Idiocracy - new Mike Judge movie in superlimited release

I've been to Tijuana and didn't see a specific resemblance. I mean mountains of trash look the same all over, whether they be in Calcutta or Botswana or Mexico City. The name thing I honestly took no notice of beyond it being a "in the future miscegenation will be common" kind of aside.

Yeah, but that brings up something else. Are Calcutta, Botswana and Mexico City in the state they're in due to the fact that their inhabitants are all morons? I mean, what's the implication?

OTM!

i really, really, really hope there's a director's cut of this (sans fox's apparent meddling with the ending and so on) someday. twenty years from now, maybe, whenever judge gets around to it. i thought it was funny but it could've been much better.

it was just about perfect for dvd where i did a good deal of fast-fowarding through nothing sequences.

Way off topic, but Steven Pinker disagrees.

Come on, man. You're deliberately distorting what I said, apparently just so you can LYAO at some stupidized version of the world (irony alert). Idiocracy is full of Hispanic characters and white characters with Hispanic names. In the movie's future, nearly half of America seems to be Hispanic.

Is that unreasonable in and of itself? No. But it's about the only social extrapolation the film makes, other than exaggerating the general idiocy level of everything.

Why go so far out your way to show that "in the future, miscegenation will be common," (as Shakey put it), when the only real point you're making about that future is that it's populated exclusively by total morons? Morons miscegenate? Is that it? The idea that morons overbreed is stated clearly near the beginning of the film, and the point gets rammed home again at the end. So isn't it possibly even just a little troubling that the film also postulates an America that has become a largely Hispanic nation?

Again, if you don't see it, that's fine. I'm not calling this a hate-movie or saying that you're wrong to enjoy it. But a few of its premises and implications did bother me.

We return you to your regularly scheduled LMAOs, currently in progress...

YES.

I'm glad I haven't mailed this one back yet, I get the feeling it might be funnier the 2nd time.

According to IMDB, the only characters with names at all are Joe, Rita, Frito, Upgrayedd, Sgt. Keller, Judge Hank "The Hangman" BMW, Officer Collins, President Camacho, and Beef Supreme.

I guess you could make an argument that 'Frito' is a Hispanic name, but I sure wouldn't.

That's more-or-less EXACTLY what I've been saying since the start of this whole ugly mess ("...signifiers of non-white race, lower-class poverty and stupidity-to-the-point-of-retardation are all mixed together, as though they were essentially the same thing. Didn't kill the movie for me..., but I found it more than a little off-putting").

Now, I thought the film was a bit more callous in its treatement of Hispanics than the rest of you did. Fine, I'm alone in that. But what Zwan just said has been my main point all along.

Not to be a dick, but honestly, have you ever been to East L.A.? Either that, or have you ever watched the movie 'Idiocracy'?

Not to jump into the gangbang-already-in-progress on you, The New Sincerity, but you have really failed to present a single piece of compelling evidence that this film even flirts with racism. Your suggestion that the characters all have Hispanic names seems really shaky (I don't remember this from the film at all, but haven't seen it since the theater so can't be sure); while your trotting out that the 'room full of Hispanic people' that you watched it with didn't laugh (therefore = racism is afoot) is borderline horrifying.

I've been to east L.A. And more to the point, I've been to Tijuana.

What I "trotted out" was a soft-pedalled version of the fact that the Hispanic folks I watched it with thought it was actively, distastefully racist. And they're not the type to get too uptight about stuff like that. I, on the other hand, am willing to cut Mike Judge a bit more slack because I like his other work and respect his intentions.

The characters don't all have Hispanic names. But a whole bunch of them do. If you missed the fact that the movie is presenting us with a LOT of Hispanics and Hispanic names in its dumb-as-dirt America-of-the-future, then I dunno how to help you. Watch it again; I think you may be surprised.

What I'm arguing is that the film can be seen as implying a number of things about relationship between race, class, poverty, ignorance, and stupidity. And that some of them might be a little troubling.

***

And Elmo:

Touché.

Would I be less offended if the movie were populated exclusively by white people? Well, I wasn't "offended" in the first place. I was left with a few questions and a bad taste in my mouth. But that's beside the point: I honestly don't know how to answer your question. I'd have to see the unmade movie you're talking about to know how I'd feel about it.

For what it's worth, Carlos Mencia isn't any better or any worse than this.

you are fucking insane.

obviously, if you're looking for nuanced analysis of race and class dynamics, you probably shouldn't be looking to mike judge. but if that's your game, you should be prepared to rage at his stereotypical depictions of poor white folks.

I don't think Mencia is dangerous at all. I've never been personally offended by anything he's said. The spirit in which he presents his shitty "comedy" renders it harmless.

And I'll leave it to someone else to rage at MJ's "stereotypical depictions of white folks." That stuff doesn't bug me in the least. See, I'm white. Lived poor for a lot of my childhood. And I imagine that Mike Judge is a product of the poor & middle-class white culture he mocks. Therefore, I think he's got a right to cap on me and mine.

New Sincerity: Perhaps the more obvious point is that the border towns you reference (East L.A. has nothing to do with this, it's preposterous that you mention it at all - there's lovely parts to East L.A. and shitty parts as well, neither of which look anything at all like anything depicted in "Idiocracy") are largely as polluted and fucked up as they are thanks to the big industry and eco-apathy that Judge is obviously targeting with this movie. There is no secret agenda here.

You describe the movie as a film full of outlandishly stereotypical depictions of moronic Hispanics, which is goes beyond hyperbole into the realm of outright lies. You are in some strange whirlwind of uncomfortable projection, and are pulling shit out of thin air to support weak accusations.

I mean, fine, if your hispanic friends thought the movie was offensive, whatever, that sucks. But you citing the secondhand views of a small group of individuals as your racial trump card puts you in the same kind of uncomfortable territory that you are railing against.

Absolutely. I recognize and have no issue with those aspects of the film's critique. I'm bothered by the race/class baggage that got thoughtlessly mixed somewhere along the way. And I regret ever mentioning East LA.

***

"You describe the movie as 'a film full of outlandishly stereotypical depictions of moronic Hispanics,' which is goes beyond hyperbole into the realm of outright lies."

I did describe it as such, and while I won't pretend my statement is totally free of hyperbole, I stand by it. Watch it again with the idea of Hispanic identity in mind -- I think you might be surprised by what you see. And if not, then not. Different people see things differently (big surprise).

***

"You are in some strange whirlwind of uncomfortable projection, and are pulling shit out of thin air to support weak accusations."

Ummm, I think you're getting a bit carried away yourself, Tiki. Stick to talking about the movie.

***

"I mean, fine, if your hispanic friends thought the movie was offensive, whatever, that sucks. But you citing the secondhand views of a small group of individuals as your racial trump card puts you in the same kind of uncomfortable territory that you are railing against."

It's not my "racial trump card." I initially pointed it out (in part) to admit that my interpretation might be distorted by the social context in which I saw the film. When questioned about it, I explained things more fully.

And I hardly think I'm "railing" against anything. I'm just talking about what I saw in this film. It didn't offend me, and I don't think it betrays any malice or hostility on MJ's part, but some of it did seem, well ... odd.