Serious Movie Discussion XLI

[europe1]

Leto did not particularly impress me

It felt to self-aware and try-hard. It's like they knew that they were forced to make the character iconic so they just overdid it. Leto's joker seemed to grim-faced and "gangsta". Ledger's off-putting laughter was a character moment, he made deranges seem natural. Nicholson's joker had dat super-engaging Nicholson brand of being a wildman. There is nothing of that with Leto, he just felt like a sour clown that smiles like an moron from moment-to-moment because his mother didn't love him enough and happens to be leading a well-armed militia.

What I will say though is that I thought Will Smith and, to a lesser extent, Margot Robbie

Fresh Prince did seem to unearth his professionalism to this one. Solid performance. Robbie was pretty good too.

Jay Hernandez stole the film.

He probably had the most likable character arc (once it actually got going). But maaan could I not get over his gangbanger tattoo's. Like with the Joker, I thought it felt to try-hard. To crass an attempt to establish character just through his look.

I find a lot of the flack on Sherdog at least seems to be going to that ex-model who played the archaeologist/the Enchantress. Maybe I'm crazy but I didn't find her bad at all.

I think it was more an issue with the character than the performance.

 

[Ricky13]

Going to sound crazy but Pete's Dragon is probably my favorite film of the year. So great. I was a little bitch throughout. See that shit.

Wiener-Dog was fantastic as well, especially if you like Solondz, who's been a little bit up his own ass of recent. Return to form, mos def.

 

[ufcfan4]

Going to sound crazy but Pete's Dragon is probably my favorite film of the year. So great. I was a little bitch throughout. See that shit.

Wiener-Dog was fantastic as well, especially if you like Solondz, who's been a little bit up his own ass of recent. Return to form, mos def.

Original Pete's Dragon is a classic. Heard only good things about this new one. Definitely looking forward to it.

 

[Strange Shadows]

carol (2015) [rating: 5/10]

so, two smarmy ladies lock eyes at a toy store during the usual Christmas rush, and later get together socially -- a friendship pushed forward by the rich, and very much bored, housewife carol -- all during the 1950's male dominated world [one of the themes]. mara's character is extremely uncertain of her place in this world, which causes her to react to everything in the most blase fashion. in hindsight, mara wasn't the right actress; kristen stewart could have performed this role more efficiently, because mara wasn't visible, or audible, from start of film to finish.

you wait an hour to see them get it on. the love scene is actually what saved the film from being a 4 instead of a 5. very realistic lesbian sex.

the actual backdrop is dreary. the supporting cast is about as useful as wet toilet paper after a trip to taco bell (not their fault, but the fault of the director/screenwriter). moreover, it's painful to see such a waste of a great lead.

the film was lit by faded lamps, and everything outside was dimmed by cloudy skies. mara seemed like she prepared for this role by watching bad sitcoms. . . her head movement was something you'd expect from a stage play [to be fair, maybe they were going for such a feeling]. don't know what the hell went wrong with this film. it's like a bad batch of coke; it looks good until you snort it, then blood pours from your nose and you are immediately regretful/deaded.

 

[Drake]

Sausage Party was so unbelievably GOAT. Seen it yet @CM 4 ?

 

[europe1]

So, yes, I saw Yankee Doddle Dandy. I've heard this movie be called superbly heartwarming, that I would not be a human if I didn't cry at the end... and while I liked it I didn't have that reaction. It was lighthearted and fluffy, pleasant to watch and giddy in its energy. But the picture never really went that deep for me, I never felt that sort of profoundness. It was fun to see Cagney give such a substantial performance, spread his acting wings and all. The more wholesome, non-belicouse patriotism was also refreshing. But I pretty much like all of Cagney's other "great" movies more than I liked this one.

I thought I'd like Polanski's Repulsion a lot more than I did. The psychosexual and gender themes where were the shiny nuggets lay, but as a mood piece it could be so fucking jarring. Crafting your movie around a certain mood relies on lulling you into that certain state of mind. But the film did so many crass things that jolted me out of said mood. That shrill ringing-sound of the phone didn't alert me to something in the picture, it jolted me so much that I thought (fuck that's annyong), jerking me out of the mood... It made the sit more vexing and stimulating. Also it's intresting that a child rapists would make a movie about how sexualization of women leads to dehumanization and mental disorders. Maybe it's an example of artists being somehow conciouss of their own demons and perversities and channeling that into their craft and all that.

Speaking about movies I expected to like more, All the Presidents Men! Unlike Repulsion I have a harder time conceptualizing why this film didn't launch itself into the "great" stratosphere for me. I liked the sort of low-key ambiance the movie built for itself, mundane background noises often dominating the scene and such like. Its portrayal of hounding, nitty-gritty journalism was interesting to, especially how there is no "conventional" climax. Maybe I just have some really childish repulsion towards Dustin Hoffman? Still a very good movie though, just not great.


On the Hitchcock front... just a remake. I saw the 70's version of The 39 Steps, which I think is one of Hitchcock's best works. The 70's version didn't have the originals vitality and quintessential sense of excitement though. It went for a more drab, stiff upper-lipped sort of sensibility. The ending with the clocktower was a nice change of stimuli though. But overall it was just a bit to average. Damn Hitchcocks version was so spry it was awesome.

Oh and I also saw Disturbia, though the ending seemed to be riffing more on Phenomena than Rear Window. It was alright... and rather porny. Whenever I see a film as blatantly lewd as this one I think about how people talk about how much female representation have improved over the year. Yeah, Grace Kelly was beautiful in the original, but just being beautiful was not her entire character, she was a character that was beautiful and part of the film was how she and the rest of the world related to her beauty. In Disturbia they just have a female for the ass-shots and the rest of her characterization was just air. Sometimes it seems weird how people talk about how female characters have been improved over the years when there are so many examples from the classical periods that seem more substantial, central and well-developed than modern ones.


To talk about something uncharacteristically modern for me, I just loathed the choice to build the narrative around voice overs in Heaven and Earth. It felt daft and hokey, so crass that it contrasted painfully with the storytelling itself. Which is especially grievous considering how over-stuffed the entire film was with it. It also had this odd effect of making the story feel like a series of moments rather than a organic narrative, which is really weird since the film really wasn't. Still, I do like the whole "other side" perspective, the complexities of identities that erupt in a conflict like that, and the culture-clash when she comes to America.

I've been avoiding the French New Wave for way to long. Sooner or later that had to change. Was I to square for Breathless? I can't decide. I jived rather awkwardly with it. The hectic style of no establishing shots was rather disorienting, through the playfulness of the filmmaking could be rather smile-inducing. Somewhere in the middle the thoughts started stirring. I liked the whole theme of Belmondo being this person that seemed rather dejected from reality, as if he was living in a cinematic dreamland. He apes Bogart, he is obsessed with American culture, he talks about how mundane places he's visited is - while dreams romantically and naively about places he's not been to yet, as if he's looking for a dreamland like those that exist in the movies. And not to mention how spontanious everything he does seems. Jean Seberg was intoxicatingly comely, though I never managed to get a good grasp of her character, what made her thick.

Do you know what is even more beautiful than Jean Seberg though? King Vidor's Duel in the Sun (no homo). It was so... slovenly grandiose and lush. I'm talking about the visuals here. Vidor's sense of composition and the aura of a scene was intoxicating like a sunstroke. He really is a grandmaster at making a film seem grandiose, every action transformed into something epic, bigger than itself. The non-Vidor front was still good but it was really his sense of style that shouldered the film. The characterization was sort of... fascinating. It almost felt as if Selznick was inspired by the characterizations in Gone With the Wind, how the main characters were actually rather immoral, yet decided to crank it up to eleven in this film. It's simultaniously rather jarring but intruging, especially how to sort of get the sense that the Heroine has internalized all the racial biggotry thrown against her during her life, and therefore feels more at home with a man that threats her like trash than one that repects her, even though she can rationally understand that it is wrong.

Rewatching King Kong made me realize something... it is the greatest Martial Arts movie of all time. I'm not usually into the whole "movies that make me feel like a kid" trait, but man King Kong just made me want to shadowbox and throw karate kicks in the air when Kong took all those fools out. There was a moment when King Kong epically double-legged that T-rex when I thought "Yes. This movie is *Yes". The definition of King Kong is *Yes*!" It was also impressive how awesomely the music worked in tandem with the visuals. So, yeah, King Kong is truly awesome.

 

[BAM]

watching The Invitation (2015) right now. It's awkward and boring thus far. Hope it gets to the point soon.

edit - finished it. it took too long to get going and the payoff wasn't worth it. Green Room is more my style.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

So, Suicide Squad was fun enough. I had no idea this was going to be a) connected to BvS and b) so...cheesy. the first trailers gave me the impression that it was going to be dark, but as they released more trailers i heard more and more goofy one liners and that was indeed the kind of movie it was.

Any line Killer Croc uttered made me cringe, and I couldn't get used to Leto as Joker.

But between Rick Flag, Big Willie Style, and Harley Quinn, i was able to enjoy chunks of the film.

I also can't tell if it's interesting or really stupid that the assembly of the suicide squad itself creates the conflict that justifies their purpose.

 

[theskza]

watching The Invitation (2015) right now. It's awkward and boring thus far. Hope it gets to the point soon.

edit - finished it. it took too long to get going and the payoff wasn't worth it. Green Room is more my style.

I was thrilled during The Invitation and was bored with Green Room...

 

[Sigh GunRanger]

So, Suicide Squad was fun enough. I had no idea this was going to be a) connected to BvS and b) so...cheesy. the first trailers gave me the impression that it was going to be dark, but as they released more trailers i heard more and more goofy one liners and that was indeed the kind of movie it was.

Any line Killer Croc uttered made me cringe, and I couldn't get used to Leto as Joker.

But between Rick Flag, Big Willie Style, and Harley Quinn, i was able to enjoy chunks of the film.

I also can't tell if it's interesting or really stupid that the assembly of the suicide squad itself creates the conflict that justifies their purpose.

apparently the studio made them re-edit to make it funnier

 

[ufcfan4]

So, Suicide Squad was fun enough. I had no idea this was going to be a) connected to BvS and b) so...cheesy. the first trailers gave me the impression that it was going to be dark, but as they released more trailers i heard more and more goofy one liners and that was indeed the kind of movie it was.

Any line Killer Croc uttered made me cringe, and I couldn't get used to Leto as Joker.

But between Rick Flag, Big Willie Style, and Harley Quinn, i was able to enjoy chunks of the film.

I also can't tell if it's interesting or really stupid that the assembly of the suicide squad itself creates the conflict that justifies their purpose.

i think it's quite possible that the fact that their assembling creates the conflict that justifies their purpose (very well said by the way so I phrased it exactly the same) is both interesting and really stupid.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

apparently the studio made them re-edit to make it funnier

Even if they went a darker route, Enchantress and the way she threatened to end the world was pretty damn goofy.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

i think it's quite possible that the fact that their assembling creates the conflict that justifies their purpose (very well said by the way so I phrased it exactly the same) is both interesting and really stupid.

I think it's an interesting idea that they didn't really do anything with...at least nothing that i picked up on.

Spoiler

I also didn't really get why that scene of enchantress escaping with the bomb was shrouded in mystery...just to reveal like 1% more in the flashback. Was it just to make Flag seem like he had ulterior motives?

 

[Bullitt68]

So I'm going to see the new Bourne movie on Friday. My expectations are not very high. I just hope they don't do anything that fucks with that glorious original trilogy.

So, yes, I saw Yankee Doddle Dandy. I've heard this movie be called superbly heartwarming, that I would not be a human if I didn't cry at the end... and while I liked it I didn't have that reaction. It was lighthearted and fluffy, pleasant to watch and giddy in its energy. But the picture never really went that deep for me, I never felt that sort of profoundness.

It's official. europe is a robot.



I'm glad you liked it overall, but dude, when he thanks FDR, tap dances down the White House steps (which he improvised, BTW, and which he likely thought of because he did something similar in the movie Something to Sing About), and then marches along with the soldiers singing his song, that's literally the human-or-robot test. If that doesn't hit you right in the feels, then it's because you're a robot and you have no feels.

That's magic on film.

Speaking about movies I expected to like more, All the Presidents Men!

Yeah, that one never "wowed" me. It's good, but I've never felt compelled to rewatch it.

I also saw Disturbia

I've always liked Shia, so that probably helped me like this more than I would've if someone else would've played the lead. I only saw it once when it came out, though, so I don't remember enough to actually talk about it. I wouldn't mind rewatching it at some point, though. Whenever I go through my next Shia phase, I'll add this one to the list.

Was I to square for Breathless?

It's undeniably dated. Still, it has a spirit that I appreciate. Plus, Godard went down the self-indulgent rabbit hole so fucking fast that you have to hold on to everything that he managed to put out before that happened

Jean Seberg was intoxicatingly comely, though I never managed to get a good grasp of her character, what made her thick

You ever see Otto Preminger's Bonjour Tristesse? IIRC, you watched Laura but didn't think it was too special and that's all you've seen from him, right? In any event, you now have another reason to watch a Preminger film, as Godard famously said that "the character played by Jean Seberg [in Breathless] was a continuation of her role in Bonjour Tristesse" and that he "could have taken the last shot of Preminger's film and started after dissolving to a title: 'Three years later.'"

King Vidor's Duel in the Sun (no homo). It was so... slovenly grandiose and lush.

We've talked about that Scorsese history documentary before. Were you like me and always intrigued by how much he loved that movie? I went for a long time wondering if I'd like Duel in the Sun as much as he did, but when I finally got around to watching it, even though I love me some Vidor and a huge Gregory Peck fan, I couldn't see why Scorsese latched on to that movie so much (I know it's a product of childhood nostalgia, but nostalgia has to be supplemented by genuine appreciation or else it fades, and his love of that movie hasn't faded) or why, to be honest, anyone would think it was anything special either as a movie or even just as a Western. I guess I should cut the film some slack considering how chaotic the filming was; it no doubt would've been a far better film had Vidor been left alone (let alone having like five different directors come through Selznick's revolving door). Even so, I can't say I enjoyed it all that much.

Rewatching King Kong made me realize something... it is the greatest Martial Arts movie of all time.

So, Suicide Squad was fun enough. I had no idea this was going to be a) connected to BvS and b) so...cheesy. the first trailers gave me the impression that it was going to be dark, but as they released more trailers i heard more and more goofy one liners and that was indeed the kind of movie it was.

I wasn't particularly excited to see this, but my level of excitement is even lower now. The only trailer I saw was this one, which actually made me think it had some potential (plus, I like this Bee Gees song):

I also can't tell if it's interesting or really stupid that the assembly of the suicide squad itself creates the conflict that justifies their purpose.

Sounds like the latter

 

[europe1]

It's official. europe is a robot.

that's literally the human-or-robot test. If that doesn't hit you right in the feels, then it's because you're a robot and you have no feels.

Well shit that should have made Blade Runner a whole lot shorter.

You ever see Otto Preminger's Bonjour Tristesse? IIRC, you watched Laura but didn't think it was too special and that's all you've seen from him, right?

From Otto I've seen:

Laura
Jean of Arc
Operation Rosebud
Exodus

So, yeah, Laura plus the ones that the critics didn't like. I'll make Bonjour Tristesse the fifth.

It's undeniably dated. Still, it has a spirit that I appreciate

Damn, I should have made that my review. Would have saved so much text...

Plus, Godard went down the self-indulgent rabbit hole so fucking fast that you have to hold on to everything that he managed to put out before that happened

An uncharacteristically measured and restrained response I must say. How urbane of you to hold back.

(I know it's a product of childhood nostalgia, but nostalgia has to be supplemented by genuine appreciation or else it fades, and his love of that movie hasn't faded

Well it did seems like Scorsese featured a few childhood nostalgia picks on that list. Like Land of the Pharaohs for example (which I found mediocre), which he practically admited isn't even good on an objective level, so... maybe he did genuinelly feutured them just beacuse of pure nostalgia?

or why, to be honest, anyone would think it was anything special either as a movie or even just as a Western.

I think one's appreciation of it is directly linked to how willing one is to be intoxicated by its visual lushness. Which is very much what Scorsese talked about when he talked about the movie. He even mentioned things like how it would disolve to the sun, and how much that made an impression on him.

He also said it was responsible for his lovelife... which is pretty damn freaky when you consider the films depiction of sexuality.

I've always liked Shia

Outside the despicable Transformers stuff I've found him... alright.

 

[Joseph Budden]

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I didn't hate Batman v. Superman - does that make me a bad person?

I mean when I sit down and count the problems I had with it there are many, yet I somehow enjoyed watching it. I actually found it less devoid of meaningful content than Man of Steel which seemed more thoroughly atrocious.

The most obvious sin came in the form of a complete mistranslation of one of the most powerful panels I've seen in a comic book to a couple of numb CGI animations, but it is Snyder we're talking about here.

 

[Rimbaud82]

I just finished Ordet, which was absolutely amazing. I had it downloaded for ages but hadn't got round to watching it, I am very glad I finally did though. The main thing I took from it, fairly obviously, was a criticism of organised religion and of the two patriarchs Morten and Peter. Both of them are extremely religious, but it all seems very vain and the two of them seem more interested in pride than in actual faith. Even though Morten is having some private doubts, or a weakening of faith at least, he is still adamant initially that his son should marry someone of his own brand of Christianity. But of course the real reason seems to be because of how he feels slighted by the others in the past rather than because he is so genuinely religious and the thing that makes him agree is because Peter didn't think Mikkel was good enough. And with Peter there is clearly pride involved as well, which he recognises later. Though the two of them do bring up actual religious matters, it's more to do with the feeling that they are right and the other is wrong rather than genuine connection to God. And though we don't see much of the priest himself, and when we do he seems friendly enough, I thought that he was deliberately made to look very 'modern' with his clothing, and trimmed beard etc.

In light of that Johannes was clearly the most interesting character. Given those criticisms I wasn't initially sure how to read him, I mean clearly he is somewhat mad, with the way he walks and speaks and if he thinks he is Jesus. But he was presented as a sympathetic character too in contrast with the others, like he was somewhat detached from everybody else. Early on he just wandered in and out of other scenes preaching about things while they didn't listen. There was something of a 'holy fool' about his character which suggested more than just being mad. And then if he was nothing more than insane then how is he able to see the "man with the hourglass" moving into Inger's room before she died? I mean then you have the resurrection itself of course. So was he Jesus all along, which seems somewhat unlikely and it would be very strange indeed, or was it more to do with the fact that genuinely believed unlike all the other nominal christians (other than the little girl)? Plus where did he actually go before he came back? I have to think about the ending a bit more, as well as do some reading.

Some of the cinematography was brilliant as well, and it was quite a slow film generally, but I have no problem with films that have a slow pace and it helped lead to a very powerful ending. I did think it was very strange how the characters seemed to rarely look at one another when speaking though.

I also have Day of Wrath which I will watch tomorrow, along with the Passion of Joan Arc soon. Really want to get more into Dreyer.

 

[europe1]

I just finished Ordet, which was absolutely amazing.

I found Ordet very good but it didn't touch me as much as it apparently touches you. (Is that my honest opinion or am I just playing with you to finally achieve my vengeance for what you said about Mad Max? You'll never know! And it'll haunt you to the end of your days).

But he was presented as a sympathetic character too in contrast with the others

Hmm... wasn't the point that we were to identify more with the others than Johannes? Yeah, he's dejected from the others, but he is also dejected from us the audience. Ordet is a very humanistic film with very pleasant people in pleasant surroundings. Basically, they are very easy to like and therefore very easy to identify with. Johannes ramblings are jarring. We fail to identify with him. So their lack of faith in him -- and subsequent astonishment -- is to be transported to us.

In Ordet, everyone talks about religion. But all of their statements are faulty in some way. Yet no one recognizes holiness when it's right in front of them. No matter how deep their discussion about Christianity goes they always dismiss Johannes when he comes ambling into the room.

Morten send his son to theology school to become a preacher and re-invigorate the religious life in the parish. The ironic thing is that Johannes achieved just that. He did find the "correct" Christianity, yet the correct Christianity was so alien to everyone that it's message and truthness flew right above everyone's head.

So was he Jesus all along, which seems somewhat unlikely and it would be very strange indeed, or was it more to do with the fact that genuinely believed unlike all the other nominal christians

I must admit that I found it a bit disconcerting that the only way to be a true "Christian" has to delve so deep into mysticism that one loses all contact with the world and other human beings. It makes the entire venture rather unappealing. Though I do suppose that is exactly the sort of extremist statement Dryer was going for.

and it was quite a slow film generally,

I would almost say that it's structured in two parts. I found the first half to be rather drab and pretensious. But it's all about lulling you into a certain state of mind, to accept that quite, domestic, slow-paced way of life. When the tragedy strikes though -- it changes it's tune, and becomes very emotionally engaging from there on after, building on the serenity of the first half.

Some of the cinematography was brilliant as well

I wouldn't go so far as brilliant. But I remember it being very interesting. It's almost like a play. There is an abundance of long-takes. And the camera moves extremely slowly yet extremely smoothly. There are next to no cutting or anything like that, nothing that could even be concieved as jarring. It works very well in lulling you into the films serene state-of-mind. It also has some simply, picturesque scenery.

I did think it was very strange how the characters seemed to rarely look at one another when speaking though.

Spoiler

Gunnar Nelson syndrome!

That's just old-fashioned Scandinavian social norms. Frankly, I can't believe how vulgar you non-Scavs are with all of your looking people in the eyes perversities. Seriously, what sinfulness! I bet you talk in tones high above the sound of whispers to strangers too!

 

[Rimbaud82]

I found Ordet very good but it didn't touch me as much as it apparently touches you. (Is that my honest opinion or am I just playing with you to finally achieve my vengeance for what you said about Mad Max? You'll never know! And it'll haunt you to the end of your days).

And anyway, I thought my Mad Max transgressions were forgiven because I liked The Witch as much as you

Hmm... wasn't the point that we were to identify more with the others than Johannes? Yeah, he's dejected from the others, but he is also dejected from us the audience. Ordet is a very humanistic film with very pleasant people in pleasant surroundings. Basically, they are very easy to like and therefore very easy to identify with. Johannes ramblings are jarring. We fail to identify with him. So their lack of faith in him -- and subsequent astonishment -- is to be transported to us.

Yeah I get that, you're right. But I meant more from a religious point of view, you can see very early on that for all his strangeness Johannes is being set up as the counterpoint to their supposedly insincere religion. Identify with him on a spiritual level, as opposed to a 'human' level like the others. Though perhaps identify is the wrong word since he is still very detached.

In Ordet, everyone talks about religion. But all of their statements are faulty in some way. Yet no one recognizes holiness when it's right in front of them. No matter how deep their discussion about Christianity goes they always dismiss Johannes when he comes ambling into the room.

Morten send his son to theology school to become a preacher and re-invigorate the religious life in the parish. The ironic thing is that Johannes achieved just that. He did find the "correct" Christianity, yet the correct Christianity was so alien to everyone that it's message and truthness flew right above everyone's head.

Yes that's essentially what I was trying to get at, well put

I must admit that I found it a bit disconcerting that the only way to be a true "Christian" has to delve so deep into mysticism that one loses all contact with the world and other human beings. It makes the entire venture rather unappealing. Though I do suppose that is exactly the sort of extremist statement Dryer was going for.

Yes it was interesting I thought, and though there is a kind of joke about how it was reading Kierkegaard that turned Johannes mad, I think you can see his influence on the film pretty strongly, particularly when it comes to belief in the absurd.

Though I did think that Inger was a kind of counterpoint to the mystic faith represented by Johannes, while Anders and Peter argue over which of them is the better and true Chrstian, she is more interested in genuine goodness. For instance the two of them say:

Anders: I think I’m every bit as good a believer as you and Kirstine…
Peter: That may be, but you’re not of our faith, and that’s what I look for...

Whereas she says early on that "“It’s not enough to believe, if you aren’t a good person as well.".

So I don't think that Johannes is the only example in the film of a true Christian, you can be a mystic like him or simply a good person like Inger. Caught in the middle is the likes of Anders and Peter who think they are religious but aren't really.

I would almost say that it's structured in two parts. I found the first half to be rather drab and pretensious. But it's all about lulling you into a certain state of mind, to accept that quite, domestic, slow-paced way of life. When the tragedy strikes though -- it changes it's tune, and becomes very emotionally engaging from there on after, building on the serenity of the first half.

Yes, good way to put again. It lulls you into a state of mind which, as I said, makes the ending more powerful when that is altered.

I wouldn't go so far as brilliant. But I remember it being very interesting. It's almost like a play. There is an abundance of long-takes. And the camera moves extremely slowly yet extremely smoothly. There are next to no cutting or anything like that, nothing that could even be concieved as jarring. It works very well in lulling you into the films serene state-of-mind. It also has some simply, picturesque scenery.

Yes that's what I get for writing my thoughts literally after I just finished watching the film. It was quite striking at times, we'll go with interesting though haha. It actually was originally a play by a Lutheran Priest called Kaj Munk I read. So it's easy to see where that comes from.

Spoiler

Gunnar Nelson syndrome!

That's just old-fashioned Scandinavian social norms. Frankly, I can't believe how vulgar you non-Scavs are with all of your looking people in the eyes perversities. Seriously, what sinfulness! I bet you talk in tones high above the sound of whispers to strangers too!

Haha I never really noticed that before but now that you mention it...