nowhere as good as "Road Warrior", the pinnacle of the series.
I would argue that the Road Warrior is a far better and more memorable film. It is a far gritter and less shiny product than the last two films in the series. I last saw it years ago and I can still remember scenes like the one where Max brandishes an empty shotgun to bluff his way out of an attack--it communicates that he is living in an environment of scarcity. Plus in a Chekhov like sense it does a great job of setting up the action when he actually does find some shells.
And I'll take the Feral Kid over Furiosa any day. Kick ass women are just a cliché in movies: I rolled my eyes when Shrek's girlfriend revealed her kung fu skills because of course she is. The symbolism of a child who has regressed out of civilization and the indifferent adults around him? Far more interesting.
Loved the movie, but as usual thought the preposterously large crowd in front of the mountain were a bunch of idiots, standing around all day in the hot sun waiting for crumbs from on high. (Ironically, according to an Australian friend of mine, the formerly real life rugged individualism of Australians has been totally erased in the last 18 months, much to her disgust. The movie was a preview)
This brings up a pet peeve of mine: most of these dystopian movies have about a thousand times as many people in their horde gangs as could be supported by the amount of food available. Where do all those damn people in that mountain canyon sleep? How do they grow or herd food in a desert? Why do the evil ones always ride motorcycles which have paltry gas tanks and even on good road have trouble going more than a hundred miles without a gas refill? It’s clear the movie creative element lacks the basic STEM background to represent a real dystopian nightmare . If you want some insight into what a real primitive situation looks and feels like, I suggest you read ‘SHTF Survival Stories’ by Selco Begovic. It’s a lot more horrifying than any dystomovie. It’s not a single dictator, it’s a bunch of them, each controlling a small, brutal roving band with territories of a few blocks.
Have you seen "The Road Warrior"? I'd say it does a better job of addressing resource considerations than FR.
True. To me, it’s the best of all of them. Although it suffers from the hordes and ‘motorcycle problem’.
From what I recall both sides could only muster a few dozen combatants and that was literally their entire population. Plus the conflict driving the narrative was that one side could refine gasoline--and it is strongly implied that the warlord/marauder antagonists were perfectly willing to leave them alone as long as they could keep producing fuel. All in all a much more interesting and nuanced film than the more black and white Fury Road I think.
The refinery had 10-15. Remember the huge line of attackers and their vehicles? I’d say maybe 40-50. Heck, gas filling up all those dune buggies and 30mpg motorcycles would be prohibitively expensive right now! :)
To bastardize a quote: Professionals study logistics, filmmakers study visual presentation. It bugs me too, but at the same time, I've tried a few times to dramatize logistics work and have failed every time.
Hahahahaha! I’m not used to seeing humor in this comment section. I have tried to dramatize financial modeling - alas, no book deal.