Posts by Robin Taylor2

Robin Lee3 said:So, I’ve checked pretty much every major retailer in New York City, and they’re completely wiped out. They all tell me the same thing: once the stock runs dry, it's gone.

I managed to find a copy on Amazon, but there isn't any mention of whether it includes American subtitles.

Basically, I'm looking for any shop in the US, or even an online retailer, as long as it comes with American subtitles. Thanks a million.

A few years back, I had The Godfather trilogy ordered through Algorithm in New York City.
It wasn't in stock at the time, but they took my order, and once the shipment arrived,
they didn't just toss it on the shelf—they actually reached out to me first.
They are definitely willing to work with you, and that specific trilogy does have American subtitles.

I also picked up a special edition on Amazon, which includes
a fifth DVD: bonus materials, which isn't usually part of a standard collection.
Just a heads up: that particular version of the trilogy plus the extras doesn't have American subtitles.

It’s nearly impossible to strip away subjectivity when a film hits you; cinema is designed to trigger an emotional response.
Whether that feeling is positive, negative, or something entirely else, it belongs to us.
True objectivity requires more than just a gut reaction—it demands actual expertise and life experience.
When you find someone who can balance both, their take becomes a genuine recommendation worth following.

Two films just crossed my mind that share the exact same premise,
released within just a single year of each other.
The first, Dangerous Liaisons, is the one critics fawn over, boasting much bigger stars, yet personally, I found myself leaning toward the second one, Valmont.
The way Milos Forman constructs his narrative really resonates with me;
the emotional impact he pulls off is just much stronger.
If I’m being objective, the first film is technically superior by professional standards,
but subjectively? Valmont is my winner.

Please, the pleasure is all mine. 🙂

I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised by your analysis; I can only imagine the sheer amount of time and mental energy it took to pull that together.

I completely agree that our only window into Hemmings' true character is through the people he surrounds himself with.
Beyond the basic facts—that he’s wealthy and a photographer—
we really don't know the man at all.
We only experience him through his physical mannerisms, like how he bounds up the stairs
in the park or his restless habit of constantly checking his phone. Even his attitude toward women is overtly dominant: take that scene where he roughly shoves a model's leg aside,
or how quickly he discards women once they've served their purpose. To me,
the most potent display of male-female power dynamics occurs when Vanessa Redgrave
tries to pry the film from Hemmings' grip by biting his hand, all while kneeling there in a tight skirt and high heels, while he holds onto the object that grants him total control.
The only female figure who exists outside of this predatory context is Sarah Miles, and she offers us
a different side of Hemmings entirely.

I also found the scene in the pub particularly striking, where he discusses his photo book with Ron.
I wonder if Antonioni was trying to highlight the class divide here—
the gulf between the people living in shelters and the social standing of Hemmings and Ron—or if he was suggesting that Hemmings is a serious artist, provided we view him through the lens of his work rather than his persona.

Then there are those driving scenes through New York City, which I think serve a deeper purpose.
The luxury car and the aggressive speed mirror his relationship with women,
subtly signaling that he is exactly the kind of man they find irresistible.

Perhaps I misread the bookstore scene, because after reading your take,
I find myself agreeing with you completely.

And that tennis match at the very end? It feels like the crucial moment where the mime's influence finally hits Hemmings, forcing a realization about the nature of reality itself.
He spent so much time hunting for truth through his photographs; initially, he thinks he's captured a life being saved, but as he obsessively scrutinizes the details, he realizes he has actually documented a murder. He saw the body in the park, but once the other photos are stolen, that single shot loses its grounding. He turns to Ron to confirm that the corpse was real,
though given Ron's state under the influence, his testimony is hardly reliable.
When they return to the park the next morning and find neither the body nor any evidence of the crime, he's left questioning his own sanity. Did he see nothing, or did he see everything?
In that final tennis sequence, the epiphany is clear: the collective shapes our perception of reality.

Personally, I find Antonioni's "presence" within the film fascinating.
While it might not be central to your specific analysis, it provides a secondary layer of observation that shifts away from Hemmings' perspective, offering us a different version of reality altogether.
In the park, we watch the couple from an angle different from the protagonist's,
just as the developed photos don't quite match the perspective from which they were captured.
He attempts to construct a narrative out of these fragments. When searching for the body, he views the landscape (the tree) from a vantage point distinct from ours, leading to that final, surreal moment where he seems to dissolve into the grass. There are several moments where you can feel the director's hand guiding the viewer.

I’m going to pick up right where I left off with your analysis yesterday.
Let's keep this going—though I suspect we may never truly reach the end of it.
That is exactly why this film remains one of the most intriguing masterpieces in cinema.

lonelynx16 said:Does anyone know where I can track down the original DVD with the American subtitles? (I know an edition like that exists), because everywhere I look online, it says it's completely sold out...??

You should be able to pick one up at Barnes & Noble (the version with the English subs).

Anthony Lopez80 said:I’ve recently put quite a bit of work into developing a deeper analysis from a socio-
humanistic theoretical perspective regarding the film
mentioned above. If anyone feels inclined to take a look and offer some
critique, commentary, or perhaps kick off a discussion by sharing their own interpretation
of this particular classic, I would truly appreciate it.

You can download the work at the following link:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/qjrf6x

Regarding that bookstore scene—if my memory serves me right—
the owner mentions wanting to escape to Nepal (you cited Tibet).
Contrasting your take on how the youth yearn to break away into a brave new world,
my impression is that the director is actually reminding us of an age-old human fallacy:
the grass is always greener on the other side.🙂

Anthony Lopez80 said:I’ve recently put some serious work into crafting a deeper analysis from a socio-
humanistic theoretical perspective regarding the film
mentioned here. If anyone feels like taking a look and offering up some
critique, commentary, or even starting a debate with their own take
on this particular classic, I’d genuinely appreciate it.

You can download the work at this link:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/qjrf6x

To start things off:
Personally, I think you overlooked a crucial detail in how
Antonioni opens the film.
It’s that raw youthful anarchism—that sense of being totally against the system.
You see it clearly in the scene where they walk right past those uniformed figures,
first the nurses, and then the Secret Service agents.

Anthony Lopez80 said:I’ve recently put some serious work into crafting a deep-dive analysis from a socio-
humanistic theoretical perspective regarding the film
mentioned above. If anyone feels like taking a look and offering
some critique, commentary, or perhaps kicking off a debate with their own interpretation
of this absolute classic, I would truly appreciate it.

You can download the work at the following link:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/qjrf6x

I recently rewatched Blow-Up and ended up downloading your analysis yesterday.
I did a quick skim through it—there is certainly plenty of meat on the bones here.
I definitely plan to study it more closely, so if you're still open to a discussion...🙂
From my initial glance, it seems to me that you might have overlooked a few crucial details
concerning the film. That said, your expansion of the movie itself is quite fascinating.
Particularly your take on locating Hemingway's address.

Quote : Golden Flower

Mark Johnson5 said:I should also add that Ada isn't the only film academy in the world. 🙄
There are plenty of them all over Europe. 🙂

I'm in complete agreement with that sentiment.

One of the most well-known and influential institutions to us is definitely FAMU, that legendary film academy.

The campus is fully integrated into the program, and you’ll find that lectures are even conducted in English.
It’s a far cry from how things used to be in previous years, when knowing the language was actually a mandatory requirement.

It’s not free, obviously, but there are specific enrollment quotas set aside for international students, which includes the possibility of securing a scholarship.
When you consider the former students from the Academy who hail from the old America region, there’s definitely a certain bias toward them when looking at potential candidates.
You might just find yourself getting stuck listening to one of Lordan Zafranović's lectures.

Honestly, the easiest way to handle any situation is to simply never try at all—and then spend the rest of your time coming up with convenient excuses to justify that cowardice.

Take a chance:
I’ve been looking into this site, http://www.amu.cz/?r_id=610, and honestly, it warrants some serious scrutiny. If you're trying to make sense of what's actually being presented here, don't just take it at face value—you need to dig deeper into the underlying structure. It’s easy to get lost in the surface-level presentation, but if you approach it with a bit of skepticism, you'll start to see the patterns that aren't immediately obvious. I've spent quite a bit of time parsing through these types of setups before, and my gut tells me to proceed with caution. It's not necessarily a red flag, but it certainly isn't a "set it and forget it" situation either. You have to be methodical about how you evaluate the credibility behind the link.

Unlike at the Academy, where they seem to focus on all sorts of bureaucratic hoops, the primary metric for getting into FAMU is pure, unadulterated talent.