Leftist Movies/Movies that have Leftist themes?

RoboCop

V per vendetta is not even about an anarchist revolution, it's just a boring bourgeoise revolution against muh ebil totalitarianism. Something the classcucked masses could swallow without realizing we live in that totalitarianism.

Chinese! one more effort if you wish to be revolutionary

The matrix.

Literally about despooking yourself to see the world as it truly is and fighting the ruling class and their classcuck minions, all wrapped up in a sci-fi shell subversive enough to capture normies without them noticing.

It's called "The Smartest Guys in the Room."

It's really eye-opening as to how easily people can get hoodwinked by big business. It's like, wall to wall red flags in hindsight (I was too young to pay attention to that shit when it happened)/.

Except the part where it's canon that the machines did nothing wrong and the Matrix was to stop humans from literally destroying the world, and an act of compassion instead of wiping humanity out.

I refuse to acknowledge the 2nd and 3rd films.

The 1st is perfectly self contained imo.

I was referring to the Animatrix, but OK.

1984 seems like it would be considered a film with Leftist themes.

You could argue that American Psycho has 'leftist' themes in it's critique of capitalism and Yuppie culture.

???

Honestly I don't remember the film adaptation but the original comic is full leftist for sure.

This guy has it right.

The Battle of Algiers
Reds
Wind That Shakes the Barley
Can Dialectics Break Bricks?
Land and Freedom
Libertarias
Der Baader Meinhof Komplex
The Grapes of Wrath
They Live
Z
Battleship Potemkin
Strike
Malcolm X
La Chinoise
Week-End
Ici et ailleurs
A Place Called Chiapas
La Commune (Paris, 1871)
Paths of Glory
The Human Condition
The Emperors Naked Army Marches On
The Black Power Mixtape
Network
Idi i smotri
Soy Cuba
The Spirit of the Beehive
Che
Thomas Sankara: The Upright Man
Death By Hanging
War and Fog in Japan
In the Year of the Pig
Underground
If…
The Exterminating Angel
The Battle of Chile
The War on Democracy
The Power of Nightmares
The Century of the Self
Bitter Lake
Nostalgia for the Light
The Act of Killing
South of the Border
Brazil
Ice
Zert
The Fifth Horseman Is Fear
Scenes from the Class Struggle in Portugal
Society of the Spectacle
Hearts and Minds
Novecento
Eros + Massacre
A Grin Without a Cat

youtu.be/80X0pbCV_t4?t=142

Žižek said he said he saw Kung Fu Panda like 5 times because his son liked it, and that he admired it because it "mobilizes oriental military mistique, kung fu fate, warrior, discipline," and is yet completely ironic and silly, making fun of its own ideology.

fascists on Mars
not a lefty movie but it's a mockery of fascism so it's worth watching :^)
youtube.com/watch?v=vnDeX5EMy88

Big Trouble in Little China

His larger point is that even though it makes fun of its ideology that the ideology still works. Even though everyone acknowledges the ideology is silly, they still follow it.

Yeah. He's talking about the cynical function of ideology.

People like to act like the majority of Corporate Hollywood isn't Leftist.

When a board like this goes up I always see this struggle to identify leftists films.

Muh "No True Leftist" always comes up.

Even if they're too stupid to make the films true to a certain set of leftist beliefs (which change greatly depending on the "believer") the intent is there.

I'm disabled, stuck in my apartment.
All I do is watch films all day.

Elysium

Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times

jason unruhe loved that movie
don't know if it was my comment but even he realize what a faggot he was
and how shit this movie is
you have hero worship
advocated individual terrorism
and spontaneous "revolution" from calling people to a protest

it's the most dumbed down version of what anarchists actually believe in

i give it an "F for Faggotry"

Падение Берлина. Серия 1 / The Fall of Berlin film 1
(1:10:45)
youtube.com/watch?v=t-hZam8dXHU
slava stalina!

...

...

victory get

NOICE

Isn't a commune just a corporation with inverse values? Like a corporation has pr­ivil­eges that are distinct from its individual owners', and a commune has collective interests that supersede any one vote. Both allow groups of people to act in concert but without consequences in order that they afford exclusion from the other.

Seriously asking, tho.

In Time (2011)

imdb.com/title/tt1637688/

Certainly the closest thing to a marxist portrayal of capitalism as is ever going to come out of Hollywood as a AAA blockbuster.

The Motorcycle Diaries is absolutely the best film for radicalizing people

jean-luc godard's filmography

It's not about values. It's about structure. A corporation is an entity where the laborers (i.e. the source of its value) are separate from the owners (shareholders) who make decisions about what to do with it. The way you are phrasing it, you could say that a democracy and a monarchy are the same with inverse values. This is wrong. The structure defines how the system operates. This is one of the most fundamental points that Marx made. It's called the "relations of production". The key difference that you are looking for is that in a corporation a handful of people act as the decision making mechanism, while in a commune, everyone has a say.

This is straight up corporate thinking. The point is not to evade responsibility. It's to hold the organization accountable to the people. At first we have socialism, where the operation is accountable to its workers. Then we have communism, where it's accountable to everybody.

...

YO

Not leftist at all, it spreads the liberal myth that the problem with our society is the people in charge and not the structural issues in our society.

In real life the Patrick Bateman types are cool bros who just happened to be born wealthy. Not psychos at all.

Raspberry Reich

The Big Boss

That is one of the funniest movies in history. Good god, every scene is golden.

Grapes of wrath movie is liberal garbage. The book had a few left wing parts but the movie came out at the height of the Red Scare so those were all scrapped. Awesome dead baby Moses ending with the mother breastfeeding a dying old man got scrapped for "good thing we got these boot straps to help us".

That movie sucks though

That is not what I meant by saying they afford exclusion from the other. I'm taking about motivations here for forming a commune, which is to oust a capitalist enterprise, have workers own their factors, et c. In short, all communities are exclusive, because by definition you exclude all that is outside the community.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, except what I mean by values is that a corporation has a certain "personhood" you know like legal rights to enter into contracts with other parties and then sued accordingly, which would be distinct from the corporate owners' rights which are like to adopt a baby, since a corporation won't. When I say this value is the inverse for communes I mean to say that the "contracts" would be between commune members rather than between communes.

Anything by John Carpenter is pretty much solid gold, tbh. Not necessarily leftist though.

Trumbo?

anyone else familiar with this? are there any films that are completely kosher?

Sorry bruv, can't say I'm familiar with that at all. If throwaway jokes about the left hit you that hard you should probably work on cultivating your ability to laugh at yourself.

Basically nothing to do with actual politics. The closest they get is when he tells his daughter that commies are people who like to share and some oblique references during the meeting scenes.

The movie has more to do with witch hunts in general. The political landscape is just the backdrop for the story. Honestly, I think that's a good thing. Commies aren't the only group subject to witch hunts.

You sound like an ex-Holla Forumsyp who hasn't learned to think like a leftist yet.

Don't skip this post.

Also stop giving populist/fascist release valves as something that you recommend specifically for "leftist themes." The majority of them are pure and blatant propaganda.

I understand what you're trying to convey here, but I don't appreciate it, and I think you're wrong.

First of all: What exactly *is* a leftist? What makes a rich liberal producer or movie star a leftist according to what definition of the word? I completely agree with Holla Forums in this regard that most liberals are just virtue signaling and that alone, they are public figures and people want their idols to have all the right, humanist opinions; they want their George clooney and their Charlize Theron to be cool and hip and against war in the middle east, but having a reasonable understanding of an offering an in-depth opinion of it is far too much work for most people, whereas parroting platitudes and quoting Ghandi and mandela as "inspirational" is enough to keep everyone content with their own "awareness" of the world.

Rich liberals don't have to necessarily believe in any particular cause they champion, neither do the people who praise them for it, and I hardly believe most of them arrive at "leftists" ideas by themselves or by studying any sort of real-world . I think they simply gravitate towards spousing whatever sounds compassionate.

I don't think Hollywood is truly leftist in the whole sense of the word, left-leaning more like, and that's really it; they want to change the world but not too much, they are all about that "capitalism with a human face" and everybody holding hands and singing Imagine like drones.

/leftyb/ has a thread on this. There are some movies there that aren't here. >>>/leftyb/8

It's not to do with me being offended.

It's to do with how media such as this shapes opinion - the idea that a tiny group of millionaires completely control people's ideas an a unchallenged platform.

Films just remind me of that starkly - more so than any other form of media. There is no engagement with a film - you sit down, shut up and watch it. If you single out things like little jokes or throwaway remarks within the film - people say you are "nitpicking".

For example - a huge amount of stuff that comes out is openly fascist. Big muscular americans cracking jokes as they blast through thousands of brown people. But if you challenge this - people say "it's just a film, enjoy it". Which in turn means there is no opposition to this portrayal of world affairs - and our continual consumption of it normalises what we see.

So when you see that the CIA have instigated another coup, or bombed more civilians - you think back to all the humanising portrayals of CIA agents in countless films and TV shows - and the complete lack of character or motive given to targeted groups such as Muslims, poor people etc. and that dictates your opinion on the real world situation.
cc

All western media has been almost completely been purged of anything approaching communism since the 40s.

It's been pure propaganda and imperial fascism since at least the 30s.

Yes, absolutely

Fuck I was answering to

Read the book a few years ago. Definitely very leftist and also somewhat anarchistic

People like to forget that nearly all the global fascist governments were either put directly into power by or backed directly by the US and UK.

This includes all the EuroFascism from 1920s to 2016.

The fascist won WWII.

The interwar period and WWII was a fight to eradicate communism from the world and specifically europe.

That's why the US and UK backed the fascists all the way until D-Day, where they had to intervene to stop the Soviets from taking all of Europe.

Is this copypasta or what does this have to do with movies?

It's not like there are no films that portray a more accurate picture or an unsympathetic picture. For fuck's sake, Captain America: The Winter Soldier was extremely critical of exactly the kind of shit you are talking about, and it's one of (if not the) best-received entry in the biggest corporate cinema circlejerk of all time.

What you are describing is Populist Fascism.

The history is directly related to why what we are talking about is the way it is.

And you are responding to…whom?
Clarify the above rather than just state an existing relationship without showing such.

This is a bit of a weird conspiracy theory, but I think it has it's basis is truth.

I mean, it's obvious that the US and "civilized" Europe would have tolerated fascism if they had kept conquering places like Ethiopia and Czechoslovakia.

The only reason they came into conflict wasn't ideology, but a simple matter of imperial hegemony. There never would have been a war if the fascist leaders weren't so ridiculously overambitious. A conflict between the USSR and the west was inevitable however.

WW2 was basically one group of fascists briefly collaborating with Communists to defeat another group of fascists and reassert their imperial dominance over the globe.

mubi.com/lists/leftist-films
mubi.com/lists/left-wing-films

How do you mean? That's just one example, btw.

actually ignore the second one

The purpose of Populist Fascism is to make sure the viewer has a release valve for the things he/she is worried about structurally. This is almost always deflected into a non-structural interpretation and the viewer's feelings of disloyalty is therefore defused.

sorry, but you can't be paiting captain america as anything other than the biggest fascist media icon of our time.

yes, maybe one of his films subtly poked fun at media tropes and convention - but the entire existence of the character normalises american exceptionalism, white supremacy, the rule of violence - the "otherisation" of "the bad-guys", the ultimate benevolence of american security services as people fighting for "freedom" and "justice" etc. etc.

I dunno how well that fits with that example. Cap specifically calls out the inherent danger of the government being unaccountable to the people and he gets proven right. The resolution of the film is that the government agency gets dissolved, but SHIELD is fictional. I'm pretty sure the intent (aside from making money) was to point people's attention toward the reality of this kind of thing.

Uh, no. It portrays this sort of thing as a problem because of its unaccountability and secrecy. The central conflict of the film is that global genocide is narrowly avoided because this type of organization was stopped. And I haven't seen Civil War but I know that Captain America takes the side that the US government cannot be trusted so you're flat out wrong about that.

A Single Government Agency representing all the angst caused by a single systemic issue is given as the strawman. Strawman defeated by Patriotic Ubermensch. Non-structural interpretation accomplished. Viewer's feelings of disloyalty is therefore defused.

captain america is the "benevolent" ideal that i was talking about. it's the same with all these films - as the guy above me said. the problem isn't posed as a structural one - it's one big mean baddie who wants to kill everyone.

the bad guy in films is never in the majority - he never controls anything. he's an agent of chaos - acting against things like government.

In the trailer the line "most people in the US intelligence community don't even know about this". It's the same old myth that has been fed to people in these sorts of films for years. "the majority of people are selfless servants of the people. only a tiny minority of evil sociopaths want to cause any harm".

There's also all the other ideas inherent to the character and idea of Captain America that I brought up…

Videodrome

spartacus (this first one)

Snowpiercer is an allegory of class-struggle. Too bad it's absolute shite.

It's more like an example of the broader issue that is explicitly discussed in the dialogue.

It's defeated by a lot of people working together tbh. Captain America plays his role, but other characters are essential, right down to the guys working the targeting computers refusing to fire on civilians.

This is discussed by Captain America and Nick Fury in the first act. Fury is more concerned about killing muh bad guys while Cap disapproves of the system being beyond the knowledge or control of the people.

Except this time they made a point of showing that the enemy apparently make up the majority of SHIELD, and they have been acting surreptitiously within SHIELD for decades. If anything, the portrayal of SHIELD is as an unwitting front for the real organization within that calls the shots.

Most people in the US intelligence community don't know about anything very secretive. The whole thing is structured to compartmentalize information and keep as few people from seeing the big picture as possible. This very common fact is just stated in a way to sound cool.

This is true though (in their minds). And the film shows the well-intentioned people (just like in real life) are ready to follow orders and kill innocent people because they don't understand what's really going on. Right up until Captain America blows the lid off it. The point where the plot turns in his favor is when he becomes a whistleblower.

None of which are really present in the movie. All the MCU goes out of its way to portray him as more or less a regular guy with good intent and fortunately granted superhuman ability.
Except for how US foreign policy via SHIELD almost kills millions of people for the sake of expedience, and Cap's main partner through most of the movie is a Russian.
And his other main partner is black, not to mention Nick Fury being black.
Except the whole point of the film is to stop a genocide and prevent SHIELD from establishing this as status quo.
Who are good-looking Americans including Robert Redford except for the minor ones who only affect the main storyline as plot devices. Even those guys are working for the real American bad guys.
Except the complete opposite is what happens.

heh.

I don't think you know what the term "structural" means in the context of a forum about communism.

Nazis (the Other) infiltrate muh patriotic patriotism agency defeated by patriotic Ubermensch through their will to power was literally hitler's party platform.

You do realize that right?

That was why Hitler was able to garner so much support from the democratic socialists, the trade unionists, and even the bog standard conservatives (enough to be able to get most of them to support his coup [he never won the election])

His brown-shirts, affectionately called the stormtrooopers were the democratic socialists who he promised the world to so that they would be able to (Expunge the trators from top to bottom). By this he obviously meant the communists who were against WWI and who Hitler said were simply agents of the enemy.

I'm afraid you are too far in the media propaganda haze that it's probably not worth further discussion with you due to the expense it would take to teach you all of world history from 1870 to 2016, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

Good movie

this

...