Honestly, Dany blew the fucking doors off of her performance in GOT. And I've been talking about this everywhere, but it must be brought up in this thread as well. I don't have gifs yet, but when she said these lines, it was as if 7 seasons of her yelling about all this shit being her destiny just came together suddenly, in one moment, and it was all real.
It was fucking gangster.
She starts killing it right here
I love how she shows off, "You told me you liked this man?" So arrogant.
I love this whole sequence,
"We're finished," Jon Snow says and she's like, "Oh, really, tell me about this..."
I love this throne room, too, this scene was staged so great, I love how this scene was shot, it's fucking great, I don't know the right terminology but this room is SO Dany. It fits perfect. And she feels at home in it, like her character feels much more real in this setting, where she is now. I've always believed in her character and I always liked her character, I loved her boldness but now it's like she's not really being that bold, she's just telling the truth. And Dany would say: "Of course, it's always been that way."
She just kills this. "Do you know what kept me standing through all those years in exile?" --"Faith... in myself"
I love those moments because they're so real. People are out there in the world doing shit like this, like that's such a real moment and that's one of the clearest moments where I feel life yell out at me from on the screen.
Daenerys has that special kind of arrogance that I feel like I know all about: she just doesn't give a fuck about anything, she doesn't care about the people around her, as in, nothing can stop her, no one can slow her down, she'll place any person within striking distance of her all the time bc she's just like, "I'm better and I'll beat you all every single day."
And when I do finish it, of course I'll pass around copies for the SMD. So much of the shit I'm dealing with is fueled by the conversations/debates/wars I've had in here with you guys
However, I rewatched Manhattan and thought it was fantastic. Even better than Annie Hall IMO. Right now, that's his best film in my book. I loved the scene with him lying on the couch talking into his tape recorder about why life is worth living. In that one sequence, there's more originality, honesty, and profundity than the entirety of Interiors. Manhattan is the type of thing where his true personality and his true vision can shine.
I also laughed more at Manhattan than any other film of his. The funniest scene was when he saw Diane Keaton's ex-husband who she talked about as this "devastating" ladies man and he's an even tinier and schmuckier loser than him. I was dying when he called him a "little homunculus" <45>
And I loved the ending. His Bergman influence is obvious and well-documented, but that smile at the end, that's pure Chaplin. The ending of Manhattan was City Lights all the way.
Are you looking to get my take on anything in particular or just a general assessment? Because, for you, I'm definitely keen to hear your thoughts on whether you think the male lead's characterization helped or hurt the narrative functionality as well as on whether or not you like the way they mess with time and perspective.
It's only my internal examiner the first two years, and she's a sweetheart (a badass though: first female Professor of Orthopaedics in the country), but it's nerve-wracking nonetheless because of who she is.
It went well yesterday, thanks mate.
This year has been rough. I didn't do much at all during my first year because human clinical trials take time to set up (ethical approval, funding etc.).
The second film is an English-language Italian film from 2013 called The Best Offer (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1924396/) made by the guy who did Cinema Paradiso and starring Geoffrey Rush and Donald Sutherland. Another really cool plot. A bit more Langian than Hitchcockian, Rush plays a solitary art lover and auctioneer who finds himself in a bizarre "relationship" with a woman who nobody has ever seen. You know there's something off with this woman, but what actually goes down is probably going to be very different than what you were expecting.
I took you up on your recommendation. Been watching almost exclusively Italian movies as of late so I might as well watch one in english too.
It was a very good film! I see the Langian allusions you were going for. Passions overtaking a settled man's life, conspiracies over falsehoods and emotions, classical art, all that good jazz. So thanks for the recommendation!
It is an intruging mystery too. I get certain things, like that the automaton and the dwarf, were suggestions that they planted in Virgil's mind. Motivations and outcomes I'm less wise about. I thought it pretty clear who did it and who were in cahoots with whom -- but as to why I don't know. There doesn't seem like much concrete reason. And some of the endgame (like the emptying of his secret room being a pivotal moment) doesn't seem like stuff they should have known about previously and therefore not factored into their endgame plan. But I'm still racking my head over how the puzzle pieces are to fit.
I thought the pacing turned a little off around the half-way mark. It had been very deliberate up until then, but events became speedy and mashed-together (like how it just skips over the fact that the mechanic and the girl meet).
And when I do finish it, of course I'll pass around copies for the SMD. So much of the shit I'm dealing with is fueled by the conversations/debates/wars I've had in here with you guys
Like, take the segment she has where she tells John Snow how she has been sold as a brood mare and risen from slavery. She clearly showing that she has heated emotions over the ordeal. But it rings false. Dany doesn't strike me as a person who carries around a trauma. She's to commanding and self-assured. The anger only surfaces when she's forced to talk about it on-screen. It's not something she carries around at all times.
Plus she seemed pretty happy with Khal Drogo last we saw him. So her emotions seem all to straight-forward for the life she's lived. She could have formed some sort of retroactive trauma based on those experiences based on what she has seen since then but the show hasn't really sold us on that.
See, to me, Dany always falls apart when she's talking about herself. I can understand someone like her having formalized her opinions based on the experiences she's had. But whenever they talk about having internalized, personalized those experiences it seems rather false. I can buy Dany hating slavery but I can't buy Dany's emotional trauma over being enslaved or slavery in general. Some part of me wishes that she was played more aloof, more like a Great (Wo)man, able to comprehend the evil of these things yet staying clinical on a personal level (or just be played with said demons). On the other hand Emilie Clark already plays her pretty aloof these later seasons but she isn't doing it very well I think. I'm sorry, the girl just lacks charisma.
Sorry Hunter. Unleash the dogs of war in reply if you want.
Like, take the segment she has where she tells John Snow how she has been sold as a brood mare and risen from slavery. She clearly showing that she has heated emotions over the ordeal. But it rings false. Dany doesn't strike me as a person who carries around a trauma. She's to commanding and self-assured. The anger only surfaces when she's forced to talk about it on-screen. It's not something she carries around at all times.
Plus she seemed pretty happy with Khal Drogo last we saw him. So her emotions seem all to straight-forward for the life she's lived. She could have formed some sort of retroactive trauma based on those experiences based on what she has seen since then but the show hasn't really sold us on that.
See, to me, Dany always falls apart when she's talking about herself. I can understand someone like her having formalized her opinions based on the experiences she's had. But whenever they talk about having internalized, personalized those experiences it seems rather false. I can buy Dany hating slavery but I can't buy Dany's emotional trauma over being enslaved or slavery in general. Some part of me wishes that she was played more aloof, more like a Great (Wo)man, able to comprehend the evil of these things yet staying clinical on a personal level (or just be played with said demons). On the other hand Emilie Clark already plays her pretty aloof these later seasons but she isn't doing it very well I think. I'm sorry, the girl just lacks charisma.
Sorry Hunter. Unleash the dogs of war in reply if you want.
I'm not gonna go too crazy, but as usual we are coming from exact opposite places. It's so curious to me how we'll look at something from different perspectives.
I feel like Dany's experiences HAVE to be personalized. She is her own God and it makes total sense that SHE is the authority over her own interpretation of those experiences. She picks and chooses what she wants, the emotions from each story and the results, depending on if it suits her or not... but at the same time, she is telling the truth.
If Dany were a 'thinker' (but she's not, she's here to run shit), then she might have questions or it might not be as straightforward... but at the same time, IDK... I feel like it's just preference -- it doesn't reference the viability of her character to say her emotions are straight-forward. She presents them in a way that is straight-forward, her goals are the same... and when she's talking about herself, she will generate that type of response 100% of the time. I know that because I could do that. I like to be less defensive, but I could see myself not being that way just as easily.
I think her character makes sense. It can't be detached, because all of her meaning is rooted in her experience of herself.
I definitely agree that I have had serious problems with Emilia Clarke and the way Dany has been acted for a long time... I liked the idea of the character much more than it appeared on screen. This was the first scene, well last episode when she told Varys she was gonna burn him alive, this look came over her face, like, in her eyes and the way he mouth twitched, like, "I am the queen, I hope you know that." And that was the first time Dany... like, who I was watching on screen... that was the first time the image of the person matched the idea of the character, like, 'whoa,' and then the scene above. "Faith.... In Myself." "I was born to rule the Seven Kingdoms, and I WILL." Are you caught up on this season yet? Did you watch that scene? Did you like it at all? I haven't seen anyone else comment, but to me the scene really stood out, like Dany is finally stepping into her role.
London Has Fallen had a great premise, and should have been uip my alley, but it was so shit. The movie tries way too hard to be violent and edgy. At one point butler in an attempt to be ultra badass, tells the terrorist his full name despite the fact that his wife is home alone pregnant, and these terrorists just managed to kill several world leaders at the same time. How stupid is this shit?
I'm still cranking through Woody Allen's films. Rewatching The Purple Rose of Cairo post-The Newsroom was fun for this Jeff Daniels nuthugger. It was crazy seeing him so young. And singing, too. Very interesting movie beyond that, though. Interestingly, in Play it Again, Sam, Woody's sad and lonely character only gains a measure of happiness when his life begins to mirror Casablanca; similarly, in The Purple Rose of Cairo, Mia Farrow's life falls to shit when she chooses reality over the movies. This issue, of Woody's undying love for the celluloid utopia, is where my solidarity with him is the strongest.
Hannah and Her Sisters actually kind of stunk. What do you say, Ricky? First, both Michael Caine and Max von Sydow are INFINITELY cooler and better than the characters they had to play. Watching Caine basically playing a Woody surrogate was almost affronting. I'm watching Alfie tucking his fucking tail between his legs and stumbling over himself trying to get with Barbara Hershey? Are you fucking kidding me? And, as if that's not bad enough, I've got to stomach von Sydow playing a pathetic miser douche trying to hold on to a younger woman he's not even remotely equipped to satisfy in any register? All of that said, I found it fascinating that this is the movie that features Woody's first genuinely happy and optimistic ending, basically Woody trying to finally start getting over his bullshit.
I skipped Radio Days after watching for half an hour and moved to September and I was surprised at how well Woody handled the straight drama. Not a brilliant film by any means, but well beyond merely competent in the drama department, especially that scene near the end when Mia Farrow finally comes clean on her and her mother's past (and fuck if Elaine Stritch didn't run the fucking show in that movie). It was also nice to see Sam Waterston finally get a good character and some good material to work with.
Most recently, I watched Another Woman. Along with A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, this is easily Woody's most accomplished Bergman film. Another Woman perfectly intertwined Wild Strawberries and Persona with his own preoccupations. It was also probably his most impressive film aesthetically. The camerawork was superb (which isn't surprising since he got Bergman's cinematographer, Sven Nykvist, to shoot it).
Tonight, Ricky, I'll be checking out Crimes and Misdemeanors, which has been one of the ones I've been looking forward to the most on this journey.
No joke, dude, I spent hours rummaging around with the search feature trying to find our full discussion of Edge of Tomorrow because I honestly wanted to use that as an example of one way to objectively resolve a disagreement of value.
At this particular point in my thesis, I'm trying to work through the possibility of objective evaluation (having already proven to my satisfaction the possibility of objective interpretation), and part of my argument is the pretty straightforward idea that correctly interpreting a film is a prerequisite to formulating a valid judgment of value (since evaluating something presupposes you know what that something is and that that's what you're evaluating).
From this point, I am trying to argue that one way to objectively resolve a disagreement of value is to bring the discussion back a step and make sure that your interlocutor isn't operating on the basis of a mistaken interpretation of some crucial aspect(s) of the film in question. And that's exactly what happened in our discussion of Edge of Tomorrow. I don't remember our debate in as much detail as I wish I did (to say nothing of how pissed off I am that it hasn't been preserved in full), but from what I remember, my negative evaluation of the development of the romance between Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt (based on my understanding of their characters and the trajectories of their respective character arcs) was decidedly negative. I wasn't buying it and I thought a lot of what they were saying and how they were acting either made no sense or was contradicting what I understood of their characters. You, however, demonstrated where I was wrong in my understanding and why, from the correct vantage point, my negative evaluation was not valid. And, in the end, I understood your point, came to a better understanding of the film, and found much greater value in it.
In all seriousness, though, while I don't anticipate writing too many actual books (this thesis experience has already soured me on the prospect of losing huge chunks of time developing a single project when there's so much shit out there that I'm dying to write about), I'm absolutely going to give shout outs to the SMD in the Acknowledgments of every book I write. Forget the fact that I wouldn't be the scholar I am today, I literally wouldn't be the person I am today if it weren't for this thread.
It's only my internal examiner the first two years, and she's a sweetheart (a badass though: first female Professor of Orthopaedics in the country), but it's nerve-wracking nonetheless because of who she is.
It's all back-asswards. Interstellar suggests love is a tangible entity: I like that. But having your protagonist leave his daughter behind (because he's got unfulfilled smarts or exploration or something) to prove love is physical renders the idea coincidental. The part everyone loves is Coop driving away, because Nolan set up this beautiful relationship with minimum fuss. Then he abandons the relationship for most of the film, in order to...... reinforce its importance?
I realized that I never mentioned in here that, before I went to that 2001 screening in Chicago in June, I rewatched Interstellar. Similar to my experience from the first to the second viewing of The Dark Knight Rises, I went from thinking Interstellar was pretty good on my first viewing to getting totally bowled over on my second viewing. I think I really need to just get through the first viewing of a Nolan, let it fight through all of my ridiculously sky high expectations for another one of the GOAT from one of the GOAT, and then settle in for the second, proper viewing. The first time I saw it in theaters, I got misty at the end. The second time, I was fucking bawling like a baby from like the first fucking scene. Everything came together so well the second time around. I talked shit about how, if The Dark Knight was Nolan using the Michael Mann playbook, then Interstellar was Nolan using the James Cameron playbook, and I said that Nolan can't do Cameron-style emotionality. Fuck me was I wrong on that one. He was hitting me over and over again this time around, and with a profundity that was almost (but not quite) on a par with The Abyss.
From this to your point about the nonsensical nature of Nolan's point with the Coop/Murph relationship: Having in mind what I said to you previously about Inception...
Why would you keep going levels deeper with the woman you love, not knowing where it leads, when you have children? I wouldn't have spent that time enjoying the new city I was building for eternity. I would miss my kids.
Two things. First, you sound like old man Spielberg going back on young man Spielberg's ballsy move to have Richard Dreyfuss get on the ship at the end of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Why? Because no one else has. Because it's once-in-a-lifetime shit. And second, it's better than the Close Encounters case because dream world means dream time. They get to live a life together and then come back to their kids. You're asking for a choice between two things. The point of Inception is that we no longer have to choose. We can have it all (or can we? should we?).
...it should go without saying that I understand and have no problem with Coop leaving Murph at the basic level of wanting to take the opportunity to not just go to infinity and beyond but to go to infinity and beyond to save his family and the rest of the human race so that they could live beyond one or two more generations.
Specifically with respect to what you've perceived as a certain circularity to Nolan's logic, I actually don't think it's circular at all.
1) You claim that Nolan having his protagonist "leave his daughter behind (because he's got unfulfilled smarts or exploration or something) to prove love is physical renders the idea coincidental." I'd want to clarify that Coop didn't leave just "because he's got unfulfilled smarts or exploration or something." That stuff is there, and it's a big part of his Earthly angst, his resentment at having to consign his son to a life of farming, etc.; but you can't lose sight of the overriding motivation to save his family and provide a better life for them. Nolan is using space travel to play out the enduring idea of America as the land of opportunity, the place immigrants looking for a new and better life for themselves and their families dare to travel to in the hopes of being able to make something of it. After my first viewing, I thought Nolan's characterization/utilization of Coop's son was perfunctory to the point of his being irrelevant, but on this viewing, I could see how the thought of not being able to do anything to provide his son with a life worth living was a huge part of what he was hoping to accomplish by accepting that mission. His "unfulfilled smarts or exploration or something," that shit was fuel, but the motor was love.
2) You also claim that "the part everyone loves is Coop driving away, because Nolan set up this beautiful relationship with minimum fuss," which I absolutely agree with. But then you claim that Coop "abandons the relationship for most of the film, in order to...... reinforce its importance?" Does he abandon the relationship? How are we to understand "abandoning" a relationship? Coop (physically) abandoned her, in the sense that he wasn't there in the house with her every day, but never for a single second did he abandon her in his heart or in his mind. That's why it hurts so much to know - and to know that Coop knows - that she thinks he went on that mission knowing it was (to borrow Ed Harris' line from The Abyss) a one way ticket and was totally fine with never seeing her again. In her mind, her dad abandoned her. The reason the movie hits so hard - or should hit so hard - is because Coop never abandoned her in that sense, in the sense that really matters. To take this to a personal level here, as the son of a father who abandoned him, in the sense that he left the family, didn't live in the house with us, and eventually moved across the country, I never for a second felt like I was abandoned by my father, simply because I knew that just leaving a physical space doesn't constitute an emotional/spiritual abandonment. That's the abandonment that really hurts, that fucks people up. That's why Murph was so hurt and so fucked up for so long. But that's also why she turns it around and spends more of her life knowing that her dad didn't abandon her and was going to come back to/for her than thinking he did abandon her and was never going to/never wanted to come back to/for her. And that's why the feeling you're left with is exaltation: Because he never abandoned her and was always planning on coming back, and in the end, he made good on his duty as a father.
Really? Just one of you guys saying that, I can write it off as an anomaly. But both you and Ricky being so into that movie, maybe I will have to watch it at some point.
I took you up on your recommendation [...] It was a very good film! I see the Langian allusions you were going for. Passions overtaking a settled man's life, conspiracies over falsehoods and emotions, classical art, all that good jazz. So thanks for the recommendation!
Cool. I'm glad you enjoyed it. That first part, "passions overtaking a settled man's life," that's the heart of Lang's noir vision. I thought Geoffrey Rush was especially close in spirit to Christopher Cross. Except, instead of a shrew of a wife, he was a solitary man. I don't know which case is sadder. Tom Gunning, in his book The Films of Fritz Lang, so hilariously (because of how bluntly he) sums up Cross' existence by pointing out how pathetic it is to watch him do his painting in the bathroom where he has been consigned by his wife. Is that sadder than watching Rush "celebrate" his birthday alone in that restaurant?
Side note: If Hitchcock is the Master of Suspense, is Lang the Master of Cruelty? Because "cruel" is the word that comes to my mind when I think of The Woman in the Window and Scarlet Street, as well as, due to its Langness, The Best Offer.
It is an intruging mystery too. I get certain things, like that the automaton and the dwarf, were suggestions that they planted in Virgil's mind. Motivations and outcomes I'm less wise about. I thought it pretty clear who did it and who were in cahoots with whom -- but as to why I don't know. There doesn't seem like much concrete reason. And some of the endgame (like the emptying of his secret room being a pivotal moment) doesn't seem like stuff they should have known about previously and therefore not factored into their endgame plan. But I'm still racking my head over how the puzzle pieces are to fit.
Since I want other people to see this movie, I'm going to use spoiler tags.
Remember that moment after Rush's last auction when Donald Sutherland has that line about what kind of painter he would've been if only Rush had believed in him? That shows you when Rush's fate was sealed. Sutherland was playing the long game and set the whole thing up. He knew Rush was hoarding those paintings (the motivation), he knew he could manipulate that lonely sap into falling head over heels for somebody (hence his luring him into that web of the mysterious woman who will only come out into the world for him, which mirrors the way Rush will only come out of his shell for her), and he knew he could plant a "man's man" who would steer him exactly where he wanted him to go (hence his using the mechanic and using that robot as misdirection). It was all Sutherland, and all to hurt Rush as badly as he felt Rush hurt him by crushing his artistic aspirations.
London Has Fallen had a great premise, and should have been uip my alley, but it was so shit. The movie tries way too hard to be violent and edgy. At one point butler in an attempt to be ultra badass, tells the terrorist his full name despite the fact that his wife is home alone pregnant, and these terrorists just managed to kill several world leaders at the same time. How stupid is this shit?
I haven't seen London Has Fallen, so this point is being made on purely logical grounds with no basis in the specific film in question, but if there are bad guys operating on the level where they're killing world leaders, do you even need to tell them your name for them to track you and/or your family down if they wanted to? In this day and age, especially with technology the way it is, can't everybody get got if the getter is determined enough?
The terrorists didnt know he was after them. He was assumed dead, and even then hes irrelevant. Plus all of their resources are in london to kill the usa president. It really is the dumbest fucking movie and should have been a slam dunk.
[
Last night, I tried to watch Stardust Memories, where he decided, having tried to make his own version of Bergman's Cries and Whispers with Interiors, he'd try with this one to make his own version of Fellini's 8 1/2. I think everything from Fellini after La Dolce Vita is boring, self-indulgent nonsense with him trying to do ever-more crazy shit to cover over the fact that he'd already exhausted his artistic output and had nothing left to say. Needless to say, Allen going that route himself was a losing proposition. I cut out after half an hour and moved on to A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy. For that one, he went back to Bergmanland and offered his version of Smiles of a Summer Night, and I thought it was brilliant. My rankings at the moment are Manhattan, Annie Hall, and A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy. We'll see if, after I'm done, it's still on the podium, but it definitely is now.
Im surprised you didnt like Stardust. Honestly was surprised by how much i enjoyed it. Probably my favorite woody. Whenever i think of the Weed brownie joke I laugh a lot, and the scene with Stardust playing is an all timer
I think you should go from crimes and misdemeanors to Match Point, which is probably my second favorite woody. He takes the best side plot from that movie and gives it its own full version which is superior in every way
London Has Fallen had a great premise, and should have been uip my alley, but it was so shit. The movie tries way too hard to be violent and edgy. At one point butler in an attempt to be ultra badass, tells the terrorist his full name despite the fact that his wife is home alone pregnant, and these terrorists just managed to kill several world leaders at the same time. How stupid is this shit?
I think @Bullitt68 might give me some flack for the comparison, but I feel that Butler went full Seagal in that movie. Especially the part where he's holding the terroist on the motorcycle through the car window and the guy goes, "Fuck you!" and Butler- completely angrily and seriously replies, "Fuck me? FUCK You!" before driving the guy's head into a wall.
Struck me as a very Seagal thing to say/do.
I liked Olympus Has Fallen and found it to be a sufficiently cool Die Hard knock off. London Has Fallen was real stupid, but I thought it was kind of entertaining in a very dumb action movie way.
Just watched "Excision". It's a pretty good horror/black comedy in the Ginger Snaps vein. I recommend it. I thought Annalynne McCord was just some vapid 90210 skank who got jobs for her looks but she's actually really good in it. 7/10
I'm not gonna go too crazy, but as usual we are coming from exact opposite places. It's so curious to me how we'll look at something from different perspectives.
I feel like Dany's experiences HAVE to be personalized. She is her own God and it makes total sense that SHE is the authority over her own interpretation of those experiences. She picks and chooses what she wants, the emotions from each story and the results, depending on if it suits her or not... but at the same time, she is telling the truth.
If Dany were a 'thinker' (but she's not, she's here to run shit), then she might have questions or it might not be as straightforward... but at the same time, IDK... I feel like it's just preference -- it doesn't reference the viability of her character to say her emotions are straight-forward. She presents them in a way that is straight-forward, her goals are the same... and when she's talking about herself, she will generate that type of response 100% of the time. I know that because I could do that. I like to be less defensive, but I could see myself not being that way just as easily.
I think her character makes sense. It can't be detached, because all of her meaning is rooted in her experience of herself.
I definitely agree that I have had serious problems with Emilia Clarke and the way Dany has been acted for a long time... I liked the idea of the character much more than it appeared on screen. This was the first scene, well last episode when she told Varys she was gonna burn him alive, this look came over her face, like, in her eyes and the way he mouth twitched, like, "I am the queen, I hope you know that." And that was the first time Dany... like, who I was watching on screen... that was the first time the image of the person matched the idea of the character, like, 'whoa,' and then the scene above. "Faith.... In Myself." "I was born to rule the Seven Kingdoms, and I WILL." Are you caught up on this season yet? Did you watch that scene? Did you like it at all? I haven't seen anyone else comment, but to me the scene really stood out, like Dany is finally stepping into her role.
I am one of those people who has had very few complaints about Emilia's acting overall and think that she's gotten enough flack that she's actually underrated. That said, if I had one significant complaint to cite, it would be what @europe1 said- she sometimes relies too heavily on aloofness to convey regality. That's why I actually liked some of her scenes with Daario like at the beginning of season 5. It humanized her more and she had been played in a very human, empathetic way in the first season, particularly.
But you're right, I'm really digging her scenes this season. When she called Varys out, that was great. I loved that Tyrion saw the writing on the wall that shit was going south quickly and was trying to advocate for his friend, but Dany was having none of it. "Proved his loyalty? Hardly. If dislikes one monarch, he conspires to crown the next one. What kind of a servant is that?"
I thought she held her own in that great scene with Harrington last episode, too. Though Kit was awesome as well. Perfect answer to her whole assertion when he says, "You'll be ruling over a graveyard."
Did you watch that scene? Did you like it at all? I haven't seen anyone else comment, but to me the scene really stood out, like Dany is finally stepping into her role.
I feel like Dany's experiences HAVE to be personalized. She is her own God and it makes total sense that SHE is the authority over her own interpretation of those experiences. She picks and chooses what she wants, the emotions from each story and the results, depending on if it suits her or not... but at the same time, she is telling the truth.
But that makes a person out to be an automaton. Emotions and experiences are baggage that you carry with you. They're not ON/OFF switches. You should be able to tell at all times that Dany has lived a-lot, seen many things, suffered some trauma. Instead she just seems textbook regal. Even if she's hidding it -- then you should be able to tell that she's hidding it. It's not something that should be brought out out-of-context just to serve a plotpoint.
As for interpreting her own experiences. Well... we all do that, interpret what we've seen and re-interpret them later in life. But she seems to be using them more as a bag of tools rather than experiences that has formed her.
Isn't it odd that she loved Khal Drogo yet loaths being a slave? Isn't there a character conflict there? How did she formalize those oppinions? They should have been ironed out through her journey, slowly grown-into. She certainly didn't start with that mindset. For it to feel cohesive we should have seen her adopt that interpritation of her experiences, see her deel with the inherent paradox of that change. Instead it just appears when the script calls for it.
Remember that moment after Rush's last auction when Donald Sutherland has that line about what kind of painter he would've been if only Rush had believed in him? That shows you when Rush's fate was sealed. Sutherland was playing the long game and set the whole thing up. He knew Rush was hoarding those paintings (the motivation), he knew he could manipulate that lonely sap into falling head over heels for somebody (hence his luring him into that web of the mysterious woman who will only come out into the world for him, which mirrors the way Rush will only come out of his shell for her), and he knew he could plant a "man's man" who would steer him exactly where he wanted him to go (hence his using the mechanic and using that robot as misdirection). It was all Sutherland, and all to hurt Rush as badly as he felt Rush hurt him by crushing his artistic aspirations.
Yeah... somewhat. Sutherland being the mastermind and all.
The structure of the trick just has so many incredolous elements though. Take Sturgess, for example. Him and Rush had been working together for years. Why would a master-mechanic sign up for such a con with against a well-known assosiate? What motivations could he have had? Or has Sutherland been playing the long-game and planted him there? Again, it seems quite jarring that a master-mechanic would sign up for such a lenghty scheeme.
I really liked Dunkirk, and I'm beginning to "get" where Nolan comes from (which means I'll respond properly your questions soon @Bullitt68).
I'm clearly missing out on the GOT stuff (I gave up on it after the 4th season I think), but anyone been watching this season's Rick and Morty? Especially the last episode - Pickle Rick? Jesus that show knows how to put me in an existential funk.
I really liked Dunkirk, and I'm beginning to "get" where Nolan comes from (which means I'll respond properly your questions soon @Bullitt68).
I'm clearly missing out on the GOT stuff (I gave up on it after the 4th season I think), but anyone been watching this season's Rick and Morty? Especially the last episode - Pickle Rick? Jesus that show knows how to put me in an existential funk.
Something's up with this season man. The Jerry situation is throwing things off and action-hero Rick is clearly overpowered.
I'm thinking the last 3 episodes will eventually be revealed as some internal fantasy of Rick's as he works out his emotional issues while remaining, uneventfully, in prison.
Something's up with this season man. The Jerry situation is throwing things off and action-hero Rick is clearly overpowered.
I'm thinking the last 3 episodes will eventually be revealed as some internal fantasy of Rick's as he works out his emotional issues while remaining, uneventfully, in prison.
Though I think the reality of it is simpler. The insane upregulation of action tropes is sort of the point? Know what I mean? Sort of like Harmon/Roiland (or in this case, Jessica Gao, which makes sense) saying, "Go ahead and dissolve yet again in this traditionally masculine escapist fantasy, just like your anti-hero. Internalise this as awesome entertainment/the hero's journey that you are so aware of because you're so smart, except for the fact that you're not getting that Rick is an asshole (read: dripping with rat blood and feces)."
Only to bring reality crashing down, for once, by telling it straight through the therapist.
I can't be my usually wordy self to explain it more, but you know what I mean, I think?
It's reminding me a ton of The Sopranos right now, actually. I know. Whuuuuuut?
If I don't make sense, just know that I draw that conclusion from this (incredible) scene from Season 2:
Cliffs: Rick's tragedy isn't that he's too smart to be bothered with improving himself (because he has seen it all and understands it all). It's that he's not improving himself despite being so smart (because it takes a kind of work that isn't necessarily smart/exciting).
So I think it'll probably end with his either trying to learn/move forward, OR some version of Tony's fade to black (live free or die).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
