One battle after another is, as the refrain takes place on social networks, “the film of the year”.
The loose adaptation of Paul Thomas Anderson, almost three hours of Thomas Pynchon Vineland With Leonardo DiCaprio was the rare adult drama that attracted huge critical praises, high audience scores and a solid box -office – crossing the $ 100 million brand in the world to mark the largest opening of Anderson’s career.
Given that the film is also intensely political – tell the story of a burned revolutionary (Dicaprio) who strives to save his daughter (Chase Infiniti) from a white military officer (Sean Penn) – it may be surprising that there was not more The noise so far from those on the right. The film opens onto a celebration raid on an ice installation to free up prisoners, and shows government agents who coldly carrying out unarmed suspects and sending an infiltrated agent in a peaceful demonstration to launch a Molotov cocktail to justify increased force.
It is suspected that an independent three -hour drama on the left rebels does not arouse the same level of interest of conservative moviegoers as, say, a remake of a family classic like family like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. But there are grunts that argue that the film, on which Anderson had worked for decades, is actually the bad film at the wrong time rather than the opposite.
“You can apologize, but fundamentally, the (film is) an apology for radical terrorism on the left, that’s what it is,” said Ben Shapiro, who predicted that the film would win “all the Oscars” because of its policy. “It has the subtlety of a brick … Basic suggestion is a conspiracy theory in which the United States is led by white Christian Christian nationalists and all people of color and some beautiful other incompetent travelers like the character of Dicaprio) will take over the whole system. And this system must be taken at the price of the family, at the cost of friendship, at the cost of death, at the cost of human capacity, at the cost of the cost of decoration, at the cost of human capacity for the best. Words, to be a complete loser who waste your life bombing things at random in order to free illegal immigrants to run embarrassing on the other side of the border than to be a productive citizen. »»
“For this film to have a meaning, it is necessary to believe in the United States, today, at the moment, a fascist dictatorship,” wrote David Marcus to Fox News, under a title which nicknamed the film an “malicious apology for the violence of the left”. He continued: “It is not only a dangerous error, but, as we discovered recently, fatal … The whole film made me angry a little, but I then remembered that the Trump administration reduced Antifa – very real domestic terrorists of today – and perhaps it will be a fun film for them to watch once they are all in prison.”
“It is a macabre coincidence that One battle after another opens so shortly after the assassination of the peaceful conservative debate Charlie Kirk, ”wrote The National Review Under a predicting title “there will be a thirst for blood” caused by the film. “The film undeniably romates political assassination … Anderson intentionally causes the thirst for blood of his awakened colleagues (and viewers of the Z generation who know nothing of the 1960s) by celebrating the insipid, heretics and violent activities of the liberal and the present. movie.”
“Look One battle after another may not be entertaining, but its celebration of vitriol and murder is clarifying, “said The fire. “This is not the usual” anti-conservative “bias. While the explosive bombs, you are supposed to applaud.
Some criticisms, however, have maintained that film politics played more like a satirical fantasy – from its white supremacist cable conspirator to its Ultra -organized French resistance -style left -style network with Dr Strangelove Dr Strangelove Dr Strangelove of Colonel. The opening flashback of the rebels attacking a detention center would have taken place during the first presidency of Obama, many years before President Trump’s first mandate sparked an intense reaction to American immigration policies.
Progressive basic food The New Republic weighed on this subject with an essay exploring the political themes of the film and concluded that A battle is a dream of a left movement that does not exist.
“The least credible part is the corresponding existence of a revolutionary group on the left which retaliates physically,” wrote David Klion, noting that “the rebels in Paul Thomas Anderson’s film resemble the weather less than the audience of my projection of the right,` `laughing antifa supersolders ” and that I lived in my projection One battle after another In the same way, with hindsight, it was a somewhat discordant reaction given the too relevant representations of immigrant families torn apart by armed federal agents. »»
And in a column for The Hollywood ReporterRichard Newby rejected the idea that the film is pro-violence in any way: “Although some maintain that the film celebrates political violence, this does not represent it at all as a temporary solution, which, during the drawing of battle lines, is not translated as both sides and creates victims of those who suffer under the same realities of America.”
