Serious Movie Discussion XLII

[Rimbaud82]

Can't say much more right now over mobile, but I enjoyed them and each channel has a bunch more I wanted to watch right that second but couldn't.

They also prompted this one, which made my fucking day today I liked it so much. This video is my whole way of life in a nutshell, like @HUNTERMANIA's Black Swan. Plus I love all these shows, especially The Office (American) and Rick and Morty.

This is great, the problems with irony is something me and a good mate of mine always end up discussing, especially as it relates to internet/modern culture with memes etc.

 

[Ricky13]

Forgot to post about Silence after seeing it the other day.

I almost feel bad or guilty for this, since I wanted to like it (and it sounded like exactly the sort of film I would like) but I wasn't particularly impressed...it wasn't bad by any means but I was expecting a lot more based on some of the early hype around it. Read some reviews calling it a masterpiece. But then after I watched it I looked up some other reviews to see if other people felt similarly to me, and there are definitely others who were not as enamoured with it. For me it was just 'ok', it didn't really leave any great imprint on me, but neither was it a terrible film.

It's a pity it didn't work for you mate. Going to try and talk with you about this one to see if you can see what I saw? Funny thing is I don't think you're wrong about anything you've said, but we had very different experiences with the film. And I think that's where the best conversations happen.

Apologies in advance for upcoming wall of text.

But more importantly, I was just expecting a lot more based on the plot. I was hoping for something really interesting. Naturally there is a lot of stuff that could be explored there, ie. religious faith in the face of persecution, doubt about a silent God, the nature of martyrdom and the contrast with another religious system (Buddhism). Obviously the film does go into this stuff, but I just didn't find it particularly thought-provoking, rather than feeling in any way spiritual or transcendent the film just felt kind of flat and boring to me...I can't quite put my finger on why, not to say there were no good scenes or nothing interesting in the film (the pride of the priests and their sacrifice was one aspect), but I just found it quite dull.

I can see all of this.

I suppose it's a matter of knowing where the film is coming from. Not meeting it halfway so much as jumping right in and living it.

Scorsese doesn't do "plot" in a cause-effect-consequence sense of the word. He never has, really. Don't get me wrong. Each of his movies function. It's just hard to see the seams because he is hell-bent on not telegraphing intent.

There's a reason he is still such a titan. He is the last of a batch of 70s filmmakers that didn't just hand you the answer. He made you unearth it by enjoying the worst parts of yourself. His hope was that genuine, transcendent change could be elicited in you by forcing gaze inward at what the hell you were enjoying so much. The idea was that you would have to live that shit (hence voiceovers, lest point-of-view was ever in doubt): the life of a gangster, the life of a raging boxer, of someone who wanted to clean up the streets, of an unscrupulous 90s stockbroker. These films made you want to be the guy who everyone looked up to because you knew the right people. They made you empathise with the idea that black people are the problem with your morally bankrupt city. They allowed you to drive a Ferrari while getting a blowjob in the first five minutes of a movie.

Silence does the same thing. But where Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Wolf of Wall Street could usher you into the minds of its protagonists with hyperkinetic, inventive editing (Goodfellas/Wolf of Wall Street) and surrealist technique (Taxi Driver), Silence doesn't have that luxury. It is set in the mind of a Catholic priest who is wrestling with his faith. Faith, which is a beautiful thing that even non-believers like me wish they felt sometimes. So Scorsese allows you to experience it in all the majesty of the devoted.

It's why the editing is so spare, the transitions unidentifiable. You don't deal with tests of your faith in a series of escalating sequences. You have faith, you might then question it, so you lose it, but you might regain it, however you now doubt its strength, and on and on it goes.

Devotion is s(S)ilent because it is driven by fealty to an ineffable entity. It starts off being about the people you impart faith to, who therefore challenge it with their acknowledgment of your own devotion through unbearable suffering. And Scorsese is saying that's not a good thing, that faith is useful but blind devotion isn't.

It is bad.

It is bad to steal from the vulnerable because you want more than you need (Wolf). It is bad to kill, no matter how funny you are, or how much people "respect" that you're a deadly force (Goodfellas). It is bad to shoot up a building, even though it is filled with pimps and hookers, just because you think you're rescuing someone (Taxi Driver).

The core Truth of Silence is the same, in essence. His movies are about individuals who seem to be in conflict about something, come to existential crossroads, and choose the path of doing the worst things in service of a specific idea at any cost, whether it's making money, or cleaning up the streets, or feeling powerful. A Catholic missionary's journey is no different. At some point, that idea, even if it is an ideal, ends up becoming about you.

Scorsese's Truth is simple. This life you live, it's not about you.

Some of the acting was a bit iffy, particularly Andrew Garfield...never seen him in anything else that I can think of, so maybe he is good in other films, but it struck me as 'over-acting' if you know what I mean. His supposed Portuguese accent was fairly dreadful too. Adam Driver was a lot better I thought, I also liked Tadanobu Asano's character (the translator).

I've heard this complaint a lot, about Garfield. I think it was the point. Like: yeah, he's white, yeah his accent is awful, but can you track/stay with his journey regardless? Did you buy his internal battle? Can you see how universal this struggle is?

Plus some of the scenes nearly made my eyes roll into the back of my skull...

Spoiler

Like the scene where God literally speaks to Garfield's character through voice over when he is about to step on the image of Christ, or the annoying character of Kichijiro who I just found to be extremely boring and uninteresting, or the ending funeral scene with his wife placing the cross on him...it was just so obvious that you could see it coming a mile away

I'm not sure if I was the only person in the world who got this, and maybe I'm wrong, but did you notice that the voice of God was the same as his own priest, Father Ferreira (EDIT: meant Father Valignano, played by Ciaran Hinds)? It's Scorsese grounding faith. Saying that however strong your belief is, at the end of the day it's handed down by someone entirely earthly.

Kichijiro is Rodrigues' struggle made literal. It's the closest thing to Jake LaMotta, where Scorsese just writes the struggle into the text. This person at odds with himself, self-flagellating, hurting himself and then hurting others in a vicious cycle that embodies the conflict.

Spoiler

Naturally I can't help with how to make it more compelling, but the ending is the point? Both an indictment and a paean to faith? You may have had to give up on the aspects of your faith that caused harm to others, but it doesn't mean your faith can't define you. At the same time it highlights the utter uselessness of symbolic objects as items of faith.

 

[Ricky13]

Nice to see you hit paydirt to some degree with DFW, @Caveat. Consider the Lobster and A Supposedly Fun Thing... has tons of that sort of sentiment.

Staying on topic: I've hardly ever done this video essay thing. I end up reading and watching stuff about the nitty-gritty/fundamentals of filmmaking/writing a lot though.

 

[europe1]

Any of you have YouTube channels you recommend?

You've probably heard of this one -- but just in case.

https://www.youtube.com/user/everyframeapainting

Renegade Cut is another fun one.

In other words...

One thing I've been wondering about is how we can like and be fascinated by two diametrically opposed types of media. The guy talks about the diffrences between modern and post-modern media, yet aren't both so fascinating?

I remember a few months ago, when Beardotheweirdo had a chat with Bullitt about happiness in film. He posted some interview with Werner Herzog where Herzog talked about how the concept of happiness is a non-factor when making the story of a film. He said that stories should be above such concepts. I posted a gif of Clint Eastwood nodding in agreeement, finding that idea very fascinating. Yet... right afterwards... I understood that I found films about happiness as a concept also very fascinating. Both the concept of happiness and non-happiness are fascinating on their own right, despite being diametrically opposed types of media.

 

[Rimbaud82]

It's a pity it didn't work for you mate. Going to try and talk with you about this one to see if you can see what I saw? Funny thing is I don't think you're wrong about anything you've said, but we had very different experiences with the film. And I think that's where the best conversations happen.

Apologies in advance for upcoming wall of text.

No need to apologise haha, and yep it'll different be interesting to get a different viewpoint. Sorry for not replying earlier, I've been busy studying today (middle of exam period for me).

I suppose it's a matter of knowing where the film is coming from. Not meeting it halfway so much as jumping right in and living it.

Scorsese doesn't do "plot" in a cause-effect-consequence sense of the word. He never has, really. Don't get me wrong. Each of his movies function. It's just hard to see the seams because he is hell-bent on not telegraphing intent.

There's a reason he is still such a titan. He is the last of a batch of 70s filmmakers that didn't just hand you the answer. He made you unearth it by enjoying the worst parts of yourself. His hope was that genuine, transcendent change could be elicited in you by forcing gaze inward at what the hell you were enjoying so much. The idea was that you would have to live that shit (hence voiceovers, lest point-of-view was ever in doubt): the life of a gangster, the life of a raging boxer, of someone who wanted to clean up the streets, of an unscrupulous 90s stockbroker. These films made you want to be the guy who everyone looked up to because you knew the right people. They made you empathise with the idea that black people are the problem with your morally bankrupt city. They allowed you to drive a Ferrari while getting a blowjob in the first five minutes of a movie.

Yes I can definitely see what you're saying about Scorsese putting the us into the world-view of his characters in order to elicit a personal response to what you are watching. Taxi Driver in particularly is an outstanding example of that I think.

Silence doesn't have that luxury. It is set in the mind of a Catholic priest who is wrestling with his faith. Faith, which is a beautiful thing that even non-believers like me wish they felt sometimes.So Scorsese allows you to experience it in all the majesty of the devoted.

It is a very interesting subject for me as well, both when it comes to films (I've said before in here how much I love 'faith on film' as a topic) and from a personal perspective as well. That's why I really did think I would love Silence.

It's why the editing is so spare, the transitions unidentifiable. You don't deal with tests of your faith in a series of escalating sequences. You have faith, you might then question it, so you lose it, but you might regain it, however you now doubt its strength, and on and on it goes.

I certainly get why the film used a spare and deliberate style. It makes sense and I am glad Scorsese did so, slow, meditative films are also something I tend to enjoy.

Devotion is s(S)ilent because it is driven by fealty to an ineffable entity. It starts off being about the people you impart faith to, who therefore challenge it with their acknowledgment of your own devotion through unbearable suffering. And Scorsese is saying that's not a good thing, that faith is useful but blind devotion isn't.

I think I see what you're getting at here. The Japanese Christians acknowledge the devotion of the priests and are therefore prepared to give, as they perceive it, the same devotion (which leads to unbearable suffering as you say). In turn this challenges the priests own faith by leading them to question whether or not this suffering is worth it, or perhaps because the villagers faith seems stronger than theirs. If that's not what you're saying then by all means, correct me.

The core Truth of Silence is the same, in essence. His movies are about individuals who seem to be in conflict about something, come to existential crossroads, and choose the path of doing the worst things in service of a specific idea at any cost, whether it's making money, or cleaning up the streets, or feeling powerful. A Catholic missionary's journey is no different. At some point, that idea, even if it is an ideal, ends up becoming about you.

Scorsese's Truth is simple. This life you live, it's not about you.

Yes I do agree, and the vanity of Garfield's character, well missionaries in general, is, as I said, one of the themes of the film that I did find at least somewhat interesting.

I've heard this complaint a lot, about Garfield. I think it was the point. Like: yeah, he's white, yeah his accent is awful, but can you track/stay with his journey regardless? Did you buy his internal battle? Can you see how universal this struggle is?

I am not sure I buy this, maybe you're right that it was the intention, but I wasn't particularly convinced by his and portrayal as a man of faith grappling with complex issues. Perhaps that's why it just didn't engage with me on an emotional level. Maybe that's the crux of it, unlike say Claude Laydu in Diary of a Country Priest, Garfield just didn't convince me as someone going through an internal struggle and so I didn't identify with it even if I obviously can understand it on an intellectual level. But then what do I know, I have seen plenty of people saying they thought Garfield was absolutely brilliant.

I'm not sure if I was the only person in the world who got this, and maybe I'm wrong, but did you notice that the voice of God was the same as his own priest, Father Ferreira (EDIT: meant Father Valignano, played by Ciaran Hinds)? It's Scorsese grounding faith. Saying that however strong your belief is, at the end of the day it's handed down by someone entirely earthly.

I didn't pick up on that at the time, that's definitely an interesting idea if you are right. But do you think that Scorsese would be aiming for such an earthly view of faith given that he is a devout Christian?

Kichijiro is Rodrigues' struggle made literal. It's the closest thing to Jake LaMotta, where Scorsese just writes the struggle into the text. This person at odds with himself, self-flagellating, hurting himself and then hurting others in a vicious cycle that embodies the conflict.

Again, another interesting way of viewing it, and not something which I thought while watching it.

Spoiler

Naturally I can't help with how to make it more compelling, but the ending is the point? Both an indictment and a paean to faith? You may have had to give up on the aspects of your faith that caused harm to others, but it doesn't mean your faith can't define you. At the same time it highlights the utter uselessness of symbolic objects as items of faith.

Yeah I got all this, but it just didn't click with me for whatever reason, definitely some of the things I have mentioned already...something with the actual execution of these ideas even though I find them all interesting as ideas.

 

[DC23]

Ashamed to say its taken me this long to watch 'Catch me if you can'.

Amazing film.

 

[chickenluver]

@Bullitt68 could you recommend me some Pre-Code Bette Davis films, and/or Pre-Code films in general please?

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Really enjoying the show Borgia - the pacing is totally different than The Borgias and I've been active the whole time, like I haven't been sitting and watching to take in all of every scene... which is actually one of the main reasons I like TV shows because I find I can get away with not paying close attention the whole time and still understand what is happening and receive the value of it. However, I can tell with this show that I've missed a lot. But, that's not a bad thing because now when I go back and rewatch it, those parts will be new

Cesare Borgia is the first male character that I can remember relating to so fully on any TV show or movie. I normally relate to females a lot more than male characters, but this guy basically takes the words out of my mouth sometimes, lol, it's cool because I had given up hope that I would find a male character to identify with in a show or a movie.

The first season, the first half of the season, I felt like the show was on the level of Hannibal... and I'm still enjoying it but I don't think it's on that level anymore. Although, like I said, I've missed a lot so, IDK, I'm waiting to give my official evaluation after I've had some time to take in the show and watch it again. Definitely engrossing though. Recommend it.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Baraka

What a stunning film. Been meaning to watch this for a while now and finally got round to it, without a doubt one of the most breathtakingly beautiful films I have ever seen. Not a single word of dialogue in the entire documentary, just a collection of scenes from around the world of nature and human life juxtaposed, or contrasted in such a way that forces you to reflect on a lot of things. Perhaps some of it is a tad heavy handed, but it's an excellent message regardless so it really doesn't matter. The soundtrack was excellent too, worked perfectly alongside the imagery being displayed. I read it's similar to an earlier film called Koyaanisqatsi in terms of the general approach, but I have never seen that. Although much smaller in scope as it's only set in the one mountain range and less visually stunning (simply because the camera quality isn't as good) it put me in mind of Kailash, Pilgrimage to the Throne of the Gods by Florian Fricke and Frank Fiedler, particularly because of the music.

I have also downloaded the sequel Samsara which I will watch soon as well.

 

[chickenluver]

Cesare Borgia is the first male character that I can remember relating to so fully on any TV show or movie.

That's interesting. Could you expand on that?

I don't know that I ever related that much to Cesare but I definitely found him to be the most compelling character most of the time. I didn't really like Juan, I thought he was an evil psychopath. Mostly I hated all of Rodrigo's enemies. I was so pissed that smug asshole Dela Rovere became Pope. Something that can be cool is reading about what happened to the characters after the show, although they kind of anticipated people would want to know some of that with that segment at the very end of the series, which was a nice touch.

The first season, the first half of the season, I felt like the show was on the level of Hannibal... and I'm still enjoying it but I don't think it's on that level anymore.

Wow high praise. Glad you liked it.

 

[Svithjod]

Baraka

What a stunning film. Been meaning to watch this for a while now and finally got round to it, without a doubt one of the most breathtakingly beautiful films I have ever seen. Not a single word of dialogue in the entire documentary, just a collection of scenes from around the world of nature and human life juxtaposed, or contrasted in such a way that forces you to reflect on a lot of things. Perhaps some of it is a tad heavy handed, but it's an excellent message regardless so it really doesn't matter. The soundtrack was excellent too, worked perfectly alongside the imagery being displayed. I read it's similar to an earlier film called Koyaanisqatsi in terms of the general approach, but I have never seen that. Although much smaller in scope as it's only set in the one mountain range and less visually stunning (simply because the camera quality isn't as good) it put me in mind of Kailash, Pilgrimage to the Throne of the Gods by Florian Fricke and Frank Fiedler, particularly because of the music.

I have also downloaded the sequel Samsara which I will watch soon as well.

Dude, I watched Baraka this summer while tripping on shrooms... Let me just say my mind was blown!

Simply fantastic and fascinating scenes, and just like you said, it makes you think like no other documentary does (not that I have seen at least). This without a single word spoken... So IMO it's really a unique masterpiece. Yeah, I also need to watch Koyaanisqatsi or Samsara someday. I can't imagine anything will beat the Baraka experience though.

 

[Ricky13]

Thought La La Land was OK. Think Chazelle is just not for me.

Sorry for not replying earlier, I've been busy studying today (middle of exam period for me).

Dude. I reply days later. Also, I'm used to posting massive tomes with no responses whatsoever. Good on you for bothering with me at all.

So it's all good.

Good luck with the exams.

Yes I can definitely see what you're saying about Scorsese putting the us into the world-view of his characters in order to elicit a personal response to what you are watching. Taxi Driver in particularly is an outstanding example of that I think.

It is a very interesting subject for me as well, both when it comes to films (I've said before in here how much I love 'faith on film' as a topic) and from a personal perspective as well. That's why I really did think I would love Silence.

You ever read Dostoevsky? Crime and Punishment, for instance? Even The Idiot, come to think of it.

His approach was first person accounts of the worst people, true evil clashing against the polar opposite. By making you Raskolnikov, he forced you to inhabit the kind of evil that has no rhyme or reason for existing apart from just being evil. And away you went. He took it to its worst. That would make the reader identify what it meant to be good.

That's Scorsese, except he makes it just a little more complicated. The guys you inhabit with Marty are likable. They seem to have reasonable issues, are funny, friendly, sexy, cool, and in the case of Rodrigues, almost romantically devout. All the while these guys do awful shit, until you question what's likable about them at all.

It's not that they're truly bad and he's pointing that out subtly. It's that he knows you won't question what they're doing that's bad, unless you witness the gamut of their bad deeds.

I think I see what you're getting at here. The Japanese Christians acknowledge the devotion of the priests and are therefore prepared to give, as they perceive it, the same devotion (which leads to unbearable suffering as you say). In turn this challenges the priests own faith by leading them to question whether or not this suffering is worth it, or perhaps because the villagers faith seems stronger than theirs. If that's not what you're saying then by all means, correct me.

Pretty much, yeah.

I think a central question for Scorsese is: at what point do you separate the act of being faithful from the bad real world consequences of devotion? It's in a lot of his best work. I'll explain below.

I am not sure I buy this, maybe you're right that it was the intention, but I wasn't particularly convinced by his and portrayal as a man of faith grappling with complex issues. Perhaps that's why it just didn't engage with me on an emotional level. Maybe that's the crux of it, unlike say Claude Laydu in Diary of a Country Priest, Garfield just didn't convince me as someone going through an internal struggle and so I didn't identify with it even if I obviously can understand it on an intellectual level. But then what do I know, I have seen plenty of people saying they thought Garfield was absolutely brilliant.

That's interesting. Have you seen The Last Temptation of Christ? That's much more where Scorsese is coming from with Rodrigues. Not an accurate depiction so much as a character that manifests the internal struggle itself. To each his own of course; I can see why it didn't work for you. It was a terrible accent.

I was hurting for Rodrigues a lot throughout.

I didn't pick up on that at the time, that's definitely an interesting idea if you are right. But do you think that Scorsese would be aiming for such an earthly view of faith given that he is a devout Christian?

He always has, really, at least from what I can tell of his work.

You can tell that being Christian has been difficult for him, just because he's so fucking smart. He grew up with it, cherishes it, but can see what's up.

When religion does turn up in his films, which is often, it's to show how everyone gets it wrong. You can go to church, perform the rituals, recite the hymns, but it doesn't mean shit if when you hit the streets you kill a man. That's Charlie in Mean Streets, right? Devout, but burdened by what he has to do in the real world. The kinds of people that recognise this conflict in themselves go out of their way to do something they feel is tangibly decent in the world, to convince themselves their devotion isn't for naught. So Charlie takes Johnny Boy under his wing. Tries to help him be "good".

Same with The Departed, which is ignored, sadly. It's Scorsese's battle with his devoutness depicted as a face-off between an inherently good man, Di Caprio's Costigan, and an inherently bad one, Damon's Sullivan.

Sullivan is religious, practises, yet goes out there and fucks up the lives of good people. He is comfortable with this hypocrisy. It helps convince himself that it's OK so long as he confesses, prays, etc.

Versus Costigan, a non-believer. He's in the opposite role. In the long run, he'll be doing good. Unfortunately, in order to do so, he has to play the part of the bad guy. And if you're not a sociopath, this is going to be difficult. So unlike Sullivan, Costigan is coming apart at the seams from just playing a bad guy. His whole life seems to be crumbling around him because he doesn't have faith to root him.

I think that's how Scorsese deals with his devoutness. By asking questions of it in film. For him, the real world is cinema. So he does good through it.

 

[Coolthulu]

Easily the best tagline in movie history.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Good luck with the exams.

Cheers!

You ever read Dostoevsky? Crime and Punishment, for instance? Even The Idiot, come to think of it.

His approach was first person accounts of the worst people, true evil clashing against the polar opposite. By making you Raskolnikov, he forced you to inhabit the kind of evil that has no rhyme or reason for existing apart from just being evil. And away you went. He took it to its worst. That would make the reader identify what it meant to be good.

Of course I have read Dostoevsky haha, Crime and Punishment is one of my favourite books. Haven't read The Idiot in fairness, though coincidentally I did buy it the other day.

Yeah that's a good point, I can certainly see how Scorsese does something very similar in his films.

That's Scorsese, except he makes it just a little more complicated. The guys you inhabit with Marty are likable. They seem to have reasonable issues, are funny, friendly, sexy, cool, and in the case of Rodrigues, almost romantically devout. All the while these guys do awful shit, until you question what's likable about them at all.

It's not that they're truly bad and he's pointing that out subtly. It's that he knows you won't question what they're doing that's bad, unless you witness the gamut of their bad deeds.

Yep I see what you mean.

That's interesting. Have you seen The Last Temptation of Christ? That's much more where Scorsese is coming from with Rodrigues. Not an accurate depiction so much as a character that manifests the internal struggle itself. To each his own of course; I can see why it didn't work for you. It was a terrible accent.

No never seen The Last Temptation of Christ actually, though it's something that's on my list. Perhaps that would have give me a better frame of reference for the sort of crisis of faith that he's trying to portray, it certainly does make more sense when you consider the portrayal as an outward manifestation of the internal struggle rather than a realistic depiction. Because, to clarify, it wasn't just the terrible accent, but just that the acting seemed overly dramatic, 'over-acting' in a lot of scenes.

He always has, really, at least from what I can tell of his work.

You can tell that being Christian has been difficult for him, just because he's so fucking smart. He grew up with it, cherishes it, but can see what's up.

When religion does turn up in his films, which is often, it's to show how everyone gets it wrong. You can go to church, perform the rituals, recite the hymns, but it doesn't mean shit if when you hit the streets you kill a man. That's Charlie in Mean Streets, right? Devout, but burdened by what he has to do in the real world. The kinds of people that recognise this conflict in themselves go out of their way to do something they feel is tangibly decent in the world, to convince themselves their devotion isn't for naught. So Charlie takes Johnny Boy under his wing. Tries to help him be "good".

Same with The Departed, which is ignored, sadly. It's Scorsese's battle with his devoutness depicted as a face-off between an inherently good man, Di Caprio's Costigan, and an inherently bad one, Damon's Sullivan.

Sullivan is religious, practises, yet goes out there and fucks up the lives of good people. He is comfortable with this hypocrisy. It helps convince himself that it's OK so long as he confesses, prays, etc.

Versus Costigan, a non-believer. He's in the opposite role. In the long run, he'll be doing good. Unfortunately, in order to do so, he has to play the part of the bad guy. And if you're not a sociopath, this is going to be difficult. So unlike Sullivan, Costigan is coming apart at the seams from just playing a bad guy. His whole life seems to be crumbling around him because he doesn't have faith to root him.

I think that's how Scorsese deals with his devoutness. By asking questions of it in film. For him, the real world is cinema. So he does good through it.

Yeah I guess that's pretty obvious when I think about it haha.

Still can't say you've turned me round to the film as a whole, but I can certainly appreciate everything you're saying.

 

[Rimbaud82]

So today I watched Mother and Son by Aleksandr Sokurov.

I loved his first film The Lonely Voice of Man which I watched a few months ago and had heard great things about this as well, so I had high expectations going into it. Well I thought it was, overall, excellent. There were a few sections in the film that felt almost painfully slow, but a lot of scenes were extremely moving as well and the overall effect has you contemplating everything on screen. Naturally Sokurov comes from the same school of thought as Tarkovsky, he was deeply influenced by him. The story is extremely simplistic, practically archetypal, about a dying mother and the last day spent with her son and these are the only two characters. They rest in each others arms, reminisce about some vague things in their lives, go for a walk and so on. Almost no information is revealed about them, we aren't even told their names, instead everything we know about the two is conveyed through their loving interactions with one another. All of which is set against the backdrop of the natural landscape, again we aren't told where exactly the film is set, but it's clearly very remote in the Russian countryside and far from civilisation. The way nature is presented is, as a lot of people have noted, reminiscent of German impressionist paintings, with clouds rippling through valleys and so on. There is a particularly moving sequence where the son, beset by grief about his dying mother, seems to almost fade into this landscape which seems to reflect his own sense of isolation. But the cinematography also tended to look very strange and warped, with visual distortions added by Sokurov, which for me gave the film the effect of having a unreal, or ethereal quality. Though personally I'm not sure what to read into that. From what I can remember The Lonely Voice of Man looked similar in some ways but I don't remember it having any distortions in the way this had.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

I think I just found my new Black Swan, lol. Like, IDK, I'll always love that movie, but... that was a life I already lived. That's a part of me, and it represents some things about my future, but I don't feel like I can use it the way I used to anymore. I don't know why, but I decided I needed to see the old Ben-Hur and wow, first, this is a great fucking movie. This movie is sooo good, I love it. I'm a Christian. Like, IDK, I don't live like it and I still don't think like it a lot of the time, but I really believe God is real, Jesus is real, all of that is real. My life, and every life follows the template of this movie - I could tell where I'm at in relation to his character and that's how I'll have to evaluate my actions going forward. I have a new story to compare my life to, to help me understand where I'm at. I don't need the help, really, now, whereas before I DID, but it's still helpful to have another tool ready to go.

Great movie.

 

[Ricky13]

Still can't say you've turned me round to the film as a whole, but I can certainly appreciate everything you're saying.

Cool. Thanks for bearing with my rambling. Now go study.

I think I just found my new Black Swan...

Uh-oh.

I was wondering if there was any poster here that we identify as much with a certain movie as we all do with you and Black Swan. When I think @Bullitt68 I think Kubrick, not just one movie. I've seen @Flemmy Stardust go to bat for QT, but again, not necessarily just one film either. I think Ziggy when I think Flem.

Youse a singular motherfucker.

Ben-Hur is incredible. Nice one.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Wake in Fright

Wow, what a film. My mate told me about this one a few weeks ago and told me to watch it. Really brutal look at small town life in some shitty Australian mining town, with it's hard-drinking inhabitants. I guess it's a thriller, though almost surreal at times, but the main character (an English schoolteacher called John) is never in any actual danger, the 'horror' and disturbing elements in the film comes only from the characters themselves and the depression and anxiety of John as he is easily sucked into their world. "All the little devils are proud of their hell".

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

I think Ziggy when I think Flem

Is it because my pants game is so ambiguous?

 

[Rimbaud82]

Upcoming local revenge thriller, looks like it could be decent -