Back Country (2015) - yet another example of wokeness - changing what actually happened to fit a virtue signaling narrative

[iamwhatiseem]

Based on an true story.

What actually happened: A young couple go camping in an inadvisable time in a Canadian forest... late fall. The time when bears are desperate to fatten up for the winter. Camping alone several miles away from others, a black bear smelling food at their campsite... tears open their tent and startles the young couple obviously and a fight ensues. The bear attacks the girl and the young man successfully fights off the bear with a knife. But the woman is severely injured. The man somehow manages to carry her several miles over rough terrain and reached their canoe. However the girl dies in the canoe on the way back.
What the film says happens: First it portrays the young man as an overconfident imbecile. Too tough and manly despite his wiser girlfriend pleas to bring a map/bear repellant etc. - he is too stubborn to listen. On their way to camp, due to his over confidence they get lost. Along the way he ignores numerous signs they are camping literally within yards of a bears den. The bear attacks them in their tent. He is such an idiot, although knowing they are near bears - he leaves his hatchet outside. As the bear attacks he back up deeper in the tent exposing his girlfriend, the bear starts attacking her... he tries to kick the bear and the bear turns on him, killing him and eating him right in front of her. She manages to get away and goes through a heroic trek, with severely lacerated arms and a broken leg... somehow she manages to get to the canoe and paddles with one hand back to safety.


WHY?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Wokeism....it's not fair......who knows. Wonder if he has a lawsuit?.

 

[Manonthestreet]

My youngest daughter gave me several weeks of worry earlier in the year when she announced her and a girlfriend were going to go hiking out west on some wilderness trail with zero experience and zero equipment. Took every bit of control I could muster to calmly explain to her what that entailed, the equipment you would need and the dangers involved.

 

[Flopper]

Based on an true story.

What actually happened: A young couple go camping in an inadvisable time in a Canadian forest... late fall. The time when bears are desperate to fatten up for the winter. Camping alone several miles away from others, a black bear smelling food at their campsite... tears open their tent and startles the young couple obviously and a fight ensues. The bear attacks the girl and the young man successfully fights off the bear with a knife. But the woman is severely injured. The man somehow manages to carry her several miles over rough terrain and reached their canoe. However the girl dies in the canoe on the way back.
What the film says happens: First it portrays the young man as an overconfident imbecile. Too tough and manly despite his wiser girlfriend pleas to bring a map/bear repellant etc. - he is too stubborn to listen. On their way to camp, due to his over confidence they get lost. Along the way he ignores numerous signs they are camping literally within yards of a bears den. The bear attacks them in their tent. He is such an idiot, although knowing they are near bears - he leaves his hatchet outside. As the bear attacks he back up deeper in the tent exposing his girlfriend, the bear starts attacking her... he tries to kick the bear and the bear turns on him, killing him and eating him right in front of her. She manages to get away and goes through a heroic trek, with severely lacerated arms and a broken leg... somehow she manages to get to the canoe and paddles with one hand back to safety.


WHY?

So what makes this wokey? My understanding is woke is being conscious of racial discrimination in society and other forms of oppression and injustice. I was beginning to think it was anything conservatives dislike, maybe the definition is even broader?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So what makes this wokey? My understanding is woke is being conscious of racial discrimination in society and other forms of oppression and injustice. I was beginning to think it was anything conservatives dislike, maybe the definition is even broader?

Everyone understands, except for those that don't want to understand, that when people refer to "wokeness" - and it is OBVIOUSLY not just conservatives - it is referring to virtue signalers exacerbating and exaggerating a real or perceived form of oppression.
Especially perceived oppression. Where the people who are supposedly oppressed - themselves - don't feel that way. But white leftist feel the need to "white night" a group of people that may or may not be asking for it.

 

[Flopper]

Everyone understands, except for those that don't want to understand, that when people refer to "wokeness" - and it is OBVIOUSLY not just conservatives - it is referring to virtue signalers exacerbating and exaggerating a real or perceived form of oppression.
Especially perceived oppression. Where the people who are supposedly oppressed - themselves - don't feel that way. But white leftist feel the need to "white night" a group of people that may or may not be asking for it.

Thanks for the info. Not sure how usefully it is for me because when I watch a dramatic presentation I want to be moved by the story and the acting. I don't care if it's about the perceived oppressions of slave owner, intercity blacks being harassed by the police, George Bush's unfair treatment over his Iraq decision, discrimination against gays, etc... It really does matter to me because I realize there are always two sides to every story.. I don't care if the story is fact or fiction or how much the facts are twisted. For me is all about the production, the story, and acting. I wouldn't mind seeing a movie about Trump's early life and although I don't like him, it wouldn't matter which side the movie took as long as the story and acting are good.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Thanks for the info. Not sure how usefully it is for me because when I watch a dramatic presentation I want to be moved by the story and the acting. I don't care if it's about the perceived oppressions of slave owner, intercity blacks being harassed by the police, George Bush's unfair treatment over his Iraq decision, discrimination against gays, etc... It really does matter to me because I realize there are always two sides to every story.. I don't care if the story is fact or fiction or how much the facts are twisted. For me is all about the production, the story, and acting. I wouldn't mind seeing a movie about Trump's early life and although I don't like him, it wouldn't matter which side the movie took as long as the story and acting are good.

If it is "Based on a True Story"... then it isn't just a movie. It is the telling of an actual event that took place that had some historical or meaningful value. In these movies you can always expect some added drama, they might change the order of events etc. That is expected.
What is not expected when you are portraying a real event - is to completely change everything that happened to fit a narrative that you would rather have happened.
Take the recent Elvis movie. For the most part, the movie was true. They dramatized Elvis's firing of the Colonel. They changed some of the order of events, but they certainly stayed within the spirit of reality. According to you, you wouldn't have cared if they portrayed Elvis as a closet racist. And gay. And tried to murder Priscilla. No? Why? You only care about the acting and production.

 

[Flopper]

If it is "Based on a True Story"... then it isn't just a movie. It is the telling of an actual event that took place that had some historical or meaningful value. In these movies you can always expect some added drama, they might change the order of events etc. That is expected.
What is not expected when you are portraying a real event - is to completely change everything that happened to fit a narrative that you would rather have happened.
Take the recent Elvis movie. For the most part, the movie was true. They dramatized Elvis's firing of the Colonel. They changed some of the order of events, but they certainly stayed within the spirit of reality. According to you, you wouldn't have cared if they portrayed Elvis as a closet racist. And gay. And tried to murder Priscilla. No? Why? You only care about the acting and production.

To me that is what based on actual event means, dramatization of the story to entertain, not to inform. Some creators will stick closer to the real story than others. I think how far they deviate from the facts depends how entertaining the real story is. Some people like my wife watch almost nothing but documentaries and really hate most dramatizations because they are not real.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

To me that is what based on actual event means, dramatization of the story to entertain, not to inform. Some creators will stick closer to the real story than others. I think how far they deviate from the facts depends how entertaining the real story is. Some people like my wife watch almost nothing but documentaries and really hate most dramatizations because they are not real.

I get that, I do. Again the Elvis movie.. there was the scene with Elvis and Priscilla in his bus where she convinced him to be himself and do what he wanted, and that is where he got the inspiration and idea for the "If I can dream" song. Now did that happen> Well no, but it is done in the "spirit of truth". Priscilla did encourage Elvis to not just follow the Colonels commands like a dog and that he had his own talents etc.
And that is the kind of artistic "inventing" of a scene that does the truth a "favor". It showed a reality, and showed the audience that Priscilla was an encouraging factor in Elvis's music.
But then there is this movie. They literally reversed the roles of the two characters completely.
They showed her as a victim of her boyfriends ego.
He get's mad at her throughout the show, ranging from jealousy because she "dared" to speak to a male traveler.
Mad at her for questioning his skills and judgement. etc.
They made him a jerk, and her the only source of reason and good judgement.
I don't need to type it all out again, I already said what happened in the film.

Why would they do that? Why would they make her a hero and him a villain when that is not what happened.
The man fought off a bear with nothing but a knife trying to save her... in the movie he backs away from the bear, causing her to get attacked.
Why do that?
On and on.
The reason is obvious. They want her to be the "oppressed woman" of his toxic masculinity and how only after he died was she able to get to safety.

 

[Flopper]

I get that, I do. Again the Elvis movie.. there was the scene with Elvis and Priscilla in his bus where she convinced him to be himself and do what he wanted, and that is where he got the inspiration and idea for the "If I can dream" song. Now did that happen> Well no, but it is done in the "spirit of truth". Priscilla did encourage Elvis to not just follow the Colonels commands like a dog and that he had his own talents etc.
And that is the kind of artistic "inventing" of a scene that does the truth a "favor". It showed a reality, and showed the audience that Priscilla was an encouraging factor in Elvis's music.
But then there is this movie. They literally reversed the roles of the two characters completely.
They showed her as a victim of her boyfriends ego.
He get's mad at her throughout the show, ranging from jealousy because she "dared" to speak to a male traveler.
Mad at her for questioning his skills and judgement. etc.
They made him a jerk, and her the only source of reason and good judgement.
I don't need to type it all out again, I already said what happened in the film.

Why would they do that? Why would they make her a hero and him a villain when that is not what happened.
The man fought off a bear with nothing but a knife trying to save her... in the movie he backs away from the bear, causing her to get attacked.
Why do that?
On and on.
The reason is obvious. They want her to be the "oppressed woman" of his toxic masculinity and how only after he died was she able to get to safety.

I would think it was done because the director felt it would be better scene.

A scene of the man fighting off the bear saving the women and she falling into his arms expressing her love and gratitude sounds like a thousand other movies that would get a big yawn from the audience.

However, if the man stops fighting and the woman is attacked by the bear, then the scene is quite different and the audience is not yawing. They want to know why he did this. He didn't fight to death to save the heroine as he is expected to do in our movie culture.

I think you interpreting scenes in way that support your belief. However, having not seen the movie, it's hard to make comments.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I would think it was done because the director felt it would be better scene.

A scene of the man fighting off the bear saving the women and she falling into his arms expressing her love and gratitude sounds like a thousand other movies that would get a big yawn from the audience.

However, if the man stops fighting and the woman is attacked by the bear, then the scene is quite different and the audience is not yawing. They want to know why he did this. He didn't fight to death to save the heroine as he is expected to do in our movie culture.

I think you interpreting scenes in way that support your belief. However, having not seen the movie, it's hard to make comments.

You are still dodging. In my opinion.
There are lots and lots of people who get no historical teachings past the 9th grade in high school. When they are 14-15 years old.
When they watch a movie "based on a true story" they may very well believe it. Or at least the crux of it. This gives the entertainment industry the power of creating history. We don't want that. Especially when they consistently create a history that follows a narrative they want people to believe.
And I don't believe, honestly, that you really believe there is no interest in doing this "just to make a better scene". No. Not when the messaging is the same over and over.

 

[Flopper]

You are still dodging. In my opinion.
There are lots and lots of people who get no historical teachings past the 9th grade in high school. When they are 14-15 years old.
When they watch a movie "based on a true story" they may very well believe it. Or at least the crux of it. This gives the entertainment industry the power of creating history. We don't want that. Especially when they consistently create a history that follows a narrative they want people to believe.
And I don't believe, honestly, that you really believe there is no interest in doing this "just to make a better scene". No. Not when the messaging is the same over and over.

Maybe we should say loosely based on a true story. However, uneducated people will always believe what is in movies if it sounds reasonable. That has been true of radio, television, books, and theater.

The great silent film Birth of a Nation directed by G. W. Griffith is part fiction and part history, chronicles the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth and the relationship of two families in the Civil War. It was heralded as the greatest picture ever made and the greatest drama ever filmed. In the South, teachers in high school made it's viewing required, even though it was filled with inaccuracies.

Glorifying the Klan to approving white audiences, it became a national cultural phenomenon: merchandisers made Ku Klux hats and kitchen aprons, and ushers dressed in white Klan robes for openings. In New York there were Klan-themed balls and, in Chicago that Halloween, thousands of college students dressed in robes for a massive Klan-themed party.

One would think that G.W Griffith, the creator of the film was a fire-breathing racist but in fact he was not. Although he was from the South, he held no real political views. He made the Klan heroic in the eyes of his audiences because it was great movie making. He had no attention of promoting the Klan which the movie certainly did. His goals were artistic and financial, certainly not political.

Today in Hollywood as in the past great directors are driven by artistic not social visions. That's not to say that Hollywood has no social conscience but it is trumped by financial and artistic goals. I have seen that close up earlier in my life.

The Birth of a Nation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org