Ha hA, you've been skipping (or not paying attention to) our theme song all this time! It features prominently in the opening theme, then plays backup/second fiddle in the closing. Mashed up with the Thus Spake Zarathusa bits. It's kind of perfect.
Alrighty, so here's the trick to watching the OG Running Man: you need to pay attention to how it plays with the theme of masculinity, rather than revolution.
After Ben escapes the prison camp, he pretty much immediately takes to controlling and threatening Amber in order to survive/get what he wants, despite the fact that we know he's capable of being a good man who values other people and enables them to be better (per his refusal to fire on innocent people and the leadership role he takes in the prison break). Then, during the game, he finds himself facing a bunch of cartoonishly violent male caricatures, complete with masculine themes like construction (Buzzsaw) and sports (Subzero), while Dynamo - a European opera singer whose posturing is more flamboyant and regal - adds a dimension to these caricatures that isn't purely reliant on American stereotypes of masculinity, meaning we can understand the masculine caricature purely by its propensity for violence.
Then Fireball comes along and takes this a step further; he's not a gonzo cartoon like the other stalkers, but a colder, more cognizant evil that's demonstrably even more destructive than them. Where Schwarzenegger fights up close and personal and protects his fellow runners, Fireball hides behind a destructive apparatus in his flamethrower and calmly wreaks havoc. This is radioactive masculinity; cowardly, but with a desire to inflict harm, hence his use of tools and technology that enable said harm. Schwarzenegger killing him by making his flamethrower explode is an important detail; Fireball's attraction to destructive tools cannibalizing him.
By the third act, Schwarzenegger has fully shed the version of himself that sought to control and threaten others, and is now enabling his team and leading by example because of his desire to see those he loves be safe and cared for (and, more broadly, for people to be free). Where his circumstances initially led him to define his masculinity with fear, he took responsibility and rebuilt that spirit of his by facing all the men he doesn't want to become (the stalkers), and now does not want the world to live in that same fear he once did. There's lots of subtle details in the film's dialogue that allude to all of this (Amber's brief conversation with her coworker, Killian moments before he reveals to Schwarzenegger that his friends from the resistance are being sent down with him, etc.).
You're definitely right that it has deeply wishful ideas about revolutionary logistics, but it's less about the literal component and more about the perspective that brings about such change. Like Schwarzenegger, are we going to define our spirits with fear, or by nurturing and standing up for one another?
Not a bad take, though I'm not sure I read it entirely the same. All the cartoonish killers hide behind tools - the hockey gear, stick and puck; the buzzsaw; the car/vehicle and electric/lightning aparatus. In fact, the only killer to go mano a mano with Schwarzenegger is Ventura, and he isn't even allowed to! They instead mock up an 80's veersion of AI deep fake battle between the two, ergo, actual honorable combat is only faked, never realized.
And Ventura only wants to do such a thing because his manculinity is being questioned - does he still have what it takes? Or is he past his prime?
MEannwhile, Killian is the most powerful and untouchable of the lot, the most traditionally "unmasculine" of the characters who fights only to weild and keep power, not to stave off actual harm. And Schwarzenegger, for all his muscles, is a character that only fights when others are threatened, rarely for his own well being alone (hee just runs when it's his own skin at risk.) And I *might* read that as a interesting juxtaposition of masculinity...if it weren't for all the one-liners, that consistently belie any real care or empathy for fellow human beings. It's just a movie that doesn't work on all its terms, as a whole, even if you can squint and trace out some interesting bits within it.
Right, so re: tools, there's still a brute physicality to the other weapons that can be juxtaposed with the more mythical destructive element of fire that Fireball wields. I would also say that a totalitarian government faking the actions of a guy named Captain Freedom speaks to the throughline of perversion that can be found in both unhealthy masculinity and the police state. To that point, perhaps Captain Freedom himself is evaluating his masculinity through a flawed lens.
Killian, I think, fills a different role from that of the stalkers, in the sense that the stalkers have capitulated to this toxic foundation for masculinity, whereas Killian originates the foundation itself. I for one think it's telling that Killian's death occurs the moment he's plunged into the physicality of the game. Tangible reality won't kindly accommodate these misguided ideas of masculinity, after all.
Do you remember if there's any change in the frequency of the one-liners as the film goes on? That could clue us into some aspect of ego that a masculinity-themed film would naturally inspect.
I don't think we're going to agree on this one in any case, haha. All I know is that, when I watched it, my brain does that thing it does when it finds something to write about in a film. I do agree that it's far from a robust machine on any of its fronts, but I do still think there's thematic cohesion here to be admired; the fact that it has a genre sheen like this is a bonus in my book.
But what about the electricity of Van Lidth's character? Isn't that just as "mythical destructive" as Fireball's flames?
I don't disagree that there's *some* thematic cohesion, just that it's relatively weak, which I don't think we disgaree that strongly on. Regarding Killian, similarly, we're observing the same thing but translating it only slightly differently.
There are films that choose their blanks for the audience to fill in carefully, and those where the audience is working overtime to give deeper meaning and relevancy to superficial shenannigans. There's no absolute correct take, of course, but for me, making this into something meaningful that actually hits any of its targets is too tortuous an exercise. My brain can't do it and believe in it.
It's always interesting how close two minds can be yet still so far apart on a thing!
Love this pairing - that “California’s Ide” backstory alone feels like it was written for The Running Man. Both born from short-lived revolutions haha! Totally agree this film’s dystopian edge would land even harder now; it’s wild how prophetic its satire feels when you swap out network TV for social media. Nice one guys.
Ha ha, well, that puts you on Dallas' side of the argument. I don't think the execution of the themes pertain to the modern world at all, let alone were prophetic. Only in the broadest of brush strokes. We don't consume or follow shows en masse like this anymore. We're no longer a monoculture where this would occur. We wouldn't support a show that literally made us believe the cintestants were hardened killers then give them money and freedom when they killed our TV idols (the stalkers.) These are all lies the TV show tells the audience, but the audience supposedly believes it. It doesn't actually make any sense.
The only kind-of comparison would be MAGA-heads and putting "immigrants" in a show like this for entertainment. That would fly, but only with the very faithful, which isn't actually a large enough group on their own. The rest of the world is more prone to become insta-activists against such a show the moment it tried to land. Soooo many things about this that don't actually work!
Did I catch a clip from Gypsy at the end??
Ha hA, you've been skipping (or not paying attention to) our theme song all this time! It features prominently in the opening theme, then plays backup/second fiddle in the closing. Mashed up with the Thus Spake Zarathusa bits. It's kind of perfect.
Alrighty, so here's the trick to watching the OG Running Man: you need to pay attention to how it plays with the theme of masculinity, rather than revolution.
After Ben escapes the prison camp, he pretty much immediately takes to controlling and threatening Amber in order to survive/get what he wants, despite the fact that we know he's capable of being a good man who values other people and enables them to be better (per his refusal to fire on innocent people and the leadership role he takes in the prison break). Then, during the game, he finds himself facing a bunch of cartoonishly violent male caricatures, complete with masculine themes like construction (Buzzsaw) and sports (Subzero), while Dynamo - a European opera singer whose posturing is more flamboyant and regal - adds a dimension to these caricatures that isn't purely reliant on American stereotypes of masculinity, meaning we can understand the masculine caricature purely by its propensity for violence.
Then Fireball comes along and takes this a step further; he's not a gonzo cartoon like the other stalkers, but a colder, more cognizant evil that's demonstrably even more destructive than them. Where Schwarzenegger fights up close and personal and protects his fellow runners, Fireball hides behind a destructive apparatus in his flamethrower and calmly wreaks havoc. This is radioactive masculinity; cowardly, but with a desire to inflict harm, hence his use of tools and technology that enable said harm. Schwarzenegger killing him by making his flamethrower explode is an important detail; Fireball's attraction to destructive tools cannibalizing him.
By the third act, Schwarzenegger has fully shed the version of himself that sought to control and threaten others, and is now enabling his team and leading by example because of his desire to see those he loves be safe and cared for (and, more broadly, for people to be free). Where his circumstances initially led him to define his masculinity with fear, he took responsibility and rebuilt that spirit of his by facing all the men he doesn't want to become (the stalkers), and now does not want the world to live in that same fear he once did. There's lots of subtle details in the film's dialogue that allude to all of this (Amber's brief conversation with her coworker, Killian moments before he reveals to Schwarzenegger that his friends from the resistance are being sent down with him, etc.).
You're definitely right that it has deeply wishful ideas about revolutionary logistics, but it's less about the literal component and more about the perspective that brings about such change. Like Schwarzenegger, are we going to define our spirits with fear, or by nurturing and standing up for one another?
Not a bad take, though I'm not sure I read it entirely the same. All the cartoonish killers hide behind tools - the hockey gear, stick and puck; the buzzsaw; the car/vehicle and electric/lightning aparatus. In fact, the only killer to go mano a mano with Schwarzenegger is Ventura, and he isn't even allowed to! They instead mock up an 80's veersion of AI deep fake battle between the two, ergo, actual honorable combat is only faked, never realized.
And Ventura only wants to do such a thing because his manculinity is being questioned - does he still have what it takes? Or is he past his prime?
MEannwhile, Killian is the most powerful and untouchable of the lot, the most traditionally "unmasculine" of the characters who fights only to weild and keep power, not to stave off actual harm. And Schwarzenegger, for all his muscles, is a character that only fights when others are threatened, rarely for his own well being alone (hee just runs when it's his own skin at risk.) And I *might* read that as a interesting juxtaposition of masculinity...if it weren't for all the one-liners, that consistently belie any real care or empathy for fellow human beings. It's just a movie that doesn't work on all its terms, as a whole, even if you can squint and trace out some interesting bits within it.
Right, so re: tools, there's still a brute physicality to the other weapons that can be juxtaposed with the more mythical destructive element of fire that Fireball wields. I would also say that a totalitarian government faking the actions of a guy named Captain Freedom speaks to the throughline of perversion that can be found in both unhealthy masculinity and the police state. To that point, perhaps Captain Freedom himself is evaluating his masculinity through a flawed lens.
Killian, I think, fills a different role from that of the stalkers, in the sense that the stalkers have capitulated to this toxic foundation for masculinity, whereas Killian originates the foundation itself. I for one think it's telling that Killian's death occurs the moment he's plunged into the physicality of the game. Tangible reality won't kindly accommodate these misguided ideas of masculinity, after all.
Do you remember if there's any change in the frequency of the one-liners as the film goes on? That could clue us into some aspect of ego that a masculinity-themed film would naturally inspect.
I don't think we're going to agree on this one in any case, haha. All I know is that, when I watched it, my brain does that thing it does when it finds something to write about in a film. I do agree that it's far from a robust machine on any of its fronts, but I do still think there's thematic cohesion here to be admired; the fact that it has a genre sheen like this is a bonus in my book.
But what about the electricity of Van Lidth's character? Isn't that just as "mythical destructive" as Fireball's flames?
I don't disagree that there's *some* thematic cohesion, just that it's relatively weak, which I don't think we disgaree that strongly on. Regarding Killian, similarly, we're observing the same thing but translating it only slightly differently.
There are films that choose their blanks for the audience to fill in carefully, and those where the audience is working overtime to give deeper meaning and relevancy to superficial shenannigans. There's no absolute correct take, of course, but for me, making this into something meaningful that actually hits any of its targets is too tortuous an exercise. My brain can't do it and believe in it.
It's always interesting how close two minds can be yet still so far apart on a thing!
Love this pairing - that “California’s Ide” backstory alone feels like it was written for The Running Man. Both born from short-lived revolutions haha! Totally agree this film’s dystopian edge would land even harder now; it’s wild how prophetic its satire feels when you swap out network TV for social media. Nice one guys.
Ha ha, well, that puts you on Dallas' side of the argument. I don't think the execution of the themes pertain to the modern world at all, let alone were prophetic. Only in the broadest of brush strokes. We don't consume or follow shows en masse like this anymore. We're no longer a monoculture where this would occur. We wouldn't support a show that literally made us believe the cintestants were hardened killers then give them money and freedom when they killed our TV idols (the stalkers.) These are all lies the TV show tells the audience, but the audience supposedly believes it. It doesn't actually make any sense.
The only kind-of comparison would be MAGA-heads and putting "immigrants" in a show like this for entertainment. That would fly, but only with the very faithful, which isn't actually a large enough group on their own. The rest of the world is more prone to become insta-activists against such a show the moment it tried to land. Soooo many things about this that don't actually work!