Posts by northerncrane4

@Jack Murphy5/">@@Jack Murphy5

Dammit. Lisa has the exact same scar. Well, shit—that makes this whole thing pretty damn stupid. 😠

@Jack Murphy5/">@@Jack Murphy5

👍 You might be right—but if that’s actually the case, then the whole thing is just incredibly stupid, and I have no desire to believe it's that dim-witted. Besides, I can't recall when—or even in what context—she claimed to speak Japanese.🤷 That doll's "semen" was just plain nonsense to me, regardless of whatever explanation someone tries to cook up.

Jack Murphy5 said:🤣

So—he's basically acting just like Patrick Martin? 😁

He's a total Jozo Gašpar.

Jack Murphy5 said:Anomalisa (2015)
Did I completely miss the mark here? 😁

You’re just being Ilija Sivonjić.

Grace Sanchez50 said:That second part elevates the movie—it feels like something Gilliam would have directed.

Yeah—just Gilliam, if we're being precise.

rapidmason22 said:The movie is structured to map out six distinct stages of the psychopathic mind:

1. Part one — the mass murderer
2. Part two — the killer
3. Part three — the provocateur
4. Part four — the intellectual
5. Part five — the wealthy elite
6. Part six — psychopathic love

It’s clearly graded from the most extreme cases down to the "easier" ones.

Here’s a chart that backs this up:

shadowtinker15 said:Sure, she’s there—but we're just guessing at why she acts this way since the film never explicitly spells out her motives. Her job situation might just be the breaking point for a mountain of other stressors we aren't shown. And honestly, why would we need to know all that if the entire story centers on one specific theme?
You're talking about character development—fine. But is it absolutely necessary for a character to be perfectly "polished"? She's presented as a fair person just looking for some breathing room. She isn't pushy, though she feels uneasy about it. By the end, she refuses the boss's compromise, proving she sticks to her principles—an honest, principled woman who won't play dirty, even if it leaves her unemployed and scattered because she refuses to compromise her values to succeed.
Now, you could argue this is purely my interpretation and that the character needs to speak more for herself. But again—is that really necessary?

It is pretty necessary—because based on what I saw, I can interpret that character in a way that is completely opposite to yours, and I'd be 100% right, just like you. In my view, she isn't some "fair person" struggling with a chemical imbalance or clinical depression. She's just someone who doesn't want to work; she'd much rather stay home and collect a paycheck. But life happens, and her husband pushes her to try returning to work—something she does reluctantly for the rest of the film, to the point where at one stage, she'd seemingly rather die than move a muscle. Then the boss nearly screws her over by offering the job back, but thanks to his clumsiness, he leaves her an opening to reject it under the guise of her own "moral uprightness."

That's why this kind of directorial ambiguity fails—regardless of anyone claiming the charm lies in being able to interpret the film however you want. First, my interpretation definitely wasn't the filmmaker's intent; second, when I watch a movie, I'm willing to listen to the director. I feel cheated if the most they can offer me is pointing fingers in random directions.

Ashley Grant66 said:I have a feeling some people here would accuse the directors of being cheap—claiming they just made a movie about struggling immigrants or families crammed into a decaying apartment with five kids because the system failed them and jobs are scarce. If that were the case, someone would inevitably call out the filmmakers for being pathetic or hypocritical. After all, most of us whining about these types of films live in more than decent conditions; we sit in our comfortable seats at film festivals, nodding solemnly at these tragic fates, only to head straight to a dinner party afterward.

shadowtinker15 said:Reading through all these negative reviews, it’s almost impossible to make a social drama about a woman in America—unless she’s physically disabled living in a walk-up apartment without an elevator, a struggling single mother of three, or an immigrant facing deportation and a potential trial back home.

A joint response to you two—and Tony...

I think we’re missing each other here—not that I have anything against Dardenne's choice of subject matter, but rather his specific approach. They make a conscious decision to muddy the waters with their characters and their situations. They. You’re the one who dehumanized your own protagonist. Unknown. These observers—they don't care about anything beyond the fact that she’s in a clinical, suicidal depression. That’s it. That’s the guy. The protagonist of our film is depressed, and now—just imagine—suppose she faces this situation: "How am I supposed to act this out?" You could ask the lead actress. You can't. You have depression, and that's all there is. You're depressed. But what about her husband? Her kids? It doesn't matter—you're clinically depressed, and that's enough. And her relationship with the people who voted to fire her? Please, enough with those questions—nothing. You're depressed, period. You should ask them; they'll answer you—without any big expressions, preferably none at all. And us—her colleagues—how do we handle it? No, you do the same thing—just be depressed; everyone is depressed. Everyone? Yes. (Silence.) Fine, alright, you—don't be depressed, you whistle at the guy fixing your car, you be wild. And... ACTION! Actually, not action.

Walter Grant5 said:So you’re claiming people haven't done anything to improve their lot—but how is that even possible when the individual is the least influential player in the game? The system itself is what drives the outcome. This structure inherently favors those who already hold the upper hand, granting them disproportionate leverage over everything that follows. People in power are essentially being handed the ability to dictate someone else's fate for a price—all while stripping that very person of any agency to decide for themselves. The system isn't just a factor; it's the architect of the whole mess.

I don't see what you expect from a system like that—what exactly do you think it can handle? A system exists to serve the largest possible group sharing a common denominator. If the protagonist of this film doesn't fit within the existing framework of Western social structures, then there’s always another system ready to accommodate her.

Tom Hanks said:Since when did depression stop being a legitimate psychological illness? What’s the alternative—saying someone just wiped out on their motorcycle and spent two months spinning out in corners? Or maybe they were in a car wreck?

Is it? I don't think so. The filmmakers clearly opted for a sense of depression—which isn't exactly a bad handicap to have. But... I'll get into that more once I've had a chance to respond to the others chiming in on this.

Tom Hanks said:How can you tell when tackling social issues is actually necessary versus just being a calculated move for the festival circuit?

I said that tackling social issues—well, it’s a choice. Like this. The way these filmmakers approach their work—it’s clearly driven by festival calculation. Purely empirical. It plays well at Sundance or Cannes. They touch upon a subject without actually engaging with it. What this film does—and I'll say it again—isn't exploring a theme; it's merely stating one.

Tom Hanks said:How exactly are you trying to prove that your observation is actually organic and authentic?

It feels like I’m living and breathing in the world of The Coen brothers—whereas they don't even bother to inhabit the lives of their own protagonists.

Tom Hanks said:So what—are we supposed to just ignore suicidal depression if someone actually has their life together materially? Since when did a decent bank account become a prerequisite for mental health? And what about when icons like Robin Williams take their own lives? Does that necessarily imply they were just spoiled?

I'm saving this for a more comprehensive response later.

Tom Hanks said:It depends—in some ways you're dependent, but in others, you aren't. You have more leverage when your influence balances out other forces. You can forgive them; we aren't directly responsible for those all-powerful idiots who abuse their positions or ruin things "for the good of the country" at everyone else's expense. They're the ones shaping the systems—while you just live within the ones that suit them.

True, but those people have their own struggles—issues that may have driven them to where they are now. And maybe they have a justification for acting that way—at least one that holds up in their own minds. That’s worth looking into—provided you decide to tackle those questions like The Coen brothers.

Which brings us to the next set of answers...

Walter Grant5 said:The film clearly avoids any deep existential questions—since the characters are too busy discussing the situation over ice cream in the park.
They surround themselves with this fake sense of material security—as if owning things somehow validates their social status—but it’s clearly not what actually brings people fulfillment. It's a pattern you see everywhere in life. I’d argue that "modernization" has played its part here; you don't have to be some unrefined peasant to realize when you're just breathing in toxic air.
People can be absolute jerks to one another just to chase a little extra capital—even when it’s not some life-or-death matter. Honestly, some folks would happily tear down someone else's livelihood just to spruce up their own backyard.

So, some colleagues just vanish from the office for months at a time—it happens. A coworker decides they have a right to their "phantom depression," leaving the rest of the team to pick up the slack. I guess that’s one way to look at it.

Walter Grant5 said:The protagonist turns down the job just to ensure those temporary staffers—the ones who actually voted for her—can keep their positions. It’s a stark, healthy contrast to the way her colleagues treated her.
I read an interview where the Dardenne brothers mention using a real-life situation—someone losing their job under similar circumstances—as the spark for their film. It’s the classic newspaper trope, isn't it? So what? People actually live through this stuff.

As I mentioned in my initial review—if this were actually a documentary capturing a real situation—I’d give it five stars. People act one way when there's a camera rolling. But this is a feature film, and my impression is that the performances feel far too staged. More common. People would act like actual human beings in that situation—even with a camera rolling—simply because of directorial necessity to remain unobtrusive. It’s a technique. The more you strip back the situation, the characters, and the presentation to make it feel "vanilla," the more you project an illusion of authenticity. But let’s be clear: that is a conscious fabrication. Minimalism is not authenticity.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, I honestly don't see any double standards in this film. What I see is a depressed protagonist—someone with actual style, by the way—and two kids who are dealing with her losing her job because her everyday coworkers turned their backs on her just to chase some corporate bonus. She’s struggling with it. And yeah, I empathize with her. Not everyone handles things the same way—not everyone deals with pressure in the same manner. So what if she has a decent, modern apartment and ordered pizza for the kids? Does that somehow make her "high society"?

You aren't talking about the middle class specifically here—not in this post, anyway—but you keep bringing them up. These people in the movie? They aren't middle class. They’re unskilled laborers—just bottom-tier workers in a system that prioritizes education. And yet, they live perfectly decent lives. It's in those "decent" lives where they face suicidal depression and massive moral dilemmas. Someone else mentioned that this film would be more compelling if it approached its "problems" with a sense of irony, and I absolutely agree. The issue is, it doesn't. The protagonist is presented as the hero of the situation. I just can't stomach that—the setup is fake as hell. It’s pure Dada Matanić fakery. Tackling social issues just because they sell well at European film festivals... that isn't art, it's just pandering. I think it's vital to point that out, especially since the audience watching this stuff actually mistakes it for sincere authorship.

Walter Grant5 said:edit: Sure, I went after Anderson Cooper—my bad—but there’s a grain of truth here. What I meant is that we aren't always self-made islands; there are much better ways to put it. In fact, we often rely on others far more than we care to admit. Are we responsible for that?

Well, I suppose it's both yes and no. That's just life. You're dependent on microbes, for one. And every single time you walk down a street in Chicago, you're relying on every driver passing you by not being an idiot.
Everyone exerts some kind of influence on someone else, whether they want to or not. You do, too. So what's the solution?

Walter Grant5 said:highly debatable—first we have to define what "good" actually is before we can use it as a benchmark. nowadays some guy like Anderson Cooper has his hands in our fates, though I highly doubt you or I are responsible for that. not to mention those with much thicker fingers.

Unknown, Walter Grant5, please don't be banal. What does Anderson Cooper have to do with your destiny? What exactly do you do at local news stations?

Walter Grant5 said:what did she do to deserve better? it’s practically notorious. she didn't do anything to deserve being treated poorly, yet she was.

She didn't get treated poorly at all. She still has a roof over her head, running water, a bathroom, and her husband works as a chef, so she'll eat well.
This is a woman with two small kids who is ready to swallow a pack of Xanax just because she "can't take it anymore." Sorry, but my sympathy is at absolute zero Kelvin.

Walter Grant5 said:because this system turns people into scumbags. that's the point of this movie, not ten layers of characterization over two days and one night just to force us to feel empathy for a specific character.

But that isn't true—that this system turns people into scumbags. This system, at most, caters to people.

Walter Grant5 said:it's about pure solidarity—the kind found during office coffee breaks in brightly colored white walls, which vanishes at the most critical moments, when it's needed most. that pattern bothers you.

What bothers me is the false dichotomy this film imposes, which you are also repeating here. There is no life-or-death question at stake. At most, there's a question of living at a higher or lower standard of living. So I ask again—on what grounds did this protagonist deserve a higher standard? Especially since her "lower" standard is actually quite high.

Walter Grant5 said:I don't know why you constantly raise the bar. it says absolutely nothing about this film. I watched Bicycle Thieves—a masterpiece—but unfortunately, by your comparison, that fact has nothing to do with the current movie.

How does it say nothing? It establishes a comparison between films dealing with very similar, if not identical, themes. Why should we ignore superior examples?😕

Walter Grant5 said:Hardly—uniqueness usually draws people in. Uniqueness is exotic; being ordinary isn't.

Exactly. This film is both unusual and exotic in its delivery.

Walter Grant5 said:--given how much people are aware of everything now--is there actually a bigger gap between the rich and the poor than what we see today? do people even consider anything more important? even at the lowest levels, people are looking at each other sideways because of capital.

But that’s because we have it too good, not because things are too bad. People today—speaking about Western civilization—are mostly just spoiled brats.

Walter Grant5 said:when I say average, I don't mean a specific line; I mean a sort of mass clustering around the middle, and the people depicted in this film are hovering around that perceived center, which isn't really there.

No. The people in this film are hovering around the perceived center of festival movie tropes.

Walter Grant5 said:how are they not real? in your first post you said they were—that the film is so ordinary that people react realistically in actual situations. fine, yeah, that's clearly the goal.

I didn't say they react realistically in *actual* situations, just that they act normally in *ordinary* ones. Those aren't real situations. They are dramatic setups used when someone wants to depict "ordinariness."

Walter Grant5 said:you know what the problem is? I get what bothers you and I'm trying to see the film through your eyes, but I simply can't shake my organic reaction to watching it. the atmosphere hit me hard—it's a certain reality that I practically see every day in various suburbs, and it always bothers me; seeing it again just bothers me again. I think it's good to talk about it, damn it, I can't lie to myself.

There's no denying it needs to be discussed, but it needs to be discussed seriously. And seriously speaking—what did this protagonist actually *do*, assuming she's a real person, to deserve things getting better for her? What did any of her unqualified coworkers do to deserve a $1,000 monthly or annual bonus? Why should we feel for any of them? Just out of some vague sense of universal empathy? These are just standard dramatic patterns; they aren't people. Films like this aren't made to raise questions, but to make the festival crowd feel empathetic.
Compare this film to de Sic. Compare it to "Umbert D." It's night and day in terms of characterization and storytelling.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, you're entitled to find "ordinariness" boring—fair enough. Just don't hold it against a film that set out to be exactly what it is. There’s no ambiguity here; they didn't miss the mark by accident. It’s all right there in plain sight.

In other words—it's purely calculated.

Walter Grant5 said:It doesn’t even require a crisis—or some massive, scandalous overhaul—to be true. At that level, "average" simply doesn't cut it.
Every significant spike in the data is an outlier—it points toward something else entirely. If that were the case, we wouldn't be watching this movie; we'd be watching a different one. That’s fine, I suppose—but it wouldn't actually tell us anything about the reality of the American middle class. It would just be a story about one specific individual's situation—a single, isolated jump.

Do I have the right to ignore the "average"? Actually—can I just claim that the average doesn't even exist? Everything is either above or below it. If a film focuses on being "average," then it isn't dealing with reality at all. If characters are just "average," they aren't real people—they're just statistical data points.

Walter Grant5 said:A film needs substance—because without it, even an average life lacks any real meaning.

Look, Walter Grant5—give me a break. There isn’t even a concept of "content" in that sense, regardless of how much substance a movie might have. Life isn't just a collection of "content." Can you actually describe the "content" of your life? Or the "content" of your day—even a single hour? And even if you could, your version of life wouldn't be Life itself. I mean, do you actually follow what I'm saying, or am I going to have to rephrase this for you?

Walter Grant5 said:A process of human decay and torment—why is that relevant to me, yet somehow isn't to you?

The only issue is that this film skips the process entirely—we’re just seeing one isolated phase of something much larger. We could go in circles trying to define what that "something" actually is. Should I start? Maybe we should just pull this into its own dedicated thread.

Walter Grant5 said:I'll get around to watching Le Couperet—I promise.

👍 This movie matters—specifically if you're looking to crack the code on how to land a spot at a major film festival.

Walter Grant5 said:Everything captured today—right in the middle of this brutal era of capitalism—serves as a blatant indictment of the entire system.

Just saw this too.
Is this really what we call "ruthless capitalism" today? Seriously? Walter Grant5—come on now. Go back to your books or whatever.

Walter Grant5 said:Please—you can't.

Look, I’m telling you—it’s possible. Honestly, it surprises me that there isn't an app already doing this—you feed a week's worth of American news headlines into a database, let it pick one at random, and then have it run through an algorithm. It would spit out a script built on a series of predictable half-truths, populated by characters designed from statistical samples of the American public—where nobody does anything truly scandalous or surprising, and in the end, absolutely nothing changes.

Walter Grant5 said:That soap opera analogy doesn't hold water—those shows rely on caricatured situations and even more ridiculous, over-the-top characters.

The point was the sheer simplicity of it—writing and filming a gritty, realistic screenplay versus some soap opera episode. Both follow the exact same tired formulas.

Walter Grant5 said:Even under those caricatured conditions, the performances feel banal—transparently shallow, like they were filmed on a shoestring student budget. Soap operas lack any real substance or message; the plot twists *are* the only content. This film, however, actually has teeth—it possesses both structure and a relevant core, backed by an incredibly convincing performance.

This movie is completely hollow. The premise doesn't offer anything unique—it just drags itself along without ever actually unfolding. And I have to tell you—when the lead actress first muttered, "I can't cry"—the whole thing started feeling incredibly artificial to me.

Walter Grant5 said:You see, the sheer fragility of this average capitalist society is laid bare here—it looks polished and comfortable on the surface, but you could actually dismantle the whole thing just by snapping your thumb and middle finger together.

Nothing is going to change. She’ll just sit on welfare until she stumbles into some other dead-end, unskilled job—or she'll succumb to depression. Whatever. She isn't even a real person at this point; she's just a rag with someone else's face pasted onto it.

Haven't you seen Le Couperet by Costa Gavras? That’s just it— A feature film on this subject—now that’s an idea.

Walter Grant5 said:On the other hand—you could always just film twelve angry people instead—but let's not go down that road.

Haha, obviously you can't. "12 Angry Men" is a masterclass in screenwriting—that's the fundamental difference between those two films.

Walter Grant5 said:Smuđ, why would such a pretentious "realistic" film deny its own existence?

It doesn't have to deny itself—I'm the one denying this fake realism. I could churn out ten of these staged movies every ten weeks if I wanted to. Seriously. To me, the script and the execution have all the depth of a random episode of some cheap daytime soap opera. You don't need an ounce of actual talent to write or shoot something like this. Is the film accurate? Sure—about as accurate as filming a plastic tree. Forget "auteurism"—that's just the main ingredient when you're actively rejecting authorship. That's my take.

Jamie Davis9 said:p.s.—and that’s assuming you weren't talking about Nick.

Nobody is thinking about Nick.

Two days, one night.

It’s a sub-par production. Underwritten, underdirected, underfilmed, underacted—under everything. It’s basically just Celebrity-porn. You have ordinary people in incredibly ordinary situations reacting in an incredibly ordinary way. If this were a documentary, I’d say it was fine—but for a feature film, I expect more than just a series of observations.

Chloe Roberts2 said:On this thread:

Because you went ahead and spoiled both the book and the movie based on it.

redbear2 said:Is it not?

Exactly—it isn't.

redbear2 said:On the contrary—insulting someone isn't the same thing as hate speech.

Nobody ever said that. Honestly, just take a step back, look up the actual definition of "hate speech," and maybe come back once you’ve actually learned something. Or don't.