SHREK 2: A RADICAL ATTACK ON CLASS, NATION AND GENDER OPPRESSION - General

[video=youtube;V_Anq_e7wiU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_Anq_e7wiU[/video] [QUOTE]"Shrek 2" 1 hour 45 minutes 2004 Gender bureaucrat enemy of the people "Fairy Godmother" lives a life of dogmatism following the scripts in "Cinderella," "Snow White" and such books that she keeps in her library. Living off the exploited workers, and selling hocus-pocus to the people like many other unproductive sector flim-flam artists we can think of today, Fairy Godmother spreads her poisonous visions of the future everywhere and lords over even the king himself. Seeking to appropriate the sexuality of the king's daughter for her son, Fairy Godmother does her best to spread speciesist propaganda against ogres, one of which already married the king's daughter, thus making her unavailable to the Fairy Godmother's son. The evil speciesist propaganda finds fertile grounds in the king's mind and most of the people of the kingdom. Highly class conscious characters including Pinocchio watching television immediately see through the pigdom's entertainment media, get off the couch and rush to help their compatriots locked up while filmed for a cop show. Once out of prison, our heroes rely on a toiling baker to launch on all-out assault on the bastion of reaction, the castle taken over by Fairy Godmother's plotting. Using the past to serve the present as Mao instructed artists, the directors of "Shrek 2" rattle off cultural references like machine-gun fire. Making Godzilla sounds and tearing down Starbucks on the way to the castle, our heroes arrive in time to do battle with the Fairy Godmother. Borrowing a move from another movie, the king dives to absorb the attack from the Fairy Godmother and he ends up turning into a frog. By running the king-to-frog cultural reference in reverse and making a Godzilla type character a hero, the directors of "Shrek 2" show just how upside down and backwards our culture is. Voices of Hollywood actors considered sexy go into "Shrek 2"---Antonio Bandera for example--but the rich and beautiful people do not appear in the film, which is an animation. The film explores the subjective notion of "cuteness" and ends up throwing the whole notion to the wind, much to the chagrin of the gender aristocracy and gender bureacracy everywhere. Even the cute, fluffy white dog died when Shrek dove into the concert pit, punk-style. We only hope that there is a "Shrek 3," in which the newly-weds rampage through the rest of the society and culture. Otherwise the message will be that society has to be attacked just for the love of two people. Misguided people may watch this movie instead of doing something about the carnage in Iraq and when it comes their turn, they may lash out in violence "in the name of love." That's why there needs to be a "Shrek 3" in which the united workers of all species liberate themselves. We'd also point out to viewers that our heroes never killed anyone just for "love." Good riddance to the Fairy Godmother: she had it coming for a lot of reasons. You can send in your comments on this movie and review to the Web Minister. [/QUOTE] Sounds like a communist, feminist version of [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNgyyd0Z2KA]Francis E. Dec[/url]

The points made here are not so much wrong as they are needlessly inflammatory. While it starts off with a good summation of the Fairy Godmother's manipulative actions and motivations, the speech starts using terms like "the pigdom's entertainment". Shortly after it redefines aspects of the movie to support the speech's own agenda, like deciding the Muffin Man represented the "toiling working class" against the establishment by use of cultural memes. The first two movies do get involved in race/gender topics a lot, but they do it the [I]right[/I] way with subtlety putting the movie itself first. This speech just serves to redefine the movie as some sort of media icon for the author's movement, and is far less effective (only inflammatory) at promoting these progressive ideas. TLDR the speech is as bad as if someone wrote an article about Puss In Boots being a sexist character relying on racist cat tropes.

*snaps fingers*

[QUOTE=bitches;50995220]The points made here are not so much wrong as they are needlessly inflammatory. While it starts off with a good summation of the Fairy Godmother's manipulative actions and motivations, the speech starts using terms like "the pigdom's entertainment". Shortly after it redefines aspects of the movie to support the speech's own agenda, like deciding the Muffin Man represented the "toiling working class" against the establishment by use of cultural memes. The first two movies do get involved in race/gender topics a lot, but they do it the [I]right[/I] way with subtlety putting the movie itself first. This speech just serves to redefine the movie as some sort of media icon for the author's movement, and is far less effective (only inflammatory) at promoting these progressive ideas. TLDR the speech is as bad as if someone wrote an article about Puss In Boots being a sexist character relying on racist cat tropes.[/QUOTE] AKA, It's what happens when you become so engrossed in a single ideological mindset that you see it wherever you go. Or your mind is slowly starting to unravel. Either one.

[QUOTE=Zyler;50995260]AKA, It's what happens when you become so engrossed in a single ideological mindset that you see it wherever you go. Or your mind is slowly starting to unravel. Either one.[/QUOTE] And the only cure is *gasp* associating yourself with and maybe even debating with people who have different viewpoints

:snip: