- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle: unnecessary sadism in cinema (Spoilers)
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:46 am
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:46 am
for anyone who has seen this, you know exactly what i'm talking about:
in a movie about finding your place, you have this warm ray of optimism and perseverance
he's the friend of Mowgli and, as a runt albino, serves as the counterpart to Mowgli's journey
first, it's expected that Mowgli, in his frustration at being kicked out, will lash out at Bhoot.
while very mean, it's not out of place. this is the typical sort of response you'd expect out of kids who are outcasts and being pushed more towards the edge of society. this is the sort of irrational-emotional conflict that brings friends together in the end (and it is very natural and normal)
however, this is what we get:
a random bit of conflict on the level of D/D from GOT. Mowgli stumbles upon the taxidermied head of Bhhot (and they even make the head smile). this is pure sadism. there is no redemption arc for Bhoot, nor is there one for the Mowgli-Bhoot relationship. there is just crass shock value for no reason other than adding shock.
i'm a fan of dark things, but this isn't dark. this is just sadism. this is a Hostel-level inclusion
dark is having Mowgli and Bhoot reunited and then Bhoot dying doing something bold/brave in the spirit of moving the narrative forward (and likely bringing Mowgli together with the pack). but no, Bhoot is given no chance to have his death mean anything. he's reduced to pure shock for no reason other than shock (the actual shock of that scene could have been accomplished with any animals being taxidermist, not the bff of the protagonist who last saw him in major conflict)
this is trash. utter trash.
in a movie about finding your place, you have this warm ray of optimism and perseverance
he's the friend of Mowgli and, as a runt albino, serves as the counterpart to Mowgli's journey
first, it's expected that Mowgli, in his frustration at being kicked out, will lash out at Bhoot.
quote:
Bhoot: You’ve been spending a lot of time on your own since the monkey-people. It’s not good to be alone. Wolves are supposed to be with other wolves.
Mowgli: I’m not a wolf.
Bhoot: Of course you are, Mowgli. You’re the best wolf I know.
Mowgli: Why do you always want to be around me, Bhoot?
Bhoot: Because you’re my best friend, Mowgli. I understand what it’s like. For nobody to want you. I don’t have any friends neither. But we have each other. And we’re kind of same, you and me.
Mowgli: We’re not the same.
Bhoot: Of course we are. Because you’re special and I’m special.
Mowgli: We’re not special! Don’t you get it? We’ll never be one of them! We’re freaks! You’re not special, Bhoot! It’s just something your mother tells you to make you feel better about yourself because you came out wrong!
while very mean, it's not out of place. this is the typical sort of response you'd expect out of kids who are outcasts and being pushed more towards the edge of society. this is the sort of irrational-emotional conflict that brings friends together in the end (and it is very natural and normal)
however, this is what we get:
a random bit of conflict on the level of D/D from GOT. Mowgli stumbles upon the taxidermied head of Bhhot (and they even make the head smile). this is pure sadism. there is no redemption arc for Bhoot, nor is there one for the Mowgli-Bhoot relationship. there is just crass shock value for no reason other than adding shock.
i'm a fan of dark things, but this isn't dark. this is just sadism. this is a Hostel-level inclusion
dark is having Mowgli and Bhoot reunited and then Bhoot dying doing something bold/brave in the spirit of moving the narrative forward (and likely bringing Mowgli together with the pack). but no, Bhoot is given no chance to have his death mean anything. he's reduced to pure shock for no reason other than shock (the actual shock of that scene could have been accomplished with any animals being taxidermist, not the bff of the protagonist who last saw him in major conflict)
this is trash. utter trash.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:47 am to SlowFlowPro
Damn, I was almost over this.
Bhoot deserves better.
Bhoot deserves better.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:49 am to SlowFlowPro
Jesus
I have no emotional investment in the characters and know nothing about the movie other than what you’ve told me in your post, and that image still makes me uneasy
I have no emotional investment in the characters and know nothing about the movie other than what you’ve told me in your post, and that image still makes me uneasy
Posted on 5/12/19 at 11:02 am to SlowFlowPro
No other death in this film would have been more impactful for Mongolia. He and Bhoot are, to a degree, both the outcast of the pack. Mowgli, shunned by the pack has to find his place in the world. When he’s brought to the human camp and sees Bhoot, he learns quickly that man is just as cruel to things that are weak as the jungle is. If he can’t find his place, he will be cast aside, too.
Life is cruel. Life is unfair, and we don’t all get a chance at redemption or reunification. The lesson is to take advantage of the moments you get, not put off taking advantage of them because hopefully you’ll have the opportunity later. Was there some shock to it, of course, but I don’t think it was for the sake of sadism.
Life is cruel. Life is unfair, and we don’t all get a chance at redemption or reunification. The lesson is to take advantage of the moments you get, not put off taking advantage of them because hopefully you’ll have the opportunity later. Was there some shock to it, of course, but I don’t think it was for the sake of sadism.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 11:23 am to SlowFlowPro
I remember trying to justify that in my mind by thinking that Disney did dark shite all the time back in the good ol days. But that was incredibly fricked up and from left field.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 11:28 am to Michael T. Tiger
quote:
No other death in this film would have been more impactful
They used a hydrogen bomb when a .22 would have worked, bruh
Posted on 5/12/19 at 2:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
So who’s death would have sufficed? Mowgli needed to be able to see himself on that wall. No other face would work. It was basically Luke seeing his own image when he “killed” Vader in the cave on Dagobah.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 4:01 pm to Michael T. Tiger
quote:
So who’s death would have sufficed?
any random dead animal would have worked, or a room full of taxidermy
Posted on 5/12/19 at 5:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
Aw sorry you can’t handle your emotions cupcake
Posted on 5/12/19 at 6:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
Did you react this way when the red wedding happened in GOT?
Life is brutal. Sometimes horrible things happen with little to no explanation. Sometimes life is sadistic. Do we enjoy sadism? No. It makes us uneasy. Sometimes it’s the goal of the director to make us feel that way. Is it “shocking”? Yes. Sometimes the world is shocking. Is shock value entertaining? That’s subjective.
Life is brutal. Sometimes horrible things happen with little to no explanation. Sometimes life is sadistic. Do we enjoy sadism? No. It makes us uneasy. Sometimes it’s the goal of the director to make us feel that way. Is it “shocking”? Yes. Sometimes the world is shocking. Is shock value entertaining? That’s subjective.
This post was edited on 5/12/19 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 5/12/19 at 6:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Doesn't you putting this much thought into it kind of prove that it was the right move? You're talking about it after the fact because it had the desired effect.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 6:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
I disagree. As a part of a pack, Mowgli would have seen dead animals before, including wolves. Seeing some random animal would not have shaken him up unless he realized it was there just because it was there to be a trophy. That realization would have been lost on him if it wasn't a member of his pack.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 6:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
How many Jungle Book movies does the world need?
Posted on 5/12/19 at 7:40 pm to abellsujr
quote:
Did you react this way when the red wedding happened in GOT?
no. completely different (and served a narrative purpose other than extreme shock)
quote:
Is it “shocking”? Yes. Sometimes the world is shocking. Is shock value entertaining? That’s subjective.
if the shock works narratively and has a legitimate purpose outside of the shock itself, then it has value
this lacked both. it's just sadism
Posted on 5/12/19 at 7:42 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Doesn't you putting this much thought into it kind of prove that it was the right move?
that's like justifying the choices made when bad content is made
pointing out an error/misstep isn't somehow a backhand justification/defense of that error/misstep
Posted on 5/12/19 at 7:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
The red wedding did not have to be that gruesome to serve the narrative. But the extra gore made us uneasy and shocked us.
I haven’t seen Mogli, so I can’t really comment on the scene. But it sounds like, as you say, there was a point to the scene. It just took it too far. I can understand why that would offend someone, but I can also see how that would add extra impact to the scene. I guess I can’t really say for sure because I haven’t seen it.
I haven’t seen Mogli, so I can’t really comment on the scene. But it sounds like, as you say, there was a point to the scene. It just took it too far. I can understand why that would offend someone, but I can also see how that would add extra impact to the scene. I guess I can’t really say for sure because I haven’t seen it.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News