Is this film about a family of Khazar gypsies?

Is this film about a family of Khazar gypsies?

>The redhead twins

I do the same thing desu, but for pearl harbor

Now why couldn't he die instead?!

This is /pol/ Harbor day. How dare you try to Judaize it.

why is giving a 6 y/o pornography portrayed as open-minded?

That seems sort of unfair. The reasons the boy wants to conform are perfectly valid in their own way, but he's a little kid and unable to make the argument cohesively, especially as he hasn't been taught the sort of mindfulness needed to do so. Rather than smugly making him look a fool, the father should have tried to understand why the boy felt the way he did, made the argument for him (or at least led him in doing it himself), then explained his own reasons against it. All he's doing there is cultivating resentment.

seconding this

Don't worry, the movie shows how much of a terrible father he is. In fact it's kind of the main point of the entire thing, how his recklessness is dangerous to the safety of his children and how he comes to terms with it and with this evil capitalist society.

thats basically the point of the film, except wanting people to make arguments for you is like wanting someone to fuck your wife and making arguments on someone elses behalf is like raping their wife

thats not the point of the film, did you fall asleep?

As far as I remember the movie dealt a lot with the theme of Mortensen's character trying to impose himself over his children, and settling for an arrangement that wouldn't put their safety in jeopardy but wasn't against his political views.
If you didn't saw that then what's according to you the point of the film?

>come on user lets study Marxist omnilectics together :3

>are perfectly valid in their own way
No they're not

the point was basically that except the children benefited from it. its not like its saying that he is an idealogue thats putting his children at risk to fulfil a political fantasy (and its really more social than political) but rather that refuses to entertain ideas that don't emerge from him which turns him, as the sole authority figure in the family, into a tyrant. however the ideas that he is imposing on the family are beneficial to the family but are taken to unnecessary extremes. His sister and her husband embrace lazily and uncritically embrace hegemonic parental behaviour which is harmful to the children however, as the end of the film implies, totally rejection of hegemony need not come at the expense of interaction with society. The mindfull and attentive parenting style of aragorn needs to be diluted with the safety net of society.

Theres also a secondary theme of rebellion in where the children want to rebel against him because they feel they lack their own personal identity. It relates to the idea of the benefits of society as the increasd diversity that comes from a larger social group allows a child to define their own identity. Its like how the ugly dweeb kid wants to run away but when aragorns like 'ok, you can go' the dween is like 'well, i don't actually wanna go, your pretty cool' or like the long hair kid is gonna go to harvard but then when the dads like 'yh, u shud go' the long hair kid is like 'actually im going to namibia'

it all comes round to an early seen where one of youngins has a picture of pol pot on their wall. by failing to dilute his social message it inevitably reaches extremes of tyranny. its why democracy is good but its also why democracy requires to concious participation from all involved (and we all know what our boi noam would say about that). its like how modern liberal democracies are functionally indentically to a country run by a royal court. so we gotta be like the family at the end. the kids are going to school, they live in a house but they probably don't have a tv and then the one kid offers the dad some cereal and the dads like good idea thanks.

The fuck does this have to do with literature.

>Viggo Mortensen isn't literature in motion

Veeky Forums is the unofficial /leftypol/ board and Uncle Noam is a profligate writer

>Chomsky honk

Dead.

>the mindful and attentive parenting style of aragorn
I kek'd loudly.

You forgot an important presence of the movie, a character that's named a lot but appears too little. For me is quite clear that the family unit worked as an ideal one, this means one that challenged the cultural hegemony but remained functional, when the mom was present. From how the children interact with Aragorn, and how they remember their mom, it seems like she worked as the perfect buffer for the mostly impulsive and somewhat self-centered Aragorn (a good example would the entire long haired teenager arc). That's why the movie start with her death, because that stablishes the beggining of the end of how the family dinamic work. It's like that in some sort of way they needed her, and the only way to balance the recklesness of Aragorn's character was to comform to some excent to societal norms.

By all means I think this movie is anarchist propaganda. A good one, but still propaganda (in the same way "the avengers" is capitalist propaganda anyways). The interesting thing is the position the mother has in their anarchist utopia, like almost suggesting that said utopia would not be possible without the maternal influence, because otherwise you're condemned to conform to some excent. Or aleast that's my interpretation to that long silence at the end of the movie, as the very manifestation of said conformism.

yeah, i suppose the mother seemed to be a source of respite for the children from their dad.

I don't think it is propaganda tho, its too sincere with its critiques of the mortensens ideology. especially that scene where granpapi shoots that bow at him

I'm crying like a little girl after being overwhelmed with a new job and regretting ever making any sort of change because I can't handle it.

There's a middle ground between making the argument for him and just putting him on the spot unprepared like that. Encouraging him to find the right words.

Wanting to be able to behave like and fit in with other people is valid. I don't want to get into this debate because Chomsky day appeals to me more than Christmas, but it's not a totally stupid idea the boy has.

That's funny, I finished a report on Failed States last night (7th)

Found some Chomsky at goodwill yesterday.

Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda

I wish I had that many kids.

>There's a middle ground
i agree but arguments being made on the behalf of another is always shit

Chomsky is a good man