The Mist

[Rowland]

Interesting take, too, about Braugher.

Seconded.

[number8]

It's too easy. Jane's character is white and Braugher's character is black and they butt heads. The set-up is honestly as simple as that. But to elaborate, there are other minority characters represented in the supermarket (also check out the stock Latin man who is always cut to when Harden is waxing religious... the religious Latin stereotype in play right there), which makes sense because the film builds up the supermarket as a microcosm of America. In the end, the only characters that dare escape the corruption of religious hegemony are the powerful, open-minded people who are all white. In such a multi-ethnic and bluntly-metaphorical-for-society model, that there is a motion of white primacy like this is interesting (note that Braugher's character is a denier of truth, whose unwillingness to acknowledge the factual danger leads a handful of people to their almost certain demise).

I defended your right to see racial conflict undertones, but here's where I in turn challenge you, sir. :P

Consider this: you say the open-minded white people succeed in escaping the store, but where do they end up? Is it really a last-minute twist to reaffirm the right-wing viewpoint that we were led to believe is the "villain" of this piece?

To be honest, I initially reached the same conclusion you did. I just didn't see it as a confirmation of the belief--just a proposed scenario to remind us that we're too humble to ever know the unknown, and as such we should never be quick to judge.

However, on my second viewing, and after noticing the lady and the two kids, it suddenly hit me. What's the most prominent factor of modern day America's political front and governmental system? Fuckin' fear. And what does every single clique in the supermarket have in common? They're all afraid. From the military to the open-minded folks and even to Carmodie's congregation. They're all deathly afraid of what might be out there... All except that one lady, who rejected fear and valued the survival of her children (future generation) as priority.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's too easy. Jane's character is white and Braugher's character is black and they butt heads. The set-up is honestly as simple as that. But to elaborate, there are other minority characters represented in the supermarket (also check out the stock Latin man who is always cut to when Harden is waxing religious... the religious Latin stereotype in play right there), which makes sense because the film builds up the supermarket as a microcosm of America. In the end, the only characters that dare escape the corruption of religious hegemony are the powerful, open-minded people who are all white. In such a multi-ethnic and bluntly-metaphorical-for-society model, that there is a motion of white primacy like this is interesting (note that Braugher's character is a denier of truth, whose unwillingness to acknowledge the factual danger leads a handful of people to their almost certain demise).

I did not notice the Hispanic man in Harden's following, and your argument makes much more sense when there's more ethnic representatives other than white and black, and I almost can agree with your assertation that there is a subversive (I'd say likely unintentional) undercurrent of "white primacy" in "open-mindedness and rationality," but then I don't understand for the life of me why you see this as a negative thing. Are you saying Darabont is a champion of white supremecy in being "civilized" and "liberal minded" non-sheep? That's pretty accusatory. And I hardly think we can say the film is decrying Braugher for being a "denier of truth." I say it's evocative of US history and racial connotation that he is so vulnerably defensive.

I don't think it's so much relevant that maybe all the black people follow Braugher out into the mist, but that at the end, the survivors are white hero Jane, his white son, white blonde woman, and two elderly white people.

Really? The schism of the people is much more relevant to the subtext and undercurrents of the film than the rather "meta-" matter of what race are the rather bland and uber-virtuous leads, and while I see your point now about the "heros" all being white (what with the blacks and the Hispanic out of the "rational people" picture), I'm still not completely sold it's intentional THUS a negative aspect of the film... that just because the main "hero" characters (6 people out of a whole grocery store) happen to be white (no less in a New England town, I don't imagine there's much in the way of ethnic diversity), and then tons of the "evil" religious nuts are white themselves... that Darabont... what? See, I'm not sure if you're really accusing him and his film of what I think you're accusing his film of ("right-wingness"? racial bias?? I'm actually glad there wasn't a token ethnic character in the film's "hero" cadre).

It's not happy about it, but of course it believes in it. Why execute it if it doesn't believe in it? I'm not sure I know what you mean.

But it's completely invested in our/Drayton & co's ideals. The film's completely on our side. It has no sympathy for Harden or that dock man. It's anti-religion. It's completely sympathetic that Drayton is consistently losing even as he think he's getting away with everything (thinking differently and eventually breaking off from the fanatics, keeping his son from the monsters, etc.) It can't possibly want to say he's a fool for not becoming a religious nut or deludedly waiting for the military to come save them.

Her body splayed in a Christ pose.

Okay, are you saying the film wants us to believe she was a prophet and not a petty tyrant? She's plainly a villain throughout the whole film.

Like number 8 said, her prophecies come true, and her followers are left alive at the end.

Well, we never do find out what happens to the grocery store people at the end, or am I mistaken?

Yup. The military saves the day, does it not?

Right, but the only reason this plot development exists is because they found out a way to make it a sad turn of events, not an Independence Day "ra ra!" moment or a middle finger to us who sided so much with Drayton's ideals and plight.

How do you reconcile constructive flippancy? Throw a handful of legos into a tumbler and see if you can make a helicopter.

Flippant not as in throwing it in just for kicks, but flippant in a rhetorical way. If the film ended as the story did, the movie would have been a nice and sorrowful allegory for some major problems in the world. Okay, cool. But with this ending, it performs a kick in the nuts that recalls the harsh duplicity of the world.

Maybe I agree with you that the the film doesn't want to convince us of its truth. But then what good is it? If this irony doesn't mean anything, then the whole film is meaningless. The ending might justify that nihilism, and I am not "pro" the propagation of nihilism.

The irony meant something to me. It's not nihilism, it is pessimism. The film is overall humanistic (though again, I have to see it again to evaluate the execution and whether the film unsuccessfully inadvertantly makes it come off as a cheap twist).

Why? What's wrong with that?

You're rejecting the idea for the same reason you did at my perception of Drayton as a non-hero. You're taking the film at face value. Which is fine, it's certainly a very entertaining horror film, but there's no reason why it can't be interpreted as purely metaphorical. Which makes the film much more interesting anyway.

The film is about society and the cliques and viewpoints that emerge about society--they even blatantly discuss it in dialogue often. Obviously there are plenty of ways to interpret the actions of the characters as a reflection of society. If everyone has a role to play, Braugher's character is obviously the cynical black man. It's not even interpretation, that's who he is. And to extrapolate that to today's political climate, the black community is often a wildcard--there is a distance between them and the mainstream right wing/left wing dichotomy. I believe this is why Darabont had Braugher call bullshit on the entire thing and leave the store. Their fate is left ambiguous.

I'd argue that to deny this school of thought would be to disrespect the film.

Absolutely. But I think megladon8's mainly responding to iosos' claim about "white primacy" in the lead characters, which I was sort of iffy on at first, but am buying into a little now, under the condition that it's a positive (maybe intentional, maybe unintentional - there is a casting agent, after all) thing and not something to be disgusted with the film about.

[Sven]

8 & Bosco:

You guys have given me much to digest. I will ponder further, and respond. Tackling all this at the present is a bit daunting, as we're talking about lots and lots of things here.

Bosco, I do want you to note that I say that the white primacy element is "interesting", not "bad" necessarily. I would need to qualify things a bit more to extrapolate any value judgment I have on it. To whit, it's not so much the racial stuff in itself that irks me, though I realize I suggested that before. It's more how it ties into Darabont's conservativism-cum-liberalism. I think it's a terribly confusing picture, ideologically. ie, there's a point to which I can buy the argument that Braugher's defense is strictly cautionary, but I think the dramatics play well past the mark, to the point where its flat-out ignorance. There was a friggin' tentacle! How come Braugher never questions where the bagboy went, even after accusing them of joking tastelessly? Cerebrally, it is sensible to understand a character's doubt, but emotionally (dramatically) it is next to impossible for me to comprehend his denial of the situation when the evidence is right there.

But mostly, I think the race issue is an interesting one, not inherently a negative one. I kinda just wanted meg to acknowledge that it existed, is all. I'm not meaning to suggest a black-white-good-evil dichotomy, and I certainly agree with you on the token ethnic survivor hypothesis--that could be tasteless as all get out. I don't demand political correctedness, I only demand clarity--of narrative and ideology. Of course, if I don't agree with a film's ideology, I feel I can exercise an ethical imperative and disapprove of it. Right now, I'm too confused about the mixed messages of The Mist to deride it politically. I wish it were more coherent (and, maybe hoping too much, a little less didactic).

Of course, Harden does play a villain (and I have to admit, it never jives well with me when a movie makes me feel good for a character being shot), but ultimately, Darabont does suggest, by means of her splayed corpse, the truth of her prophecies, and the survival of the people within the store (which I think it's safe to infer, given the allegorical nature of the film), that her character represents a truth, and that truth is religion. (Note: I did not say the truth "of" religion.) But again, I get confused, because the film obviously is opposed to this truth, because it's bloodthirsty, short-tempered, illogical. It is a haven for those unwitting enough to believe, but at the same time, what they believe is fact. Confusing.

To add a corollary to what I said in my initial reaction, and to sum up this response which was more comprehensive than I initially intended it to be, statements about the harsh duplicity of the world are just as easy, if not easier to execute than cathartic endings. This is a primal misunderstanding that I think many, many people have about the power of the dramatic scenario. I believe in the classic tradition of catharsis, where an audience is edified. It is not sadness that I am against, because the truth is edifying and sadness is a truth. It is, however, with Brechtian alienation, in the context of tragedy, where bad things happen to destroy the "myth of happiness" for the sake of this destruction only, that I have a problem. At the risk of exposing myself as a simpleton, I simply hate nasty endings that do not feel justified. Jane's pain at the end is purely a writerly conceit of misery (it doesn't help the execution was totally amateurish, timing-wise... they could've developed a bit of a struggle with the suicide-angle, and maybe let Jane wander in the fog a bit longer--as it is it's way too Twilight Zoney, perfect for a twenty minute piece, inappropriate for a two hour drama). It's easy, and immature (in my opinion, natch), to kill characters so fruitlessly. What's hard and real and enlightening is to allow the characters the opportunity to live and grow. I'm unconvinced that anything in the movie as it is would be any weaker, or different at all in its expression of a duplicitous world, with a more cathartic (ie, either Jane is killed too or he and his son carry on) ending.

Anyway, time for more pondering.

[megladon8]

Why? What's wrong with that?

You're rejecting the idea for the same reason you did at my perception of Drayton as a non-hero. You're taking the film at face value. Which is fine, it's certainly a very entertaining horror film, but there's no reason why it can't be interpreted as purely metaphorical. Which makes the film much more interesting anyway.

But I'm not taking the film at face value - I've seen it four times now and have spent hours and hours thinking about it and what it was saying.

I wasn't rejecting your idea of him as a non-hero, but rather the feeling I got from your writing that he is somehow not a "good person". No one is just solidly good or bad, and I read your post as saying that because he wasn't willing to risk his and his son's life to help the woman get to her kids, he was somehow not worthy of being seen as a heroic character. As I said, he's not Superman, but he's certainly got some very admirable qualities, and does some heroic things. Though, as you said, it was too late.


I can see where you are coming from, iosos, with the race thing (after having read your extensive posts here).

I apologize for seeming so harsh with my first post. Like I said, I got the feeling at the first that race was being dragged into the equation when it wasn't rightly meant to be, and that ticks me off. But now I know what you meant, so all's good I hope


Not to victimize myself or anything, but I often think that people do not take what I say seriously, or consider me one of the "lesser" thinkers on the forum. I admit I'm guilty of sometimes making broad or ridiculous statements because I feel like that's the only way anyone's going to pay attention to/reply to anything I write anyways.

[Sven]

Not to victimize myself or anything, but I often think that people do not take what I say seriously, or consider me one of the "lesser" thinkers on the forum. I admit I'm guilty of sometimes making broad or ridiculous statements because I feel like that's the only way anyone's going to pay attention to/reply to anything I write anyways.

Sad. Don't think that. I love you!

[megladon8]

Sad. Don't think that. I love you!

Well I'm glad to hear it.

I was afraid maybe I'd really pissed you off.

[Sven]

I was afraid maybe I'd really pissed you off.

Nah. It takes a bit more than the occasional "get your head out of your ass!" to irritate me.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's more how it ties into Darabont's conservativism-cum-liberalism. I think it's a terribly confusing picture, ideologically.

ie, there's a point to which I can buy the argument that Braugher's defense is strictly cautionary, but I think the dramatics play well past the mark, to the point where its flat-out ignorance. There was a friggin' tentacle! (Haha, agree. I too was irritated) How come Braugher never questions where the bagboy went, even after accusing them of joking tastelessly? Cerebrally, it is sensible to understand a character's doubt, but emotionally (dramatically) it is next to impossible for me to comprehend his denial of the situation when the evidence is right there.

I don't demand political correctedness, I only demand clarity--of narrative and ideology. Of course, if I don't agree with a film's ideology, I feel I can exercise an ethical imperative and disapprove of it. Right now, I'm too confused about the mixed messages of The Mist to deride it politically. I wish it were more coherent (and, maybe hoping too much, a little less didactic).

Of course, Harden does play a villain (and I have to admit, it never jives well with me when a movie makes me feel good for a character being shot) (The moment troubles me as well, it's rather cruel and questionably effective in the audience response it evokes), but ultimately, Darabont does suggest, by means of her splayed corpse, the truth of her prophecies, and the survival of the people within the store (which I think it's safe to infer, given the allegorical nature of the film), that her character represents a truth, and that truth is religion. (Note: I did not say the truth "of" religion.) But again, I get confused, because the film obviously is opposed to this truth, because it's bloodthirsty, short-tempered, illogical. It is a haven for those unwitting enough to believe, but at the same time, what they believe is fact. Confusing.

To add a corollary to what I said in my initial reaction, and to sum up this response which was more comprehensive than I initially intended it to be, statements about the harsh duplicity of the world are just as easy, if not easier to execute than cathartic endings. This is a primal misunderstanding that I think many, many people have about the power of the dramatic scenario. I believe in the classic tradition of catharsis, where an audience is edified. It is not sadness that I am against, because the truth is edifying and sadness is a truth. It is, however, with Brechtian alienation, in the context of tragedy, where bad things happen to destroy the "myth of happiness" for the sake of this destruction only, that I have a problem. At the risk of exposing myself as a simpleton, I simply hate nasty endings that do not feel justified. (No no, don't say that, you've got fine discerning taste! You see, I'm -convinced- this ending would work for you if some different, more artistically-minded and sensitive director made this film. I'm convinced. Thus you cannot blame the ending for being ideologically unsound. :P Jane's pain at the end is purely a writerly conceit of misery...

Anyway, time for more pondering.

So cool response, I can see how the film is inadequate and that makes any thematic multivalence just not work at all. But the parts above that I bolded (non-pink ones), I just cannot see it at all your way. How is the film that allegorical or fantastic that it can create a universe where her prophecies really are fact? If Drayton was a Darwin-thumping atheist who is imposing his son not to believe in God, then there'd be some allegorical bent that would make the ending work in allegorically validating the prophecies (and the film would be religious propaganda). But they're just stock hero characters. What would it prove to have her prophecies be shockingly proved to be true? That the film takes place in some fantasy world where Drayton's son is a Messiah that the evil monsters must take alive if they are to rule the world etc. etc.

Not sure if what I'm saying makes sense now. I'll understand if you choose to cut the bickerin' and hollerin' debate short right now. :P I'm more into snuggling too.

[Raiders]

I didn't care much at all for the creatures in this. They seemed unfinished and rather disappointingly familiar in conception. I would have preferred them to be kept off camera, which shouldn't have been too difficult since the real horror comes from inside the store, not outside.

I think the ending to me was one of bleak sadness. I don't know if the film is at all condemning Jane's character, nor am I convinced it is being particularly ironic. The small band was forced outside by the religious piety on the inside. They made plans to leave, but mainly in light of the preachings of Carmodie and ultimately in light of her desire to begin sacrificing them. Seems to me their fate is a direct result of her callousness and fear-mongering, and that her followers survive is only more indicting to the zealots, the hateful murderers in this case, being those still alive at the expense of the others. It is their fear that ultimately kills the other characters, but it is Jane and his small group's original fears that perhaps condemned them by keeping them inside, and indicated by the re-emergence of the woman who went to find her kids. So, I don't know. It's a very entertaining film, and I like that the ending provides discussion, but I can't help but agree with iosos it doesn't really seem conclusive or even necessary.

I did find it interesting that his painting at the beginning was one of a gun-wielding "heroic" type, swaggering in profile.

[lovejuice]

I did find it interesting that his painting at the beginning was one of a gun-wielding "heroic" type, swaggering in profile.

that's an illustration for king's the gunslinger, and yes, quite fitting.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Why? What's wrong with that?

You're rejecting the idea for the same reason you did at my perception of Drayton as a non-hero. You're taking the film at face value. Which is fine, it's certainly a very entertaining horror film, but there's no reason why it can't be interpreted as purely metaphorical. Which makes the film much more interesting anyway.

The film is about society and the cliques and viewpoints that emerge about society--they even blatantly discuss it in dialogue often. Obviously there are plenty of ways to interpret the actions of the characters as a reflection of society. If everyone has a role to play, Braugher's character is obviously the cynical black man. It's not even interpretation, that's who he is. And to extrapolate that to today's political climate, the black community is often a wildcard--there is a distance between them and the mainstream right wing/left wing dichotomy. I believe this is why Darabont had Braugher call bullshit on the entire thing and leave the store. Their fate is left ambiguous.

I'd argue that to deny this school of thought would be to disrespect the film.

I'm not a big fan of this way of viewing films. For example, I find little of interest in the racial interplay of Night of the Living Dead, since Romero's casting of a black man was incidental. Many have written extensively on the subject, but I'm much more interested in what the film is specifically saying beneath the surface: the nuclear family, the traditions of America, are as transparent and destructive as the threat outside our walls.

In Andre Braugher's character, I'm much more intrigued by the concept of a man whose rationality veers into denial born of panic. As far as race is involved, he's black because Braugher is black. That's all.

[number8]

I believe there's power in the incidental.

The weight of a film is determined by its outcome, not its intentions.

[megladon8]

I sitll must say, the most powerful part of the film (for me) was right after the tentacle incident...

"You got that kid killed...and I've got his fucking blood on me!"

The desperation in Jane's voice when he spoke that line was incredible.

That was followed by his nausea, which again, was a great, very human reaction to the circumstances - and something very rarely seen in movies.

[DrewG]

I finally got around to seeing it last night and loved it but I gotta say megaldon8, that my favorite line has to be in Amanda's teary question to David:

[

Show Spoiler

This isn't gonna end...is it?

]

[megladon8]

I finally got around to seeing it last night and loved it but I gotta say megaldon8, that my favorite line has to be in Amanda's teary question to David:

[

Show Spoiler

This isn't gonna end...is it?

]

That was a wonderful line, too.

There were lots of those in the film, actually.

Evne when they're in the jeep, and Amanda turns to David and says "maybe we'll get clear of the mist".

I was really surprised by Laurie Holden. The only thing I had seen her in before this was Silent Hill *GAG* so it was great to see that she not only can act, but can play an empathetic character very well.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I believe there's power in the incidental.

The weight of a film is determined by its outcome, not its intentions.

True, but most films can be "read" with more accuracy, if one has a stronger understanding of what the artist is trying to accomplish.

It's a fine line, to me, between distinct film readings and critical masturbation.

[megladon8]

True, but most films can be "read" with more accuracy, if one has a stronger understanding of what the artist is trying to accomplish.

It's a fine line, to me, between distinct film readings and critical masturbation.

I agree with both this, and what you said earlier -

As far as race is involved, he's black because Braugher is black. That's all.

[Raiders]

I think it is too narrow-focused to say plainly that the character is black because Braugher is black and leave it at that. Must all things in the end be determined only by the screenplay? Could the casting of Braugher not be an intentional idea to sort of spurn the character's defensive attitude and refusal to buy into what he sees as exclusionary, po-dunk town behavior? Do you think if Jane's character were black and Braugher's white the scene would have had the same level of seething contempt beneath the surface? Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't. I think there's room for contemplation there and people who bring it up shouldn't be scoffed at for trying to bring "race into the issue." Race is always an issue by sheer factor of its existence and there is nothing wrong with a filmmaker utilizing this nor a viewer from experiencing a situation through this. We don't experience art in a vacuum.

[Scar]

Braugher was cast because he's black. When he leaves, doesn't he say 'his people' and they're all black?

[megladon8]

Braugher was cast because he's black. When he leaves, doesn't he say 'his people' and they're all black?

There were a couple of black people with him, yes.

I don't know how to defend my opinion, to be honest. I guess I try to not even acknowledge different skin colours - in the end, we're all just people.

[Scar]

There were a couple of black people with him, yes.

I don't know how to defend my opinion, to be honest. I guess I try to not even acknowledge different skin colours - in the end, we're all just people.

Since I don't own the movie, I can't rewatch the movie. I'd like to know what his exact line is in regards to leaving, and who is leaving with him.

[megladon8]

Since I don't own the movie, I can't rewatch the movie. I'd like to know what his exact line is in regards to leaving, and who is leaving with him.

He says "you already turned four of my people".

Then Laurie Holden says "YOUR people? They're just PEOPLE".

Then when he leaves, there are a few blacks, a few whites, and then that motorcycle gang dude with the rope around his waist.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I think it is too narrow-focused to say plainly that the character is black because Braugher is black and leave it at that. Must all things in the end be determined only by the screenplay?

In a way, I think it's just as narrow-focused to assume that "racial" casting must always have some sort of sociological significance.

Could the casting of Braugher not be an intentional idea to sort of spurn the character's defensive attitude and refusal to buy into what he sees as exclusionary, po-dunk town behavior?

Darabont said that the casting was unintentional, from a racial perspective. However, he also said he loved the "chip on his shoulder" that Braugher brought, so obviously there's some merit to people discussing race. I guess I'm just not as interested in that.

Do you think if Jane's character were black and Braugher's white the scene would have had the same level of seething contempt beneath the surface? Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't. I think there's room for contemplation there and people who bring it up shouldn't be scoffed at for trying to bring "race into the issue." Race is always an issue by sheer factor of its existence and there is nothing wrong with a filmmaker utilizing this nor a viewer from experiencing a situation through this. We don't experience art in a vacuum.

I never said people couldn't have their reaction. I refer you to my original point, which is a variation on the old "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" idea.

[number8]

In a way, I think it's just as narrow-focused to assume that "racial" casting must always have some sort of sociological significance.

I don't think anyone said that. Obviously, in this case, the issue came up because it fit the themes presented in the film and there are strong evidence to support it. I don't assume that there's some commentary to the fact that Superbad only shows white kids.

Darabont said that the casting was unintentional, from a racial perspective. However, he also said he loved the "chip on his shoulder" that Braugher brought, so obviously there's some merit to people discussing race. I guess I'm just not as interested in that.

There you have it. Romero said the same thing about Night too. He didn't intend the casting that way, but he supports the interpretation and it's of course in line with Romero's sensibilities. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but if Freud starts licking the tip of the cigar, then the cigar is no longer just a cigar.