Trump Films (the Best Films)

there's a purge tv show too

(it premieres next month)

if we're including tv in this, i'd definitely throw in the new season of UNBREAKABLE KIMMY SCHMIDT, particularly the documentary episode

also i feel like your perception, clemenza, that there's been lots of trump at the movies might be rooted in the way culture in general has become more militaristic and dour? (you could write a dissertation on the d/evolution of imagine dragons from mumford hangers-on to official soundtrack for the no doubt imminent gladiator games)

what was the Seagal (or Van Damme?) movie that Trump had cut down to just the carnage for maximum enjoyment?

so, maybe that soporific John Wick garbage?

bloodsport iirc

and it wasn’t that he cut it down, it was that he made don jr fast-forward to the good parts, which makes it funnier/sadder

Two precursors: Pain and Gain and Observe and Report

yeah, i left Pain & Gain unfinished, as i would like to leave this era

beatriz at dinner

Logan seemed to incorporate several references to the effects of the trump regime or at least what they were talking about. Clamping down on certain aspects of society etc.
I noticed at the time it was out but it's pretty early in the incumbency

the florida project wasn't bad in this regard but there aren't many. (shouldn't be a controversial statement with a degenerate product of nepotism who can't even spell simple words correctly on a regular basis in the oval office but it takes a while for people born into privilege and advantage sufficient enough post-reagan that they get to become professional gatekeepers on multi-million $$ "art" projects to catch wind of what's 'really going on' in 90% of american lives for the production of zeigeist-y films to ensue. i'll be surprised if there are many pre-midterms)

i feel like your perception that there's been lots of trump at the movies might be rooted in the way culture in general has become more militaristic and dour?

I also see a lot of documentaries, and that probably causes me to feel like there are more Trump films out there than there actually are--a lot of what I list above are documentaries.

Also given the speed at which the outrages pile up, I'm not sure most filmmakers know what to focus on

True--unless you're Spike Lee, focused on one specific thing, where the fuck do you start? Wherever you start, it'll be old news within a week. If Trump is reelected--sorry to ruin everyone's day--I suspect there'll be such numbing despair that filmmakers will either turn away entirely, or Trump will only be a metaphorical presence, embedded in nihilistic horror films and such.

I forget that J. Hoberman maintains a site. Here's his review of Get Out ("Conceived in the waning days of Barack Obama’s presidency and premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, four days after Donald Trump assumed power"), also a more recent piece on "Trump the Entertainer."

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/13/a-real-american-horror-story-get-out/
http://j-hoberman.com/2016/11/the-entertainer-trump-loeil/

Logan seemed to incorporate several references to the effects of the trump regime or at least what they were talking about. Clamping down on certain aspects of society etc.

this was written years before and filmed before the election

but there was no predatory capitalism or "Clamping down on certain aspects of society" in the USA til the Grifter came along

also, Hugh Jackman didn't have a beard

Seemed to be all too fitting at the time I saw it anyway.

Hollywood's first explicitly Trump film will probably star Matt Damon, Jake Gyllenhaal and Jessica Chastain.

Shock and Awe isn't terrible, but boy it feels 10 years out of date (if it had been made in 2008, I think there would have been a dozen related films even then, counting documentaries). Obviously, it's a W. film first and foremost. But--I'm sure why Rob Reiner felt it would be timely now, much as with The Post--it begins with a Bill Moyers quote about a free press. To that end, it becomes partly a Trump film.

Worst line (one of the two main reporters contrasting Woodward and Bernstein with the reporting they're doing on Bush):

"They took down a president whose biggest crime was trying to cover up some dirty political tricks."

Not quite.

not film but barry (will hader) "is" "trump" (hader a wannabe actor not eastern eurotrash thrall assassin reading alec baldwin (trump)'s lines from glengarry glen ross) a la arrested development bluths = bushes sorta

Went to see How to Steal a Million tonight, part of a local rep series called "Designing the Movies." (Too tired, shouldn't have gone.) They've got Whit Stillman's Metropolitan coming up, which the series host described as a snapshot of "Trump's New York." Intriguing, but I've seen Metropolitan two or three times, and I would have said that's as far away from Trump as you can get.

Also: Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9 is a Trump film. A not particularly good one.

Metropolitan is a weird case: It kind of fits in that it was shot in Trump's New York, but it's set much earlier (early '70s).

You could make an argument that Rick Von Sloneker is now president, or at least on the Supreme Court.

cross-medium:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/crudo-she-tweeted-olivia-laings-crudo/

this book is as excruciating as living through the trump presidency

not in a good way either

Metropolitan is set in the early '70s? Honestly, that went right past me--I just thought it was set when it was made.

Looking around trying to confirm that, and all I can come up with is "It's set, according to a title card, in 'Manhattan, Christmas Vacation, not so long ago.'" How did you place it in the early '70s?...I just don't remember anything specific.

To me it was set in the 80s.

It's based on being in NY after/during Stillman's freshman year so I guess 70s is right, but it really did seem like the 8Os.

"I was specifically portraying the 1969 deb season, as during that season there was very much the feeling that the debutante era was over. "

https://www.theawl.com/2012/08/a-conversation-with-whit-stillman-about-the-script-of-metropolitan/

I'm going to have to watch it again because I would not have guessed that year.

But:

"People can come to their own conclusions about what period it is. And the reaction was great: there were some people who thought it was the 50s, others, the 60s, others who thought it was the 80s, when it was filmed. What helped the ambiguity on film is that most cars parked on Park Avenue, or on any street, are old cars."

The Stillman universe has it's own unique sense of time and logic, but another tell re: Metropolitan's time frame is Audrey (Carolyn Farina's character) briefly reappearing as a grown-up in The Last Days of Disco, which was somewhat clearly set in '79-'81.

That's a good point--hadn't though about the two films in relation to each other. (Doesn't Audrey turn up in the one he made a couple of years ago, too?)

"thought"

Carolyn Farina had a small role as a waitress in Damsels In Distress.

The Incredibles 2 flirts with being a Trump movie with some "Make Superheroes Legal Again" sloganeering, but then makes the billionaire into a loveable boy scout and the real villain a--well, I don't wanna spoil, but its curious, to say the least.

I still liked the film (Brad Bird is probably the best director of action, live or otherwise, currently working) but either Bird seems ideologically confused or the film bears some of the marks of probably having gone into development before November 2016 and then finding ways to gesture towards Trump without really knowing what to do with this context.

how has no one said DEADPOOL yet? sure, first one came out in early 2016, but that's the Trump movie.

search: the doc Bisbee '17

as the filmmaker noted, they started shooting a month before "Dipshit was elected."

They've got Whit Stillman's Metropolitan coming up, which the series host described as a snapshot of "Trump's New York." Intriguing, but I've seen Metropolitan two or three times, and I would have said that's as far away from Trump as you can get.

Yeah, Metropolitan could be set in Christmas 2017 and it still wouldn't be in Trump's anything -- it is interested in entirely different stuff. I find that description of the movie almost inconceivable.

Bird seems ideologically confused

his response to "Brad Bird's films seems v v Randian" was "nuh-uh, I have learnt over time that a little bit of compromise, but not much, can be practical"

he made the iron giant so he gets a pass from me even if he decides to make nothing but documentaries about puppies being kicked into woodchippers from now on

Nocturnal Animals feels like a parable about the gap between urban coastal America and red-state Texas in a Trump-era way.

ehhh

Fury Road definitely feels like it belongs in this category, despite having come out in 2015.

Nah, Fury Road is well Brexit

god fine. FINE. do not test me on this. pic.twitter.com/pIbC45xUN2

— Georgina Voss (@gsvoss) February 20, 2018

(thread well worth a look (Brexit not so much))

is immortan joe the eu, and max and furiosa the plucky brexiters? or is joe the crusty brexiter, trying to keep his grip on the imaginary 'good old days', as represented by the brides? truly the mark of great art is that one can read volumes into it

Because we're free to say anything's about anything, I'm counting Stranger Things--set in 1984--as a Trump film.

http://i.pinimg.com/originals/42/3f/7e/423f7eaac00d27d2572f602a25d1c783.jpg

I knew someone would post that Dan S., maybe even you--you did the same thing on the a different thread the other day.

I'm really intrigued by anyone who's a) sickened by Trump to the point of needing to scold people about it, but b) opening up a Trump thread to see what someone's posted.

I've no interest in rugby. I never open up rugby threads.

Art interacts with real life, and the aspects of society that facilitated Trump’s rise have not vanished or changed. It’s possible to watch Red Rocket without even noticing it’s set during the campaign, let alone thinking about any likeness between Mikey and the campaigner. Clem specifically notes here how it’s effective in the same way as Shampoo, if the viewer happens to be attuned to it (Ashby does make more of the campaign than Baker, but his lead is oblivious - that’s especially for the viewer.)

If it upsets you to read clemenza’s posts itt, then either don’t click, or try articulating your objection to the content? Wishing that nobody else thinks about politics isn’t going to be effective - it’s just Tinkerbell thinking again.

You could definitely enjoy or hate or feel anything between about Red Rocket without giving a second's thought to Trump--you could probably even love All the President's Men as just a great detective story, and not think about Nixon as anything more than a plot device in the film. But from the very first billboard to the convention and news snippets, I don't think you can say that Sean Baker doesn't have him somewhere in mind. I mean, it's not accidental.

I hate this thread and especially its title

dan when you read "trump films (the best films)" do you think the thread starter believes films about trump / trumpism / trump-like beliefs and figures are objectively the best films or perhaps is just evoking a phrasing commonly used by trump himself as a form of mocking him (it is the latter btw)

yes it is mocking him but also adoring him

I will like Red Rocket I'm pretty sure, and once I see it will be happy to discuss it in another thread

my objection to the content here is that this thread memorializes and valorizes Trump through films even while it disparages him

but also adoring him

Please tell me you're not serious there, or that you're projecting, or something. Having a strong interest in how films were going to address his disruptive, calamitous presidency is not exactly adoring him. You may as well make the same accusation of someone who writes about Night and Fog or Shoah.

You really ought to go back and read the original post for some context.

maybe not being a US citizen you can step back and see things as they really are and will be, but I can't

I guess I'm projecting, I do that often, but the even the title of this thread shoots an arrow through my heart

I just saw Night and Fog for the first time tonight! an amazing film. tried to watch Pig afterwards, but stopped and will save it for another day

maybe not being a US citizen

Oh, good, this again.

not meant to disparage, I think you have a perspective that I don't

I just don't see that that figures into it at all, and I'm not sure that you do either. The people you got after the other day on the Trump thread for "memorializing" him, pretty sure they were all American. If you want people to just stop posting about Trump--least of all on Trump threads--you're fighting a losing battle. You simply shouldn't open such threads. And seriously--the title you object to so much was clearly explained upthread a year ago, when you seemed to concede it was okay.

It's a joke on Trump's way of referring to everything he's involved in as "the best"--not great, by any means, but I thought the reference was fairly obvious.
― clemenza, Sunday, November 15, 2020 9:31 PM (one year ago)

I can see that
― Dan S, Sunday, November 15, 2020 9:47 PM (one year ago)

not sure what thread that was. I just hate reading anything about him that seems to have distance

there’s a pretty simple way around that

good to know it's not a problem for you

I like your film posts, Dan, and am often in sync with your opinions. I find you're being weirdly selective here.

not sure what thread that was.

It was this thread. Like I said in the previous post.

I just hate reading anything about him that seems to have distance

Meaning...? That my post about Red Rocket isn't about how Trump ruined my own life? In the post that started all this, I said "I thought at first, even though his life was clearly tawdry enough for Trump, that Mikey might be some kind of Horatio Alger/(young) Tom Cruise corrective to Trump, a grifter and on the make, but basically with good intentions and a sweet temperament. Nope--he's tawdry and he ruins lives." I.e., like Trump. That's clear, isn't it?

I apologize, I am looking forward to seeing it fwiw

I was just railing against any supposition that he might be a cozy historical figure. He is a monster, and even talking about him possibly having his own era triggers me

We're good. And honestly, I'd be shocked if there's a single ILX poster--from someone like me, who sometimes gets chastised for making light of politics, to the most ardent posters on the left--who views Trump as anything less than venal.

Looked up a couple of reviews, and--for different reasons--neither liked the Trump angle. Richard Brody didn't think the film did anything with it: "Baker makes sure to signal that the movie is set during the 2016 Presidential campaign. There’s a Trump campaign sign in the street and Trump’s foghorn hectoring on television broadcasts. Yet the characters say not a word about what they’re hearing or thinking about the politics of their moment." True--but I think it's more interesting to leave such connections to the viewer. Armond White seems to see it like me, that Mikey is meant as a Trump stand-in, but (of course!) he thinks the film fails on that count: "This follows a brief TV clip of Donald Trump saying, 'I think the election will be rigged,” obviously from 2016. Making unsubtle, faulty linkage between Orange Man arrogance and Red Rocket egotism is Baker’s real judgment.'

Both liked Simon Rex.

I watched the movie (which features sound clips from both Trump *and* Clinton) partly as a portrait of sweat-flop America that is so desperate - for success, for affirmation, for connection, for a future - that it is totally oblivious to politics, no matter how omnipresent. Like, it's just more noise drowned out by the bigger din of the daily hustle.

Driving home, I thought about Hillary being in there too: "I'm going to post about this in the Trump-movie thread, but I'll limit it to Trump." I wanted to think about what that might mean, but I didn't want to have to think too much. (You hear Cruz, too.)

I've been reading up on Simon Rex. Never got MTV up here, may have seen the first Scary Movie (can't remember), so I didn't know him at all. What a story.

Saw Caddyshack for the first time last night. The Mount Everest Rule: I saw it because it was playing.

I was hoping for Stripes, but found it not just not unremittingly unfunny (a couple of scenes were okay), but also strangely disjointed. One thing I remembered, though, was James Poniewozik giving it two pages in Audience of One, still the best Trump book I've read. He saw, obviously, Rodney Dangerfield's character as Trump, with Ted Knight as Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and all the other chamber-of-commerce-type Republicans Trump rendered obsolete.

Rereading, he has the Dangerfield character (Czervik) exactly right: "Czervik is among the rich country clubbers, but he isn't of them. His wealth doesn't give him membership in high society, just the independence not to care about its rules...He sized up as his first punching bag the Smailsian (Knight's character) Jeb Bush--well-spoken, well-mannered, from a good family--and proceeded to spray him with yacht-wake at every opportunity."

I don't know about the Knight character, though--he's as loud and bombastic as Czervik most of the time. Didn't see Jeb Bush or Mitt Romeny there.

If you're looking at this, Dan S., a reminder not to be looking at this.

The Trump stuff on Fargo, Tillman's wife going on about how the whole impeachment trial is a sham, was very literal, not especially imaginative, but it is, I think, the most explicit Trump-era thing I've yet seen in a movie or TV show.