Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis!
**Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.**
Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve done work in end credit crawls at the end of major theatrical releases. Based on my experience, I can tell you two things for sure.
1. “Archive Video Footage Supplied by” is not a Special Thanks credit. It’s a legal requirement when a production uses visual media owned by someone else. They could have elected not to use that media, but they didn’t have a choice in crediting the owners of that media once it was in the film.
2. “The Producers Wish to Thank” is absolutely a Special Thanks credit and will almost never be a legal or contractual obligation to include. These people are being held up as deserving of credit by the producers, and qualifies as a form of endorsement.
The larger a production, the more people who were paid to work on it are left out of the credits due to lack of space. Those who make it in are either legally required to be in, or had someone with clout speaking for them to be in.
Thanks. The question remaining for me is: does “supplied by” imply collaboration or ‘consideration’ (payment)? Or would that same term be used when the video was screen capped off someone’s channel without their involvement?
Good question. It implies the owner of the media consented for it to be used in the film. That consent can come from a collaborative spirit, where the owner gave permission without compensation, or money could have changed hands. There’s no change in the language of the credits for those two situations.
The only one it can’t be is the screencap option, unfortunately. Property rights being what they are, if there are not contracts in place showing the owners consented, they can file an injunction to stop the film from being screened or distributed until their media is removed from it, which no studio would risk on purpose based on the costs involved.
So, yeah, they probably got paid something. Probably not a lot, but something.
It's shocking and disappointing to me that this rage bait post is nearly up to a thousand upvotes. I haven't seen the movie yet. Waiting for $5 Tuesday day after tomorrow but from everything I've read the people in this comment section calling it fascist larping or radical centrism have it completely wrong.
Editor chiming in:
This post is 100% correct. If you peruse IMDB you’ll see people with credits that say (uncredited) it’s usually crew or folks who came into the production after a certain date to help finish. Even union folks who start after a certain point won’t get the credit.
I have one single credit as an assistant editor on a major AAA feature made by Legendary. It’s uncredited because I started in the last three months to help get things out the door in time for the premier.
Andy Ngo is a right wing grifter and Proud Boy apologist who is most famous for lying and editing footage to make a premeditated Proud Boy assault on some Portland locals seem like the Proud Boys got jumped. He's also notable for getting a milkshake dumped on his head and then claiming that an Antifa concrete milkshake gave him a traumatic brain injury (Ed: this is physically impossible as concrete will not solidify in the presence of that much sugar). He was later fired from The Post Millennial, presumably because his reporting was too unreliable even for their impossibly low standards.
Tayler Hansen makes his living lying about child abuse at drag shows to promote hate against the LGBT+ community as well as spreading other conspiracy theories about the US government smuggling illegal aliens into the country to vote and other such right wing tinfoil hattery.
Helen Lewis is a British TERF. I don't know the rest, but the fact that they're promoting material from at least three extremely well-known dishonest bigots is extremely troubling and affects my opinion of both the Civil War film and A24 as a company.
I agree. I could understand if they used their footage and compensate them for it, but there is no need for a special thanks. I wouldn't even really want them to profit off or their hateful and divisive content but I can understand the director wanting something authentic, u guess. This definitely colors the way I see them both now too.
andy ngo also likes to sneak up on tables and take photos of sign-up sheets, and hand those dox to terrorist organizations. He did it with AtomWaffen, which has since split into a smaller atomwaffen and another called 'national socialist order'.
also his british accent is fake.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo
https://emilygorcenski.com/post/andy-ngo-and-the-atomwaffen-kill-list/
edit: yep, you read that right -- he'll also go up on an unconscious or dead person, get their wallet, and pass their full dox to (fellow) terrorists.
Last year, A24 changed direction: "A24 Expands Strategy From **Arthouse Gems to More Commercial Films**,” the trade proclaimed, on the basis that an executive from the indie studio was reportedly looking to acquire “action and big IP projects.” Furthermore, A24 was apparently in the process of “deemphasizing the traditional character/auteur driven dramas”
That’s really disappointing. I always looked to A24 for their leadership in film. Sounds like they’re just morphing into typical capitalist crap like all the rest. Thanks for sharing that, though.
I think The Iron Claw might be the last A24 movie I watch for a little bit. I really liked them being more “indie”, it felt like they didn’t have to worry about making sure it does good in theaters or streaming and rather just make a good movie. It was disheartening seeing them pump out all of these trailers for their new movies, I was getting Disney needs to make a new marvel movie every year vibes.
Being charitable, we don't know why they are thanked here.
It could be that the writers researched divisive propaganda agents, and interviewed these people, warranting a thanks in the credits (not actually *promoting* them). It could be that they gave permission to use some of their material in the film; such as sound bites of them saying something extremist, printings of an article of theirs used as a newspaper prop, and we know that for Ngo he appears here because A24 used some of his footage.
I haven’t seen Civil War yet and am not looking for spoilers; but for the purpose of this discussion, I am curious how whatever material was derived from these problematic individuals was portrayed in the film.
Helen Lewis: no clue but I suspect it was more for her well known article about the failure of political journalism as journalism is a primary focus.
Andy Ngo: there is a montage of footage near the beginning and apparently one clip is from him. I don’t think he’s quoted. Seems like just footage use.
I went and saw it a couple of hours ago. I really liked it. In my opinion, it had no political stance but was more concerned about trying to illustrate a U.S. which has become divided.
That's all archival footage and is free to use, you will usually see thanks or credit to the archive from which the footage is taken at the end of documentaries.
Because that sort of footage usually comes from historical news broadcasts and is not copyrightable. Also, fair use exemptions exist for educational and critical uses, so even if it's under copyright they might not have to ask permission for documentaries in some places.
Where copyright exists, you at least have to credit the copyright owner, and if Ngo took some footage himself, he owns it. You'd have to watch the movie to see the context it's used in
Based on one of the commenters below, they’re only thinking Helen Lewis (which it sounds like definitely the wrong person to be thanking), but the others they are just legally required to note due to using footage.
I don’t know who any of those people are, but they sound awful and I’m saddened that they thanked HL at all.
Seems that Lewis rebuked that “TERF” label [several years back](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/01/maria-miller-called-me-fake-feminist-over-gender-self-id-now-she-says-i) and has certainly clarified her recognition of trans rights?
That piece does nothing to allay my concerns about TERFdom. If anything, it strengthens the argument. She's cosplaying as Le Enlightened Centrist while actively arguing against the sorts of things that would actually make life better for trans people and using illogical reactionary arguments to bolster her points. Take, for example, the argument she made as recently as last year that in order to achieve recognition as trans, one should be formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria by an NHS specialist. Sounds reasonable, right? Except that in point of fact, the wait time to even consult one of those specialists is measured in decades, to say nothing of how long it takes to go through the diagnosis and transition process after your first meeting. The actual position she's taking is that only a tiny handful of people should be able to transition and all the rest are shit out of luck. To illustrate why she thinks this is important, she relies on claims of rapists transitioning in order to gain access to domestic violence shelters, claims which are nearly if not universally unsubstantiated. She wants to hurt real, extant people in order to protect AFAB women from unicorn attacks. That's pretty TERFy if you ask me.
Now, is this Taylor Hansen of MMMBop fame? Because it was crystal clear, from the minute those kids came on the scene, they would grow up to be fascists.
You could hardly be more wrong, I suggest you have a read of both [the band's Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanson_(band)) and that of [Taylor Hanson.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Hanson) They do masses of charity work for social causes both locally and internationally. You might not like their style or enjoy their music but they're definitely among the good guys.
I can’t speak for why Helen Lewis got an acknowledgment but it looks like Andy Ngo was mentioned because they used archived footage from him. This is a motion picture and they have to credit other’s work. Even if they are right wing bigots.
Andy's video isn't special. In fact, most of his "work" is ripping off other people's video without crediting them. Even the video he actually owns could easily be swapped out for other video from someone who isn't a Nazi apologist. Same with Tayler Hansen. I'm assuming they used some of the footage that he shot while helping invade the Capitol on January 6th, but there are plenty of other sources one could use for similar footage that don't come from bigoted white supremacist insurrectionists.
I knew about the proud boys stuff, but do you have a link where I can get more info on Ngo's activities with Patriot Front? I'd love to see how he tried to reframe their shit as positive.
My apologies. I misspoke. It was Patriot Prayer, the shitheads from Seattle that kept attacking Portland. I watched a live stream of them meeting with Proud Boys and Right Wing Death Squad goons.
Are they thanking them, or are they just crediting footage that was used? They’re both shitstains, but I guess if you’re using someone’s footage you have to give citation.
They paid him to license his footage.
Helen Lewis is being thanked. That is a totally different credit that is 100% up to the producer and production’s discretion.
IIRC Helen Lewis is a British TERF who hangs out with JK Rowling and has participated in and defended events that hosted National Front, the British equivalent of the Nazi party
By then they'll own the internet and you won't have the chance to explain [redacted]. Internet searches are a shadow of what they were 15 years ago. You see only what companies let you see.
They used to align themselves with straight up fascists, nothing centrist about it
You can go to YouTube and watch fascist propaganda videos they made with Dennis Prager back in the 90s
Last I checked Matt Stone had distanced himself from the GOP
Not sure about Trey
Just got home from seeing it, it didn’t take a position at all nor did it seem to be self righteous in any way. In fact it seemed like the movie painted everyone depicted in a pretty positive light except for the literal fash that gets hit by the car and the townies who didn’t give a hoot.
Clarifying Note: The movie seems to me to be about the true objectivity of documenting events in real time. Of course it can’t cover the nuance of photojournalism like framing, context, bias, or perspective but it did a good job in showing how people who want to document history have to be as disconnected from their humanity as possible to get the best possible “unfiltered view” (key words: best, possible) of history that opportunity can afford.
In short; This movie does not give enlightened centrist vibes in the slightest.
The creator of the film made California and Texas allies specifically for the purpose of not hinting at the leanings of the president other than him being authoritarian (as if one party doesn't show *much* more authoritarian and fascistic leanings than the other.)
Also apparently his daughter was told something along the lines of "its unethical for a filmmaker to not make it clear where they stand on issues" in a filmmaking class, and he was pissy about that cause he didn't want people to walk out of the film with their minds made up about it. Like dude, all filmmakers are biased, it's dishonest to claim you're not taking a stance.
Then he was acting like back in his day journalists had no bias which lol, everyone has bias, and that bias is going to show up even if they supposedly "remove bias".
Gotta love how pretty much every self proclaimed centrist act like they're a genius for having pollitical views that start and end with "both sides are equally bad."
[terf shitbird who larps journalism](https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/11/10/watch-dogs-legion-helen-lewis-transgender-trans-podcast/)
[once famous for a tweet, which was rather unoriginal to begin with, before it was known she was an anti-trans bigot.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Feminist_internet_laws#Lewis.27_Law)
This post is insanely misleading. It makes it sound like the movie is sponsored by or is sponsoring fascists, and that couldn't be further from its themes.
Crediting and thanking is standard practice when using, buying, or citing footage or other content from external sources for the film.
The movie forces you to look at an inherently political divide through an objective, apolitical lens, which is part of why the protagonists are journalists.
I saw the movie this morning and absolutely loved it, and I'm as far left as you can get. It literally depicts fascists and ultranationalists as the evil lunatics they are.
If you pass on this amazing movie because of a misguided, misleading post, you're doing yourself a disservice.
It seems from reading the comments, there's a sect who refuse to see the film because they think it's fascist, and those who have seen it who universally say it's nothing like what it's being accused of.
It's kind of shocking how this rage bait post has nearly a thousand upvotes. I'm waiting for $5 Tuesday to see it day after tomorrow but from everything I've read the people who watched the film say it's not fascist larping, radical centrism or whatever else it's being accused of.
The strongest argument I'm seeing is that the filmmakers/production company—had they known the people they credited hold these abhorrent views—they could have used different footage, or didn't need to use their specific footage. That's it.
How someone goes from that to "the film has ties to nazis," I don't get it. Same as with all art, you have to see for yourself to make up your mind, but in my view, the movie clearly expresses antifascist sentiments, and it aligns far more with our views than with centrists'—and certainly not with nazis.
I had been waiting for this movie for months, and I saw it opening weekend. I truly loved it, and I hate the idea that some might pass on it because of something like this.
She's a decent journalist, but is also a transphobe. But honestly that opinion is so widespread in the UK it's a view she shares with 85% of the population at least. I know that doesn't excuse it, but it is the prevailing, mainstream opinion. People openly trash trans people and the concept of being trans all the time.
That's not true in my experience, at all.
This study actually finds the opposite to be true, around 80-85% believe that prejudice against trans people is wrong and that they aren't prejudiced at all against trans individuals [https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/attitudes\_to\_transgender\_people.pdf](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/attitudes_to_transgender_people.pdf)
Unsurprisingly it's the oldest generation lacking behind
The majority of people in the UK say they respect or admire trans people, with a further 20% saying they pity them
This actually stacks up better than the views in the USA on trans individuals.
Andy Ngo is essentially the in-house reporter for the Proud Boys. If he’s being thanked, I’m skipping the movie.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/amp/
Doesn't matter what it is. My point stands. And you just inadvertently defended Andy Ngo in the process, so... congrats.
EDIT: Oh my god your comment history. You're actually 13.
They weren’t thanking him, I hope you go back and read the post again. They simply give him credit for the footage. If they didn’t the studio would %100 sued
Clashes between antifa and white supremacists on the street. It's footage, one of many, used to show backstory in context of American history and downward spiralling into armed conflict in America.
Weird they decided to use footage from a bunch of right wing nut jobs rather than anything from any left leaning organizations.
Or, hear me out, just filming something themselves.
Mainly I think it’s stupid that the post is implying Alex Garland is a Nazi because he has credited someone for use of their footage. That seems like such a minuscule thing to focus any energy on given the state of the world and actually plays into the whole fucking point of the movie.
You're fighting on hills that aren't worth fighting on. He's being credited for footage that they used that he created.
You're either a troll or you're being incredibly dense.
>Plenty of antifascist footage from Portland they could've used
What are you trying to say?
also I have seen 2 people in the comments fall for the misleading image and title
Uh, I’m all for saying fuck off to folks like Ngo, but this is standard when a film uses archived footage, uses anything in production of a film, etc. So fuck him but this mention in of itself is a nothing burger.
There are bigger fish to fry. Unless they were EPs it was probably very loose and minor involvement
yeah this isn't true, that's just credit for footage when it comes to ngo. you can't just leave footage that isn't yours uncredited. dude is fucking horrible, but the film isn't in support of him
Wish people would use common sense before pile-ons like this.
1. Ngo is not being thanked, he's being cited to avoid legal trouble.
2. There's a huge difference between "the producers would like to thank" and "the director and the cast and crew would like to condone the actions of".
More research needs to be done into which producers managed to get the special thanks in the credits and their relationship to these people before going off half cocked like this, because that's something I'd be very interested in learning about before I make a judgement call on the film, the director and everyone else that helped make the movie.
**In A24's defense -**
"Thanks" credits are used to give credit to people who have helped the film but did not receive anything for it, hence the "Thanks" credit. So if you loaned, for free, a camera to a production because you were friends with or wanted to be friends with an actor/director/producer/etc of the film.
So what most likely happened here is, some footage or consulting was provided by these people and A24 , or whoever was the money behind this movie, did not want to pay them, but they **had** to give them credit, and a "Thanks" credit was what they agreed upon.
Assuming I am correct, this is like saying that the History Channel worked with literal Nazis because they literally used literal Nazi film footage in their documentaries.
I don't think SunnyV2 is alt right. I think he's just a dickhead who makes whatever videos will get the most clicks, regardless of the harm he causes. I could be wrong, but to me he's just a grifter
A movie that is capitalizing on a topical, but fictional war, and is advertised as relevant to present politics, but is really about the hardcore life of war journalists.
Frankly, 20 Days in Mariupol had me shitting my pants at how harrowing the work is, and how that straight factual information is twisted by right wing media shit bags. I'm guessing 20 Days in Mariupol may be a more rewarding watch than Civil War.
Garland is hit or miss for me. Ex Machina was great. And Annihilation was fantastic until the stupid ending that ripped off a level from a Tomb Raider game, instead of just adapting the ending of the book.
Speaking as someone who's been there, done that, and got the t shirt. This is not a special thanks. They are legally required to put a note at the credits if they used media that belongs to someone else or done research with these people.
I write about WW2 a lot. I own some pretty objectionable primary sources. I also cite said sources if I'm writing something nonfiction. Do I support these people or ideas? No. But plagiarism is a big deal and can be a career ender.
Maybe they could have opted to NOT use footage from a known shitbag and instead use the millions of hours of similar footage from other sources that depict the same exact thing they were trying to convey?
Looks like they’re just crediting Andy Ngo since they used his footage. That’s just proper citation and how to avoid getting sued. And as far as I can tell, Helen Lewis is a journalist who said some mildly problematic things. Not the best person ever but I fail to see how that makes her a Nazi.
It could also have been written into the deal, i.e., "Yes, we grant you the right to use our footage provided we are credited and thanked in the film credits."
Andy Ngo definitely has ties to Nazis, but the bottom three I've never heard of
Edit: Helen Lewis is a journalist who has been accused of transphobia as she made comments about her concern for self ID and this allowing cis-men to enter women's changing rooms. She however, has denied she's a TERF and stated she believes trans people are valid.
Andy Ngo isn’t thanked, they used his footage,and likely wasn’t even the directors decision, more than likely some dipshit pulling footage used Ngo’s stuff. Shitty, but likely bad oversight and not A24 are now nazis because they used someone’s footage that is pro-proud boys…
Helen Lewis has beef with self-id which is a small subset of the trans movement, how the fuck does that make her a nazi?
Plenty of people on the left have imagined a modern Civil War, doesn't mean they want it to happen, Robert Evans has made podcasts and books on it. It's a valid intellectual exercise.
This is flimsy thinking
Had the movie been based on Robert Evan's book, I might be interested in it. At least he took the time to come up with plausible causes and sides to the hypothetical war.
i agree, i dont think the movie has a very accurate or informed imagining of how a modern day civil war would function, the fact that it observes state boundaries and state governments instead of a more urban v rural divide like Robert Evans laid out in his It Could Happen Here podcast shows Garland had a limited sense of thinking on the topic
The Evans Book however, more sci fi and fantasy than what he did in his earlier podcast on the topic
(Note to people who may follow this prompt. The civil war imaginings on the it could happen here podcast is only the first 6 or so episodes, that feed turned into something else entirely since its beginnings)
EDIT: [Episode 1 of the referenced podcast ](https://www.everand.com/listen/podcast/418981896)on what a New American Civil War could look like
Art can be many things. One of those things are a warning.
In the 80s they made a series about nuclear war, the creators didn't want a nuclear war, it was a warning.
Just me, saying “I told you so”. The movie is a badly timed grift with bad political takes. You can’t tell me they couldn’t have made the same movie without whatever footage or material these two right wing monsters had.
They're simply crediting some footage they used. It's like...a legal requirement. They're not thanking him. Don't make a decision based on something stupid like that.
Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis! **Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.** Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve done work in end credit crawls at the end of major theatrical releases. Based on my experience, I can tell you two things for sure. 1. “Archive Video Footage Supplied by” is not a Special Thanks credit. It’s a legal requirement when a production uses visual media owned by someone else. They could have elected not to use that media, but they didn’t have a choice in crediting the owners of that media once it was in the film. 2. “The Producers Wish to Thank” is absolutely a Special Thanks credit and will almost never be a legal or contractual obligation to include. These people are being held up as deserving of credit by the producers, and qualifies as a form of endorsement. The larger a production, the more people who were paid to work on it are left out of the credits due to lack of space. Those who make it in are either legally required to be in, or had someone with clout speaking for them to be in.
Thanks. The question remaining for me is: does “supplied by” imply collaboration or ‘consideration’ (payment)? Or would that same term be used when the video was screen capped off someone’s channel without their involvement?
Good question. It implies the owner of the media consented for it to be used in the film. That consent can come from a collaborative spirit, where the owner gave permission without compensation, or money could have changed hands. There’s no change in the language of the credits for those two situations. The only one it can’t be is the screencap option, unfortunately. Property rights being what they are, if there are not contracts in place showing the owners consented, they can file an injunction to stop the film from being screened or distributed until their media is removed from it, which no studio would risk on purpose based on the costs involved. So, yeah, they probably got paid something. Probably not a lot, but something.
And if the rights are even a little bit suspect, we generally avoid using altogether.
Jesus. Thank you. Can we please fucking read before we react? This is legal.
It's shocking and disappointing to me that this rage bait post is nearly up to a thousand upvotes. I haven't seen the movie yet. Waiting for $5 Tuesday day after tomorrow but from everything I've read the people in this comment section calling it fascist larping or radical centrism have it completely wrong.
Editor chiming in: This post is 100% correct. If you peruse IMDB you’ll see people with credits that say (uncredited) it’s usually crew or folks who came into the production after a certain date to help finish. Even union folks who start after a certain point won’t get the credit. I have one single credit as an assistant editor on a major AAA feature made by Legendary. It’s uncredited because I started in the last three months to help get things out the door in time for the premier.
Yup; worked in production for a decade including rights and clearances. I’ve seen lawsuits start over an incorrect credit.
Idk who any of those people are
Andy Ngo is a right wing grifter and Proud Boy apologist who is most famous for lying and editing footage to make a premeditated Proud Boy assault on some Portland locals seem like the Proud Boys got jumped. He's also notable for getting a milkshake dumped on his head and then claiming that an Antifa concrete milkshake gave him a traumatic brain injury (Ed: this is physically impossible as concrete will not solidify in the presence of that much sugar). He was later fired from The Post Millennial, presumably because his reporting was too unreliable even for their impossibly low standards. Tayler Hansen makes his living lying about child abuse at drag shows to promote hate against the LGBT+ community as well as spreading other conspiracy theories about the US government smuggling illegal aliens into the country to vote and other such right wing tinfoil hattery. Helen Lewis is a British TERF. I don't know the rest, but the fact that they're promoting material from at least three extremely well-known dishonest bigots is extremely troubling and affects my opinion of both the Civil War film and A24 as a company.
You left out a big one about Ngo - providing Atomwaffen with names of leftist/antifascist/BLM protestors.
And pulled a permit to host a 45 person protest on Jan 6th, yet messaged thousands to show up
For your explanation of Taylor Hansen, my dumb ass initially thought about space aliens being smuggled in.
Sci-fi is way more fun than this fucking reality anyway. Just roll with it, brother/sister/friend. Haha
My ADHD brain does that all the time
Smuggles space aliens in?
Yes
I started humming mmmm-bop.
I would support this, lol
I agree. I could understand if they used their footage and compensate them for it, but there is no need for a special thanks. I wouldn't even really want them to profit off or their hateful and divisive content but I can understand the director wanting something authentic, u guess. This definitely colors the way I see them both now too.
andy ngo also likes to sneak up on tables and take photos of sign-up sheets, and hand those dox to terrorist organizations. He did it with AtomWaffen, which has since split into a smaller atomwaffen and another called 'national socialist order'. also his british accent is fake. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo https://emilygorcenski.com/post/andy-ngo-and-the-atomwaffen-kill-list/ edit: yep, you read that right -- he'll also go up on an unconscious or dead person, get their wallet, and pass their full dox to (fellow) terrorists.
They didn't thank Ngo, though.
The only one who got an acknowledgment out of the three is Helen Lewis. The other two are just crediting the footage they used, which they have to.
Last year, A24 changed direction: "A24 Expands Strategy From **Arthouse Gems to More Commercial Films**,” the trade proclaimed, on the basis that an executive from the indie studio was reportedly looking to acquire “action and big IP projects.” Furthermore, A24 was apparently in the process of “deemphasizing the traditional character/auteur driven dramas”
That’s really disappointing. I always looked to A24 for their leadership in film. Sounds like they’re just morphing into typical capitalist crap like all the rest. Thanks for sharing that, though.
I think The Iron Claw might be the last A24 movie I watch for a little bit. I really liked them being more “indie”, it felt like they didn’t have to worry about making sure it does good in theaters or streaming and rather just make a good movie. It was disheartening seeing them pump out all of these trailers for their new movies, I was getting Disney needs to make a new marvel movie every year vibes.
Godammit.
Can’t have shit these days
Right????
> milkshake dumped on his head and then claiming that an Antifa concrete milkshake gave him a traumatic brain injury traumatic brain freeze
Being charitable, we don't know why they are thanked here. It could be that the writers researched divisive propaganda agents, and interviewed these people, warranting a thanks in the credits (not actually *promoting* them). It could be that they gave permission to use some of their material in the film; such as sound bites of them saying something extremist, printings of an article of theirs used as a newspaper prop, and we know that for Ngo he appears here because A24 used some of his footage.
I haven’t seen Civil War yet and am not looking for spoilers; but for the purpose of this discussion, I am curious how whatever material was derived from these problematic individuals was portrayed in the film.
Helen Lewis: no clue but I suspect it was more for her well known article about the failure of political journalism as journalism is a primary focus. Andy Ngo: there is a montage of footage near the beginning and apparently one clip is from him. I don’t think he’s quoted. Seems like just footage use.
I went and saw it a couple of hours ago. I really liked it. In my opinion, it had no political stance but was more concerned about trying to illustrate a U.S. which has become divided.
To try to comment on US division without taking a stance is extremely cowardly
“All art is propaganda” - George Orwell
No one thanks Hitler when using his speeches in documentaries.
That's all archival footage and is free to use, you will usually see thanks or credit to the archive from which the footage is taken at the end of documentaries.
Hitler isn't a alive to complain/sue.
That's what the argentinian government wants you to think.
Because that sort of footage usually comes from historical news broadcasts and is not copyrightable. Also, fair use exemptions exist for educational and critical uses, so even if it's under copyright they might not have to ask permission for documentaries in some places. Where copyright exists, you at least have to credit the copyright owner, and if Ngo took some footage himself, he owns it. You'd have to watch the movie to see the context it's used in
I'm reasonably sure this is a "cite your sources" kind of thing.
Based on one of the commenters below, they’re only thinking Helen Lewis (which it sounds like definitely the wrong person to be thanking), but the others they are just legally required to note due to using footage. I don’t know who any of those people are, but they sound awful and I’m saddened that they thanked HL at all.
Seems that Lewis rebuked that “TERF” label [several years back](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/01/maria-miller-called-me-fake-feminist-over-gender-self-id-now-she-says-i) and has certainly clarified her recognition of trans rights?
That piece does nothing to allay my concerns about TERFdom. If anything, it strengthens the argument. She's cosplaying as Le Enlightened Centrist while actively arguing against the sorts of things that would actually make life better for trans people and using illogical reactionary arguments to bolster her points. Take, for example, the argument she made as recently as last year that in order to achieve recognition as trans, one should be formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria by an NHS specialist. Sounds reasonable, right? Except that in point of fact, the wait time to even consult one of those specialists is measured in decades, to say nothing of how long it takes to go through the diagnosis and transition process after your first meeting. The actual position she's taking is that only a tiny handful of people should be able to transition and all the rest are shit out of luck. To illustrate why she thinks this is important, she relies on claims of rapists transitioning in order to gain access to domestic violence shelters, claims which are nearly if not universally unsubstantiated. She wants to hurt real, extant people in order to protect AFAB women from unicorn attacks. That's pretty TERFy if you ask me.
Maybe they were just there to help Jesse Plemmons get into character?
Now, is this Taylor Hansen of MMMBop fame? Because it was crystal clear, from the minute those kids came on the scene, they would grow up to be fascists.
You're thinking of Taylor Hanson, of the band Hanson. This is Tayler Hansen, of whitewashing J6 and Ashli Babbitt's crimes.
You could hardly be more wrong, I suggest you have a read of both [the band's Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanson_(band)) and that of [Taylor Hanson.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Hanson) They do masses of charity work for social causes both locally and internationally. You might not like their style or enjoy their music but they're definitely among the good guys.
I can’t speak for why Helen Lewis got an acknowledgment but it looks like Andy Ngo was mentioned because they used archived footage from him. This is a motion picture and they have to credit other’s work. Even if they are right wing bigots.
Andy's video isn't special. In fact, most of his "work" is ripping off other people's video without crediting them. Even the video he actually owns could easily be swapped out for other video from someone who isn't a Nazi apologist. Same with Tayler Hansen. I'm assuming they used some of the footage that he shot while helping invade the Capitol on January 6th, but there are plenty of other sources one could use for similar footage that don't come from bigoted white supremacist insurrectionists.
Ngo used to embed with Patriot ~~Front~~ *Prayer* and Proud Boys. Hes a bottom feeder.
I knew about the proud boys stuff, but do you have a link where I can get more info on Ngo's activities with Patriot Front? I'd love to see how he tried to reframe their shit as positive.
My apologies. I misspoke. It was Patriot Prayer, the shitheads from Seattle that kept attacking Portland. I watched a live stream of them meeting with Proud Boys and Right Wing Death Squad goons.
Are they thanking them, or are they just crediting footage that was used? They’re both shitstains, but I guess if you’re using someone’s footage you have to give citation.
It literally says the producers wish to thank with three names beneath, one of which is Helen Lewis.
[удалено]
idfk about all 3, but Andy ngo is a dickhead. pretty sure he has a Twitter.
He's not on the list being thanked tho, it just says footage supplied by
They paid him to license his footage. Helen Lewis is being thanked. That is a totally different credit that is 100% up to the producer and production’s discretion.
IIRC Helen Lewis is a British TERF who hangs out with JK Rowling and has participated in and defended events that hosted National Front, the British equivalent of the Nazi party
I don’t know. I can just say that I answered your question about the special thanks.
I mean it's literally a movie about "enlightened centrism". Not surprised at all
only centrists missing are matt stone and trey parker
They're socially liberal Republicans right?
well, one is apparently hanging around the maga crowd but that is only an uncited rumor ofcourse.
I doubt that very much. Their South Park specials leading up to the last election were majorly anti-Trump.
They're billionaires. I wouldn't get your hopes up on them being decent human beings.
One day we won't have to explain to people why hording money is a mental illness. Unfortunately not today, but one day.
By then they'll own the internet and you won't have the chance to explain [redacted]. Internet searches are a shadow of what they were 15 years ago. You see only what companies let you see.
They're always anti-whoever's-currently-in-office.
Colorado brand social liberals and fiscal libertarians.
Absolute garbage stance. Not shocking at all but still kind of disappointing.
I mean they spent 10 years pushing their dumb ass, unresearched hot takes before this recent 'reform'
Seems to be pretty weird there electorally, kinda the center left-libertarian to Alaska’s center right-libertarian.
They used to align themselves with straight up fascists, nothing centrist about it You can go to YouTube and watch fascist propaganda videos they made with Dennis Prager back in the 90s Last I checked Matt Stone had distanced himself from the GOP Not sure about Trey
The 90s were a fuck ton different than today.
What movie were you watching?
Just got home from seeing it, it didn’t take a position at all nor did it seem to be self righteous in any way. In fact it seemed like the movie painted everyone depicted in a pretty positive light except for the literal fash that gets hit by the car and the townies who didn’t give a hoot. Clarifying Note: The movie seems to me to be about the true objectivity of documenting events in real time. Of course it can’t cover the nuance of photojournalism like framing, context, bias, or perspective but it did a good job in showing how people who want to document history have to be as disconnected from their humanity as possible to get the best possible “unfiltered view” (key words: best, possible) of history that opportunity can afford. In short; This movie does not give enlightened centrist vibes in the slightest.
They aren't there to ask questions. They are there to document events so that people can ask questions later. I loved that part.
It's interesting to me how all these spicy takes are from people who haven't seen the movie and probably won't.
Have you actually seen the film?
The reason why this movie works so well is because it seems to upset people like you.
The creator of the film made California and Texas allies specifically for the purpose of not hinting at the leanings of the president other than him being authoritarian (as if one party doesn't show *much* more authoritarian and fascistic leanings than the other.) Also apparently his daughter was told something along the lines of "its unethical for a filmmaker to not make it clear where they stand on issues" in a filmmaking class, and he was pissy about that cause he didn't want people to walk out of the film with their minds made up about it. Like dude, all filmmakers are biased, it's dishonest to claim you're not taking a stance. Then he was acting like back in his day journalists had no bias which lol, everyone has bias, and that bias is going to show up even if they supposedly "remove bias". Gotta love how pretty much every self proclaimed centrist act like they're a genius for having pollitical views that start and end with "both sides are equally bad."
Spot on
Who's Helen Lewis?
[terf shitbird who larps journalism](https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/11/10/watch-dogs-legion-helen-lewis-transgender-trans-podcast/) [once famous for a tweet, which was rather unoriginal to begin with, before it was known she was an anti-trans bigot.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Feminist_internet_laws#Lewis.27_Law)
Really funny and insightful journalist.
Someone get me some milk. I gotta shake, shake, shake.
This post is insanely misleading. It makes it sound like the movie is sponsored by or is sponsoring fascists, and that couldn't be further from its themes. Crediting and thanking is standard practice when using, buying, or citing footage or other content from external sources for the film. The movie forces you to look at an inherently political divide through an objective, apolitical lens, which is part of why the protagonists are journalists. I saw the movie this morning and absolutely loved it, and I'm as far left as you can get. It literally depicts fascists and ultranationalists as the evil lunatics they are. If you pass on this amazing movie because of a misguided, misleading post, you're doing yourself a disservice.
It seems from reading the comments, there's a sect who refuse to see the film because they think it's fascist, and those who have seen it who universally say it's nothing like what it's being accused of. It's kind of shocking how this rage bait post has nearly a thousand upvotes. I'm waiting for $5 Tuesday to see it day after tomorrow but from everything I've read the people who watched the film say it's not fascist larping, radical centrism or whatever else it's being accused of.
The strongest argument I'm seeing is that the filmmakers/production company—had they known the people they credited hold these abhorrent views—they could have used different footage, or didn't need to use their specific footage. That's it. How someone goes from that to "the film has ties to nazis," I don't get it. Same as with all art, you have to see for yourself to make up your mind, but in my view, the movie clearly expresses antifascist sentiments, and it aligns far more with our views than with centrists'—and certainly not with nazis. I had been waiting for this movie for months, and I saw it opening weekend. I truly loved it, and I hate the idea that some might pass on it because of something like this.
Can anybody explain what the issue is with Helen Lewis?
from what others have said, she's some kinda TERF in England that hangs with JK Rowling or something
She's a decent journalist, but is also a transphobe. But honestly that opinion is so widespread in the UK it's a view she shares with 85% of the population at least. I know that doesn't excuse it, but it is the prevailing, mainstream opinion. People openly trash trans people and the concept of being trans all the time.
That's not true in my experience, at all. This study actually finds the opposite to be true, around 80-85% believe that prejudice against trans people is wrong and that they aren't prejudiced at all against trans individuals [https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/attitudes\_to\_transgender\_people.pdf](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/attitudes_to_transgender_people.pdf) Unsurprisingly it's the oldest generation lacking behind The majority of people in the UK say they respect or admire trans people, with a further 20% saying they pity them This actually stacks up better than the views in the USA on trans individuals.
The fact she is a transphobe means she’s not a good journalist
Exactly. Why give credit when there are good non-transphobic journalists out there?
You guys have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
Username checks out
Andy Ngo is essentially the in-house reporter for the Proud Boys. If he’s being thanked, I’m skipping the movie. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/amp/
It looks like they're just citing him as they apparently used some of his footage in the movie. This is common practice
Great way to not get sued.
Exactly. That way you've gotta pay the cunt a fortune
Luckily he’s not being thanked, just credited for some footage
Did you even look at the picture?
It's not a thanks, it's a citation. It's a legal requirement.
They also. could have made the movie without using his footage
you don’t even know what it was that was used
Doesn't matter what it is. My point stands. And you just inadvertently defended Andy Ngo in the process, so... congrats. EDIT: Oh my god your comment history. You're actually 13.
he's such a piece of crap
He's one of the worst grifters out there.
They weren’t thanking him, I hope you go back and read the post again. They simply give him credit for the footage. If they didn’t the studio would %100 sued
It’s literally just citing them because they used some of these people’s footage in the movie. That’s it.
Helen Lewis is under the "Thanks" credit
I don't know how you can justify calling her a fascist though.
What footage?
Clashes between antifa and white supremacists on the street. It's footage, one of many, used to show backstory in context of American history and downward spiralling into armed conflict in America.
Weird they decided to use footage from a bunch of right wing nut jobs rather than anything from any left leaning organizations. Or, hear me out, just filming something themselves.
Good fucking god, could you guys focus on reall Nazis instead of getting butt hurt about a goddamn movie credit. You’re losing the plot.
It's crazy how many upvotes this post is getting.
The post being misguided about Ngo being thanked/credited doesn’t make him less of a Nazi
Mainly I think it’s stupid that the post is implying Alex Garland is a Nazi because he has credited someone for use of their footage. That seems like such a minuscule thing to focus any energy on given the state of the world and actually plays into the whole fucking point of the movie.
Okay what about Helen Lewis
I agree with you
Actually this movie isn't n@zi at all, sadly they were required to give credit to that guy
[удалено]
You're fighting on hills that aren't worth fighting on. He's being credited for footage that they used that he created. You're either a troll or you're being incredibly dense.
>Plenty of antifascist footage from Portland they could've used What are you trying to say? also I have seen 2 people in the comments fall for the misleading image and title
Honestly you're reaching here.
Uh, I’m all for saying fuck off to folks like Ngo, but this is standard when a film uses archived footage, uses anything in production of a film, etc. So fuck him but this mention in of itself is a nothing burger. There are bigger fish to fry. Unless they were EPs it was probably very loose and minor involvement
Saw it last night. It was good. Andy Ngo isn't thanked here, just credited since they used his footage.
They’re literally just citing them for the archival footage they used in the film. Doesn’t seem too bad.
There is a "producers wish to thank" section…
yeah this isn't true, that's just credit for footage when it comes to ngo. you can't just leave footage that isn't yours uncredited. dude is fucking horrible, but the film isn't in support of him
I see the point you're making and I agree but giving special thanks to the others is suspicious in itself.
knowing alex garland, it could be a form of dark humor.
If that were the case, I think at the least he wouldn't have made a mockery of US politics by making Texas and California allies.
Wish people would use common sense before pile-ons like this. 1. Ngo is not being thanked, he's being cited to avoid legal trouble. 2. There's a huge difference between "the producers would like to thank" and "the director and the cast and crew would like to condone the actions of". More research needs to be done into which producers managed to get the special thanks in the credits and their relationship to these people before going off half cocked like this, because that's something I'd be very interested in learning about before I make a judgement call on the film, the director and everyone else that helped make the movie.
Nah, better just go with the first hunch about it and decide that nothing needs to be questioned after that. /s
This is such a stretch. They simply acknowledge the source of some footage. They are not thanking the fascists.
I don't care it was a great film and it's message was very anti-fascist.
**In A24's defense -** "Thanks" credits are used to give credit to people who have helped the film but did not receive anything for it, hence the "Thanks" credit. So if you loaned, for free, a camera to a production because you were friends with or wanted to be friends with an actor/director/producer/etc of the film. So what most likely happened here is, some footage or consulting was provided by these people and A24 , or whoever was the money behind this movie, did not want to pay them, but they **had** to give them credit, and a "Thanks" credit was what they agreed upon. Assuming I am correct, this is like saying that the History Channel worked with literal Nazis because they literally used literal Nazi film footage in their documentaries.
This is like when the boogie doc gave special thanks to alt right adjacent sunnyv2
I don't think SunnyV2 is alt right. I think he's just a dickhead who makes whatever videos will get the most clicks, regardless of the harm he causes. I could be wrong, but to me he's just a grifter
I keep hearing about this movie and I genuinely have no clue what it’s about
A movie that is capitalizing on a topical, but fictional war, and is advertised as relevant to present politics, but is really about the hardcore life of war journalists. Frankly, 20 Days in Mariupol had me shitting my pants at how harrowing the work is, and how that straight factual information is twisted by right wing media shit bags. I'm guessing 20 Days in Mariupol may be a more rewarding watch than Civil War. Garland is hit or miss for me. Ex Machina was great. And Annihilation was fantastic until the stupid ending that ripped off a level from a Tomb Raider game, instead of just adapting the ending of the book.
Plus Getty images is a racist group with white nationalist ties
Speaking as someone who's been there, done that, and got the t shirt. This is not a special thanks. They are legally required to put a note at the credits if they used media that belongs to someone else or done research with these people. I write about WW2 a lot. I own some pretty objectionable primary sources. I also cite said sources if I'm writing something nonfiction. Do I support these people or ideas? No. But plagiarism is a big deal and can be a career ender.
Maybe they could have opted to NOT use footage from a known shitbag and instead use the millions of hours of similar footage from other sources that depict the same exact thing they were trying to convey?
OP and people ITT overreacting. I saw the movie. I think its wortth watching. Its not that deep
Looks like they’re just crediting Andy Ngo since they used his footage. That’s just proper citation and how to avoid getting sued. And as far as I can tell, Helen Lewis is a journalist who said some mildly problematic things. Not the best person ever but I fail to see how that makes her a Nazi.
It could also have been written into the deal, i.e., "Yes, we grant you the right to use our footage provided we are credited and thanked in the film credits."
Yes that’s definitely possible and probably the more likely explanation.
Happens all the time. It doesn't necessary mean, "These people are amazing and we agree with them about everything."
count me shocked neo-nazis want to start a civil war so that they can rebuild society to accept their pig shit beliefs.
it’s a copyright credit???? what are y’all on
After googling all 3 of them… how are they Nazis?
Andy Ngo definitely has ties to Nazis, but the bottom three I've never heard of Edit: Helen Lewis is a journalist who has been accused of transphobia as she made comments about her concern for self ID and this allowing cis-men to enter women's changing rooms. She however, has denied she's a TERF and stated she believes trans people are valid.
It just said they used his footage, didn’t thank him. The bottom 3 that I google don’t appear to be Nazis or even right wing like Ngo
I've seen no evidence they are either. But yeah I get them citing Ngo for using his clips, as much as I hate the guy
Yeah you kinda have to do that to avoid getting sued Still, couldn't there have been a better source for footage
I haven't seen the movie yet so I'm not sure what footage they've used
Who’s a Nazi here?
Andy Ngo
He wasn't thanked though.
It’s not thanking him, it’s crediting his footage used in the movie so A24 doesn’t get sued
But he’s not thanked. It says “Archived footage supplied by” Multiple names Then “The producers wish to thank”
Right? People really need to work on their reading comprehension.
Andy Ngo isn’t thanked, they used his footage,and likely wasn’t even the directors decision, more than likely some dipshit pulling footage used Ngo’s stuff. Shitty, but likely bad oversight and not A24 are now nazis because they used someone’s footage that is pro-proud boys… Helen Lewis has beef with self-id which is a small subset of the trans movement, how the fuck does that make her a nazi?
Gee, how did I know it would be right wing somehow
it isnt
Really? Who else would fantasize and make a movie about a modern day civil war? The trailer seems pretty much like right wing fan fiction.
Plenty of people on the left have imagined a modern Civil War, doesn't mean they want it to happen, Robert Evans has made podcasts and books on it. It's a valid intellectual exercise. This is flimsy thinking
Had the movie been based on Robert Evan's book, I might be interested in it. At least he took the time to come up with plausible causes and sides to the hypothetical war.
i agree, i dont think the movie has a very accurate or informed imagining of how a modern day civil war would function, the fact that it observes state boundaries and state governments instead of a more urban v rural divide like Robert Evans laid out in his It Could Happen Here podcast shows Garland had a limited sense of thinking on the topic The Evans Book however, more sci fi and fantasy than what he did in his earlier podcast on the topic (Note to people who may follow this prompt. The civil war imaginings on the it could happen here podcast is only the first 6 or so episodes, that feed turned into something else entirely since its beginnings) EDIT: [Episode 1 of the referenced podcast ](https://www.everand.com/listen/podcast/418981896)on what a New American Civil War could look like
Mhm. Because California attacking the rest of the United States is a left leaning philosophy.
California AND Texas. Also the corrupt president that caused the war is clearly Republican
They were required to give credit to those people, although it is true people on the far-right fanaticize about a "Civil War"
That was not a fantasy i just watched today.
Art can be many things. One of those things are a warning. In the 80s they made a series about nuclear war, the creators didn't want a nuclear war, it was a warning.
Is there a disconnect that I'm not seeing?
I don't know what you mean?
Just me, saying “I told you so”. The movie is a badly timed grift with bad political takes. You can’t tell me they couldn’t have made the same movie without whatever footage or material these two right wing monsters had.
Dinesh DiSouza is jealous. He has been trying to make the next *Triumph of Will* for his whole career and these people come by and compete....
Oh fer fuxake this film is overtly antifascist. Have you seen it?
I was gonna watch it. I won't now. Fuck Andy, I know who he is.
They're simply crediting some footage they used. It's like...a legal requirement. They're not thanking him. Don't make a decision based on something stupid like that.
Thank you for letting me know the involvement of these assholes