what was the point?
-
lookoutjoe75 — 18 years ago(January 29, 2008 12:03 PM)
whoooo um well at a very basic level it was trying to say society is beep up. but why is it; perversity,ingorance,race,society itself,war,or does it just all stem from how much your mother screwed you up.
defenitly more than one if mont all thats the point -
leishayoung — 18 years ago(February 20, 2008 10:10 PM)
I think when you watch this film you have to watch it retrospectively. We look at issues now like consumerism, racism, sexism and conservatism as part of our society; we see it for what it is because of forty odd years of activism pointing it out to us. However, back when this film was made, (whilst the Vietnam war was still being fought), I am sure that the points that were made in the film were very confronting for many people who were still stuck in the white, middle class, suburban dream, (a dream that De Niro's character decides to remove himself from rather abruptly at the end). I am sure when De Palma made the film it was just his radical side coming out, maybe De Niro's character was his alter ego.
The 70's were a radical time, and politically there was a lot going on in America around the Vietnam War. I think that this movie purely illustrates the rising consciousness of, particularly the educated youth, at the time the film was made. Also, it illustrates how Vietnam changed America forever..actually the whole world. When De Niro blows up the housing plan building, he is blowing up the American dream, because he knows it's a farce; that's what the 70's were all about.
To me the film is quite obvious and blatant in its message, but has I said, you have to look at it retrospectively.
Of course I could be wrong, but that's what I take away from it. -
ixthvs — 17 years ago(June 09, 2008 12:55 AM)
Yes, very much Bickle/Pupkin. The three films could almost make up an inadvertent trilogy. But "Hi, Mom!" is the least taditional in form and ends up more of a period-piece curiosity than the others. The film's style is all over the place, whether intentionally or not is hard to tell. The opening credits have a Mary Tyler Moore Show sit-com perkiness while much of the subsequent action is reminiscent of the insidious "Putney Swope."
What I found remrkably exhilarating after four decades is the raw punch and audacity of the satire. God, what we were able to get away with presenting publicly without opposition or backlash! The lack of institutional censorship in that volatile era is hard to imagine from our present repressive vantagepoint. Anyone born and raised after 1970 might well have difficulty believing such blatant social scab-picking could get anything resembling general distribution. The burnt-cork and whitewashed faces (reminiscent of Genet's "The Blacks") the rampant use of the N- word, and the simulated rape of the "Be Black, Baby" tour/theatre games, albeit still discomfiting, feels a bit OTT by current standards. Likewise, the heavy improvisation and cinema-verite camerawork can now appear rather hackneyed. But in it's day, these facets were potentially quite startling and could still serve as effective discussion starters.
The film is quite anarchic in viewpoint, blasting it's satire scattershot at all comers. (Note that both the white day-trippers of the theatre tour and the black militants invading the aprtment building are equally made the brunt of the joke.) Broad satire is good at raising issues but rarely effective at providing viable options. That is, unless one considers blowing up the whole "bleeping" mess as viable, and in those days a good number did. Still, this remains a heady little trip, and it's amusing even quite fascinating to view a very young Robert DeNiro and an astonishingly thin Charles Durning. -
theodore_varengo — 17 years ago(April 01, 2009 12:14 AM)
I still maintain a lot of the people on these threads scratching their heads saying "what's the point?" and "I didn't get it" are taking the film far too literally. Take all the rules of mainstream movies and throw them out the window for this one. Recognize it is experimental cinema, understand the social climate of the times, develop a taste for surrealism and satire, and go along for the ride. It's worth watching for the budding skills of DePalma and the unbridled, electrifying, genius performance of DeNiro alone.
Insert pretentious signature here -
jayhawk-18 — 15 years ago(July 21, 2010 10:32 AM)
HI, MOM! definitely has a statement to make: We have been sitting around watching too long, and now it's time to take action in order to make the changes we want to see.
That's probably the best description I've seen about the film so far. It's definitely about the voyeurism of the American media and the exhibitionism of the American people.
Look carefully and you'll see nearly every character has a camera (and hardly any have curtains). One of the reasons this film is hard to grasp is that it intercuts between these different cameras and POVs.
To me, the director is pointing out that people on the street have this powerful tool to make a visual record of their lives, but too many people waste film on cheap voyeurism (the porn sequence) or shallow narcissism. Oddly enough, these are the two of the main things you find on the internet (sex and bloggers).
Instead, film has the power to construct a new reality and convey a strong political message, as shown in the harrowing Be Black Baby sequence. You literally can't look away (unlike the internet, where you only ever see what you want).