CultureTRP at the movies : Locke (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist

Since you guys pounded auto mod because you're incapable of reading the sidebar, this needed to be added.

Rule #6 : No examples from fiction or lyrics

Fiction, pop songs, daytime television freakshows, and reality tv do not present useful examples of typical human behaviour, and thus cannot be learned from.

Discussion of overarching popular culture themes, however, is on-topic and makes for an interesting analysis of the shifts in cultural thinking.

Use of fiction or other controlled narratives (reality tv, etc) should only be used as an example of the author's psychology, not the character's.

So if you haven't seen this movie, you aren't missing much. I consider this movie essentially unwatchable for anyone who has actually made peace with the content here and isn't "using it as a toolbox." There's a couple good lines, some good acting and a masterclass in how you can have a movie take place in a car for an hour and a half and actually get someone to watch it.

The setup

A married construction manager with a family leaves one of the largest "pours" his company has ever done after 9 years on the job after a last minute phone call from a one night stand who is prematurely going into labor.

He decides to hand the job over to a young, inexperienced worker who he has faith in and calls his wife to say he'll be home the next morning because he knocked up a 42 year old woman from a one night stand. This goes as you'd predict and he is quickly fired from his job and his wife has a breakdown, calls her sister and tells him to never return to her house.

The whole time, anyone watching this movie is obviously trying to figure out in their head how he's going to unfuck his whole life.

He manages to coach the pour from the drive and he's close to the hospital as she gives birth. The post wall one night stand calls and asks if he'll be there. He reassures her that he will in fact be there.

The punch line

And then, the movie ends.

For those of you already unplugged, you might be asking yourself what?

What can we learn from this?

If society valued the nuclear family, the movie would have made little sense and had poor ratings. This movie makes a lot of sense to heavily conditioned men and irresponsible or idealistic women.

The reason why the movie did well at all, which is actually saying quite a lot given the challenge of how it was filmed, is because the ending punchline resonates with the cultural demographic of movie watchers.

The idea of a man leaving his family, with his own children, to go tend to a 42 year old woman giving birth from a one night stand makes more sense than the obvious, amoral pragmatic decision to tell her "wow, that sucks" and hang up when that phone call came.

To show up and give her a little bit of instruction of how she should handle herself so she gets the point. Will every woman get this point? No. Do 100% of men reading this last part understand what I'm saying? No. But this stands.

More or less, the median man could not and would not do this, because they use their "morality" as a buffer to rationalize away their own weakness despite the overwhelming obvious point here that he owes this woman nothing.

Now there is some backpacking here, a somewhat irrelevant plot point here is the I'm not my dad trope, in which his dead father posthumously appears in the backseat of his vehicle, so he can berate him as "the reason." Vowing to never be like him. Reference Rollo here.

This is of course, an indication of widespread male conditioning that men "own up to their mistakes" as the movie puts it. But truly, this is men embracing the concept of single mother with a penis. The deadbeat father being the new modern day villain. While absolving her of any complicity.

Surely, plenty of moral types find this post in bad taste. Poking at their blue pill sensibilities, to be captain save a ho, or a ho's assurance that a man be there as a sort of giant inflatable "life net" when her behavior catches up to her.

Let's be honest here. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, the options are there for her. We can listen to all these ridiculous complaints about sensitivities to this type or that type of birth control, but ultimately, a woman in the United States has enough birth control options available to her to manage this.

And in fact, in this movie, she admits she was actually trying when she admits "she has no-one and this is her last chance of having something happy in her life."

From this we can assume the writer's decision to write this into the script meant that it seemed plausible, and the demographic felt this as well, that her trying to get pregnant without his knowledge did not preclude him from his duty.

This deference to the weak, reckless 42 year old woman, who this man really owes nothing, is the forged iron that is used to sledge hammer the viewer over the head with their own ill formed self-congratulatory conceptualization of virtue in regards to sexual conflict.

It is a sign of widespread weakness in the ego of men and the entitlements women hold.

The movie leaves the average viewer with a feeling of a man "doing the right thing." When from all objective analysis we can only come to the conclusion that he lit himself on fire to keep someone else warm.

Cowards and the weak love the axiom "if you're not ready for a baby, you're not ready to have sex." It absolves women of responsibility and places it solely on a man's shoulder. Of course you'd say that if you could ultimately terminate any pregnancy, with 100.00% congruence to your own wishes, so long as you're prompt and intellectually capable enough to navigate the process of abortion. And of course you'd say such a thing if you were certain any man you did this to would show up or submit to the court system.

When we speak of frame, this is what we speak of.

Men and women adopting the frame that they are responsible for some idiotic 42 year old woman's idiotic life hail mary.

Reject the psychological schema that this movie is placed on, because it is the box used to imprison you. The tools you need are simple.

A while back, a user lamented that they were crestfallen when they failed to perform with a one night stand. He berated himself and wondered how he "couldn't get hard." Clearly, he felt it was his duty to be turned on, when obviously, it's a woman's job to be attractive enough for a man to be turned on and to be part of that process. His failure to understand this became immediately clear to him, and I hope it will with any man who believes they owe anything to this metaphorical woman after reading the explanation of how this is framed below.

In order to set frame in any scenario, the overarching truth must be stronger than any perception someone can sell you. And so in this case, we have some truths and from that, we can understand how to manage the frame.

Any woman would expect, unless it is explicitly stated before hand, that no man is interested in having a child with her unless they have discussed such a matter.

  1. That is, the default expectation is that a pregnancy is unwanted.

  2. Sufficient birth control options and knowledge are available to make such pregnancy prevention not only easy, but convenient.

  3. You can only force someone through the legal system so long as they are willing to behave in ways that are legal. So long as they are willing to "play the game."

Therefor we can conclude that any woman who gets pregnant from a one night stand has done so for her own reasons or because she's grossly negligent. Given the idea that by default a pregnancy would be wanted is absurd, it would follow that an expectation to support her in such an event would be a form of entitlement.

"You knew I wasn't interested in having a child and were negligent. Handle it, and I will support you if you choose to terminate and respect your wishes if you choose not to. But outside of that, do not ever list my name on any paper or contact me again. Are we clear?"

The most troubling part of this is that I know plenty of posters on here will sneer at this while trying to sell other users on their purple pill manifesto on how they will be the silverback patriarch of their church circle, or lift their way into the top 1% so such amoral behavior will never need to be considered in their perfect plan to the girl who is different, being as they are the "nice guy with an edge."

The truth of the matter being, if you don't understand this or are not capable of it, then you are not ready for a family.

And we can learn that from some shitty movie that rests entirely on the fact that this plot is "virtuous," not idiotic.

[–]RedpilledChris 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Just another example of a blue pill propaganda movie catered for middle age women and cast by an “A lister” white Alpha male that IRL would be banging 20 yo girls by the dozen. Exactly the reason why we need to stay away from fiction.

[–]1-Fidelio- 13 points14 points  (6 children)

Almost all current movies preach a virtue of being self-sacrificing. Not self-sacrificing for a higher ideal like free speech, civil liberties, better lives for your children, but self-sacrificing just cause. You're wrong if you don't help mass immigration of "refugees", if you protect yourself and loved ones with a gun, if you don't leave your family for a out-of-date roastie, and so on and so on.

They're advertising the value of pathological self-sacrifice, typically under feminist terms. This is not just to try to pander to specific markets, they're to brainwash. If people are convinced to hold faulty ideals, they're easy to be outcompeted by the children of these moviemakers who will pass more effective ideals to their children, much like how Bill Gates pushes common core for all american children and sends his own to a non-common core private school.

[–]GL_QUAD 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Donovan, in his book, Becoming a Barbarian, touches on this.

Such "hero" who decides to man upTM for some random woman is not a hero; in fact, he is merely a product of his environment and the dispersed values behind it (that'd be Donovan's Empire of Nothing, and its universalist ethic).

In my own observation, civilization, as it stands, is a failure, as human cognitive faculties are not sufficient enough to make use of the opportunities given by civilization in a non-destructive, respectful way. Humans cross boundaries all the time (be it those of ecosystems, or those of other humans), they make bad decisions, overcrowd places & become aggressive with each other... to what end? To feel sorry, and to sacrifice for such a clusterfuck that is bad by design? Eh.

[–]1-Fidelio- 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I mean, the supposed hero of the story has to abandon one woman to save the other, so it isn't even an expression of the flawed values of our current culture.

I'd sooner say it's wish fulfillment porn for women who's eggs are going out of date.

[–]GL_QUAD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd sooner say it's wish fulfillment porn for women who's eggs are going out of date.

Perhaps. After all, as a filmmaker, you gotta have an audience (the broader the better - as cliche as it gets, as per some social Overton Window, etc.), and you gotta go after the box office numbers.

Although, Donovan covers this too. "To be a friend to all is to be a friend of none", a quote supposedly originating from Aristotle, makes its way into the book as well. As you mentioned: to be there for one woman, the protagonist has to drop the other woman. He doesn't have the capacity to take care of them both. In this light, his act is a pointless one.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Self sacrifice indeed. Its the trope the church has been using for centuries.. sacrifice yourself and live in heaven forever! Meanwhile the people spreading these self sacrificial ideologies are massively enriched from all these slaves they've produced..

[–]1-Fidelio- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A group where members are willing to risk their lives for each other will outcompete groups that are too disorganised or cowardly to do so. The places where "the church" did this did so before the establishment of monotheism too. This wasn't dismantled until post world-war situation.

Now I understand how anyone who takes such a risk in a world where others wouldn't defend him is the fool, but you have to remember that the reverse is true in a healthy society, where that risk taking is actually healthy.

[–]4bdul520 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an amazing reply. Thank you.

[–]Redfornerds 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Great post. There is something about this movie. I watched this at a difficult time in my life and later post pill. It’s surprising in many ways, first off, this movie was a cinematographers dream. Almost the entire movie was shot in one car, with Tom Hardy in it. The way they managed to keep things interesting along with stunning faded shots of mundane motorway traffic is a feat in itself.
Moving onto the plot itself, I got a telling glimpse of the character in the first half when he says

Do it for the piece of sky we are stealing with our building. You do it for the air that will be displaced, and most of all, you do it for the fucking concrete.

Obviously a man of integrity, a principled, meticulous man.

But suddenly he starts cursing out at his rear view at an imaginary backseat dad who was never there, which is why he was driving across the city giving up his peace, accomplishments, family.

What the fuck are you looking at? Laughing, aren't you? Laughing at my predicament! Familiar predicament to a man like you, isn't it dad? There he is, look! Like father, like son! There's the man I made. What is it they say,"the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"? Well, that's where you're wrong! Listen to me, you fucking piece of worthless shit: I want you to watch. Do you know, infact, I would like to take a fucking shovel and dig you up out of the fucking ground and make you watch me tonight. I would pull open your eyes and kick the mud and worms and shit out of your fucking ears just for the duration of this journey, because it's me driving. Me! Not you. And unlike you, I will drive straight to the place where I should be, and I will be there to take care of my... to take care of my fuck-up.

Goddamn. He has integrity, all right, with some issues. It’s just that circumstances and a misaligned value system, a dissonance, an internal contradiction between worldview and reality which can lead awry. Also the importance of a strong male authority during adolescence that translates into balanced maturity.

I could obviously go on, in closing I’d like to say that this movie is aware of its virtue and hypocrisy which would otherwise have been ironic. I think this is reflected in the dark nature of the film, and it’s setting. Night. At the end we see some hints of the blackness fading but never actually see daylight. It’s unsettling to even the unplugged person. The ridiculousness of his reality is made apparent, driven home, made more real.

[–]conflagratorX 7 points8 points  (2 children)

The story does not make any sense: why the hell main hero drops his job suddenly to be present during delivery? It is not like anyone desperately needs him to be there. If he wants to support his bastard he could do this in thousands ways that does not involve screwing his employer and loosing job.

And the worst part is it could be actually good movie if they would just invent good reason he drops everything and drives.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Its so ridiculous.. but the conditioning is so strong that you can really train anyone to do anything just by making a movie that conditions them to do it.

[–]lee4333 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I didn't see it as Locke making these sacrifices for the woman. He's got a kid on the way, the paternal instinct to be there for his soon-to-be-born child was driving his actions. He owes the woman nothing but made those sacrifices (leaving job, leaving family) for his offspring.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

They use the posthumous appearance by his father as the reasoning. And frankly put, men have no "paternal instinct." This is conditioned. If men did, they couldn't achieve their sexual strategy.

It's no different than a woman. If women were predisposed to lifelong pair bonding (non-hypergamous) they couldn't achieve the goal of the species (to increase genetic quality and diversity).

The goal of men, from the standpoint of evolution is to compete and for women to select. Rearing is a female behavior.

See : R vs K selection.

[–]yaardi 2 points3 points  (1 child)

And frankly put, men have no "paternal instinct." This is conditioned.

The fuck are you talking about?

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you honestly believe a hundred thousand years ago men felt duty bound to be at the side of whatever woman was siring their children? To stick around and "do the right thing?"

Furthermore, do you think these traits are present in the arousal profile of women for short term mates? Namely, nurturing features?

These are conditioned traits to mitigate male nature, which is indiscriminately procreatory.

To be clear, I'm not saying men "don't feel" simply that you're putting a lot of stock into conditioned attributes of morality.

If you need a refresher on the baseline of human morality and impulses, take a look in any third world country, where human life has close to zero value.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRian_Stone 5 points6 points  (5 children)

No one said game theory was civil

[–]420KUSHBUSH 1 point2 points  (4 children)

All is fair in the game of Love & War

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRian_Stone 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I wouldn't make it into poetry, this game is for blood stakes

[–]420KUSHBUSH 0 points1 point  (2 children)

To be able to live happily and at peace one must not take life seriously

However, being able to understand the stakes while amusing yourself and stay relaxed is essential. Perspective is relative. Don't forget that

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRian_Stone 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Dude, to nwas raised the n a ranch. Had no issue killing animals, but I don't take pleasure in it.

It's the mentality I've had for a long time

[–]420KUSHBUSH 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No idea what that first sentence means. Fair enough, at the end of the day do what works best for you. If you're happy all the more power to you

[–]unchaintheblock 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just look at the OWNERS of the Hollywood movie studios, WHO THEY ARE and their agenda. Their goal is to boost immoral behavior and to destroy the traditional family. The 'officially fake' protocols of the elders of zion state exact what they are doing. No matter if fake or not, they describe what is going on right now. They are the same guys running the tv news channels and brainwashing the masses to give up their freedom to the nanny state that protects them from anything bad, while doing the exact opposite.


[–]AriesAsF 2 points3 points  (9 children)

"If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, the options are there for her."

This is literally the least Red Pill statement I've ever heard. You are responsible for YOU. Why would you ever trust a woman, or a pill with only an 85% efficacy rate? The responsibility is on the man to be the adult, protect his own interests and WRAP HIS SHIT. A redpill statement would have read, "If a man doesn't want to get a woman pregnant, the options are there for him."

[–]ThrowFader 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Both statements are correct, dude.

Learn to understand context before jumping to correct

[–]jebemtvoju 2 points3 points  (7 children)

it's an objective and factual statement, not advice. Women do have options to prevent pregnancy, at any stage, and with a lot more variety than just a condom, as it is for men. You reformulate things to strengthen your desired mindset and while it is beneficial in the early steps of internalizing new views, you can't use it as a basis for critique because it's still just controlled purposeful self-delusion.

[–]AriesAsF -1 points0 points  (6 children)

My statement stands: Leaving birth control in the woman's hands in NOT redpill. I don't care what a woman says she taking, its still your responsibility to keep your semen out of the womb. Doesn't matter if you feel its her fault, when she gets pregnant, society says thats ON YOU. And will MAKE you pay for it. Don't aim a gun at someone you don't want to shoot.

[–]jebemtvoju 2 points3 points  (2 children)

you completely missed my point

[–]AriesAsF -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Me and the rest of the world buddy

[–]dulkemaru51 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Leaving birth control in the woman's hands in NOT redpill. I don't care what a woman says she taking, its still your responsibility to keep your semen out of the womb.

No one's denying that, it's not sidebarred by accident...

Doesn't matter if you feel its her fault, when she gets pregnant, society says thats ON YOU. And will MAKE you pay for it.

As if that wasn't known by RPers...

The fact that a woman doesn't get "accidentally pregnant" is still just that, a fact. She's either a sneaky cunt or an impulsive whore. Either a trapper or a blind driver. Both are bad. That's what he's saying. It's ok to admit you're wrong, while it's technically breaking frame, it's at least not stupid.

[–]AriesAsF -1 points0 points  (1 child)

What an idiotic statement. Just because you really want to believe the worst about half of the human population, doesn't make it a 'fact'. You obviously don't have even the most basic knowledge of biology or how most birth controls work. Women on birth control get pregnant by accident all the time because there literally is no more medication on earth whose efficacy is affected by more variables. It only has a 92% efficacy rate with average use. That means 8 out 100 women using it will get pregnant even with the best intentions. The condom only has an efficacy rate of 85%. So 15 times out of every 100 uses, it fails. Does that mean the men meant for it to happen? No. And while I have no doubt there are plenty of shady bitches out there, most women don't want to get pregnant on accident. But shit happens and then your life changes. She should be on the pill, but you should wrap it too, end of story. The redpill is about self-responsibility, not blaming the other half the species for everything bad that happens under the sun.

[–]dulkemaru51 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It only has a 92% efficacy rate with average use

That's true. I concede that. My bad. Obviously though, you're only addressing that error because you have nothing to say and simply refuse to accept that you were attacking a strawman from the very beginning. And although my statement was factually incorrect, my intent was to say that women should be held accountable for what they do (as should men for the 100th time) and you know that.

You're absolutely fucking retarded. No one is denying that a man should take responsibility for his actions in general and pregnancy in particular. In fact, TRP urges men to do just that, it's in the sidebar. No one said that men shouldn't be held accountable for getting some dumb bitch pregnant. You originally misunderstood the guy, who was saying that in society women are excempt from responsibility, as him saying that it's only women's responsibility and that men should freely cum inside women and that men mustn't be held responsible, and you keep arguing that everyone is wrong for saying that, even though no one ever even said it.


[–]Darkestxlight 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Reject the psychological schema that this movie is placed on, because it is the box used to imprison you."

Media has become the primary method to deliver this type of conditioning, and is literally the poison that society gladly eats up. It is one of the main reasons I went off all social media and don't really watch anything except the occasional horror or action movie.

[–]yaardi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You watched a different movie. The main character stayed in frame the whole time, under great pressure from both work and wife, and stayed firmly in what he believed, which is that he was not going to leave that woman (who he had a one-night stand with) alone while she's giving birth to his child. He had certain principles and he followed them.

[–]indeydius 0 points1 point  (1 child)

> Let's be honest here. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, the options are there for her. We can listen to all these ridiculous complaints about sensitivities to this type or that type of birth control, but ultimately, a woman in the United States has enough birth control options available to her to manage this.

To be more explicit, the only choices a man has are a condom (which decreases pleasure) or sterilization. Women can use the morning after pill or an IUD (neither of which reduce pleasure), abortion or adoption. With that many options, the law should make women completely financially responsible for children out of wedlock.

[–]AriesAsF 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea, and elephants should be able to fly. As a redpill male, its your responsibility to look at the world the way it is, not the way you think its should be. The way it is, is you are responsible if you get her pregnant and society will make you pay. So who are you going to trust the birth control to? Whose hands are you going to put your future in? Hers?

[–]NormalAndy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congratulations on holding frame all the way through that- I think....?

[–]confusedguy911911 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I hated that avatar movie

[–]3whatsthisgarg -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

wtf is this garbage; once again you are writing posts that exactly zero people who it applies to will read it

Really looking forward to your review of "Bad Moms"

[–]ThatOneDrunkUncle 3 points4 points  (3 children)

I'm only replying because I like a lot of the shit you post here... Sado might post verbose shit that's only relevant to highly RP aware guys, but it's very well thought out, he elaborates his argument, and he breaks things down in a way that's almost too intellectual for this sub. No, it doesn't help anybody get laid, but it's a kind of thoughtful exercise. I don't understand why you criticize his post but let so many dumb posts here slide. I like his analyses.

It's intermediate level RP. I believe we need more of this analysis of cultural mindset because it stimulates discussion and a breakdown of herd mindset vs what we see. I'll never watch this shit, but I'm glad to know I've progressed past that point. It's good that someone can venture in there and explore the thought of the current climate.

[–]3whatsthisgarg 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Appreciate your perspective, but I still don't see the value of the post.

You can see real life examples of this any time you want over on the relationships sub. Read the commentary, laugh, shake your head, the end. Get outraged if you want to, I have no problem with that.

but it's very well thought out, he elaborates his argument,

The major problem is he does not elaborate his argument. He simply assumes it. That's a fallacy:

The reason why the movie did well at all, which is actually saying quite a lot given the challenge of how it was filmed, is because the ending punchline [sic] resonates with the cultural demographic of movie watchers.

Any proof of this?

I'm pretty sure this movie got rave reviews DESPITE its ludicrous plot, not because of it. I imagine most viewers thought it was stupid and unrealistic that this would happen. The Rotten Tomatoes review:

A one-man show set in a single confined location, Locke demands a powerful performance

Other reviews call it "a daring experiment."

I'm not going to look any farther into it. I don't care that society has Blue Pill values. I already knew that.

[–]jebemtvoju 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You can see real life examples of this any time you want over on the relationships sub. Read the commentary, laugh, shake your head, the end. Get outraged if you want to, I have no problem with that.

And you can see a real-life example of its expression in film here. Neither is more valuabe, it's just that one is indirect and the other is direct.

Any proof of this?

you can disregard most TRP knowledge on the basis of there not being conclusive empirical proof but we still choose to believe them because experience suggests they're true and the principles hold.

"give me proof" is a last ditch hope of a mind desperately clinging to its old views. Sado put up an idea which fits into rp framework and there isn't a reason to doubt it until evidence suggests otherwise. You can expect a rock to fall to the ground when dropped without proving it until evidence suggests that it doesn't.

[–]3whatsthisgarg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And you can see a real-life example of its expression in film here.

lol wut? It's not real-life, it's a made-up story. What do we learn from that? That the screenwriter is a blue pill faggot?

not being conclusive empirical proof but

You didn't read this part carefully:

The reason why the movie did well at all... is because the ending ... resonates with the cultural demographic of movie watchers.

Is there any proof of this claim? (And even if there were, who cares that most people are blue pill faggots? We already knew that.)

I'm pretty sure this movie got rave reviews DESPITE its ludicrous plot, not because of it. I imagine most viewers thought it was stupid and unrealistic that this would happen.

Most people watch scary movies because they like gore and thrills, not because they agree with the idiotic choices the characters make. I'm pretty sure if there had been exit interviews for Locke, nobody would say that they thought his choices were wise.

Sometimes, not often, screenplays are based on values. Usually, screenplays are based on contrivances. This one started with a gimmick: the entire thing is filmed in one setting with one character. That's it.

[–]jebemtvoju 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why shouldn't he make the post? It applies to everyone because hollywood media is everywhere. You may be past the point of coming to terms with BP views in the media but others may not be and even elementary knowledge can help strengthen new views.

[–]BeeLow0519 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I am proposing you to make this a trend because i cannot help seeing movies differently with the TRP lens on. Last examples were Up in the Air and Eyes Wide Shut (Both on Netflix)

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist[S] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I'm not sure up in the air would have much to offer, because the commentary would be on the characters. Pretty standard movie with AFBB in it, with an interesting twist as in IRL you see the "fuck zoned" situation often but is rarely talked about on here.

Eyes Wide Shut, is a blue pill movie written to try and be red pill. It doesn't make a lot of sense to unplugged men. Sort of the same situation as this thread, so I will probably write about this.

The interesting thing about Eyes Wide Shut is that the writer and director spin this "red pill story" which is really just one long fever dream, and honestly a significant number of actual marriages are a lot more gritty than that.

But I suppose that is also one way to realize you're sort of a nut job, when you realize your life is someone else's psychological thriller.

Simply put, eyes wide shut lacks the authenticity a movie like Bitter Moon does have. Roman Polanski is a dirty man that very much understands sexual conflict.

Bitter Moon is ten times the sexual thriller that Eyes Wide Shut is, because it was written by a true degenerate rather than blue pill types imagining some fever dream.

True degenerates understand game theory and sexual conflict and live in the reality of such a thing rather than their idealized conception of how it should be. Eyes Wide Shut is like a gay man describing a solid lay with a woman. It's how a blue pill person imagines crazy red pilled situations unfolding.

It makes sense insofar that it's not impossible, but lacks the authenticity that a true understanding communicates through the writing.

[–]BeeLow0519 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Where did you develop this talent at movie analysis?! Ill check out the Bitter movie for sure. You translated your thoughts perfectly. Thanks man

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A little bit of screenwriting and a very high level of understanding of this content. So I understand what these writers are doing. Ultimately screenwriting can very often involve you expressing yourself through your own value systems which you unknowingly oftentimes impart into your screenplay. That's what happened in this OP.

I already know the writer has very strong views towards men who do not stick around to raise their children. He wrote an entire screenplay on his feelings on that and wrapped a movie around it.

Writers that have little overlap between their own value systems and society at large can have trouble writing movies that generate revenue.

This is why writers like Lars Von Trier can write content that generates a ton of awards but little in the way of big budget stuff. Super niche. It's the reason why Hollywood panders to writers that have mainstream views. There is no conspiracy. People don't want to watch movies that impart values on them they don't agree with. They want to be patted on the back and told they're a good person, smart, making the right choices in life.

Understanding game theory makes a lot of movies hard to watch. That's why I have a lot of respect for Bitter Moon as a movie. Even though the lead up is pretty cliche, the relationship dynamics are modelled after an NPD man with a BPD woman.

It's dead on. That is some real cluster-b headcase shit that only someone who's walked that walk could write in that way. Knowing this, you don't even have to know any details of the teenager he drugged to know that he was guilty. And that's giving a lot of leeway for false rape accusations.

Simply put, through his writing, I know Polanski is a deviate that few will ever understand. I'm very surprised he's not in prison yet.

So you can see, writing exposes a lot of a person. It's unintentionally intimate. Which is why I am very careful to limit what I write about that is personal and try to write abstractly. And even still I'm sure I unknowingly impart my values all throughout my writing.

[–]waking-life 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really interesting analysis. I'm a big Kubrick fan and have always thought of Eyes Wide Shut as one of the most realistic portrayals of relationships I have ever seen. The obvious hypergamy of Nicole Kidman's character who would have given everything up (high SMV husband, money, kid) for a night with the sailor she wanted to fuck. Tom Cruise's character is blue pilled, sure, and the movie is told through his experiences, so I guess you're right in that at its core it's a blue pill movie.

Gonna check out Bitter Moon. Any more Polanski films you could recommend that would interest me in a red pill sense?

[–]TheBadGoy -1 points0 points  (2 children)

To redpilled guys this post doesn't hold much value... but maybe Marvel soibois and CNN/Fox News consuming sheep might get a clue of what the American Media's real purpose is.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This is interesting because it's most certainly not any attempt at propaganda. What you're actually seeing is the writer's internalized conception of male duty and honor, absolving her, painting his choice as virtuous etc.

You're able to take a view into how mainstream views have shifted and plan around this.

I don't see the writer as pandoring, instead, as patting themselves on the back.

[–]TheBadGoy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wasn't referring to this film specifically, I was referring to Hollywood as a whole... That's why movies and the Red Pill don't get along, because disgusting people like Roman Polanski and Asia Argento are the ones making them

[–]1Fyn689 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Shit, great read. Ive seen similar shit happen to more than one guy I know and misery always ensues. Also, I died laughing at "captain save a ho" .