Posts by Jamie Davis9

So, I was wondering, what’s everyone’s actual take on the whole boiler room situation?

@goldenhound32/">@@goldenhound32
Only someone who hasn't spent a single second actually knowing me could possibly write something like that.

Boyhood isn't actually bad, though I have to admit the trilogy is an absolute slog, and that final installment feels a bit thin compared to the others.

Thomas Hayes2 said:The only way that actually makes sense to me is if she’s living in the cafe, maybe working out some deal where the owner knocks rent off her paycheck until she's left with something pathetic like $4 an hour.

Actually, she doesn't live there; she explicitly mentioned she was just going to crash at the cafe because commuting back home would have eaten up all her sleep time before her next shift.

Despite a few glaring plot holes, I actually enjoyed the movie, though I suppose I'm always a bit too easy to please when character motivations are somewhat transparent. 🙂

Is there any truth to the rumors that Ilica Street is becoming a total hazard due to all that pavement cracking and buckling?😲

Flora said:🙂

🤣

Bev, I’m just now catching up on this.
I mean, you did mention some new topic earlier, but honestly, I thought you were just being tipsy.
It looks like the translator was probably someone like Ernest Hemingway, so they just swapped out the dialect patterns.

Great thread; I’ll hopefully post something else tomorrow.

I’m throwing this song into the mix as well, mostly because of these two legendary lines:

You could never truly deceive me,
for I am the ocean, and you are merely a river.. 😛

And honestly, what can one even say about Zorica Kondža? She's just in a league of her own. 🙏🙏

this guy once had the nerve to tell me there's no way I'm from the sticks because he thinks being a small-town person is just a mindset. 😬 what a joke.

dark coffee doesn't go down easy; you can sit or you can lie down, or whatever that saying goes. 😁

lonetinker3 said:I watched it two nights ago; two and a half hours of pure intensity. Go see it, you won't regret it.

Well, in two and a half hours, you could watch a movie and still have enough time to drive all the way to Los Angeles.

I have a quick question for the group. I’m living in NYC and I've noticed there's a massive amount of limescale buildup in my water, so I constantly find myself having to soak all my dishes in vinegar and stuff just to get them clean. I'm wondering if drinking water with this much mineral content is actually harmful, or if there have been any official health warnings issued about it.
thanks.

Dennis Martin6 said:If you ask me, this first one is different; say, 'm/other' is built almost entirely out of these incredibly mundane dialogues, yet every so often, that documentary fabric gets punctured by these tiny meta-filmic outbursts that build tension and make you question if what you're seeing is even real. You just don't see that kind of thing from the Dardenne brothers.

That’s exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for confirming.

Dennis Martin6 said:that’s just how I make sense of it myself 😁

Great, thanks for that. Now I'm left wondering about this part:

what you're talking about is all down to narrative structure—it's that way of portraying banal, everyday communication through a flood of dialogue where the actual goal isn't to convey anything vital, but rather to consciously withhold the important stuff to give it more weight.

is this some kind of technique for cluttering characters and situations just to manufacture an impression of mundanity, like northerncrane4 was suggesting, or is it actually a hyper-realistic tactic designed to redirect the viewer's focus toward something beyond the character themselves?

Dennis Martin6 said:That isn't quite right, which is clearly evident if you look at films like *Jeanne Dielman* or even the opening sequence of *Café Noir*.

I suppose I have to admit you're right—calling "Two Days..." an example of hyperrealism isn't quite accurate. As northerncrane4 so astutely pointed out, The Coen brothers are really more like the spiritual successors to that whole neo-realist tradition.

Did I just notice that? 🙏 I was only joking. 🙂
shadowtinker15 kept throwing that specific term around whenever he discussed film, and I actually fell for it, adopting his terminology under the impression that he was describing what he called hyperrealism, when in reality, the correct term is neorealism.
I haven't actually sat through any of those films yet, so would you mind giving me a quick one or two-sentence breakdown of what makes each one unique, just so I don't end up getting them mixed up later?

shadowtinker15 said:So, apparently, I’m not just rambling, I’m actually spewing nonsense, and my arguments are just as mindless as they come. I pointed out that you really overstepped with that whole hyperrealism comment—if you want to see how much more composed I am than you, there it is, and frankly, I was right. If you’re going to try and have a debate about this stuff, at least put in the effort to back up your views instead of just throwing street-level insults at movies you clearly haven't even bothered to watch, using labels like "police procedural" as some kind of weapon.

Look, I wasn't attacking any specific films, I was simply stating that your claim about hyperrealism building atmosphere is as ridiculous as your idea that realism and hyperrealism are two opposite ends of the same spectrum. My apologies if that somehow offended you, the films, or the terminology itself.

shadowtinker15 said:The point I was trying to make is that you made this sweeping claim about hyperrealism lacking any sense of atmosphere, and since I tried to counter that with a specific film example, we're just spinning our wheels here.

The real issue is that you still haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, and your insistence that hyperrealism somehow creates atmosphere remains just as idiotic and nonsensical as it was a moment ago; hyperrealism doesn't build atmosphere, rather, a total absence of atmosphere is inherent to the very nature of hyperrealism.

It isn't really about whether you're holding a walking stick or a straw, it’s more about how you handle both ends.

shadowtinker15 said:Real Madrid and hyper-realism are just two ends of the same spectrum.

😕 No, they aren't two ends of the same spectrum at all.

shadowtinker15 said:Look, I can see you're getting worked up about this, so let's just lay out the facts without all the drama. There's a guy sitting in his kitchen, just getting home from work, with nothing in front of him but a bowl of soup. In the next room, his wife is lounging on the sofa because it's dinner time, listening to some mainstream country song playing on the radio. We watch this man in the kitchen slowly eating his soup for fifteen minutes while the singer's voice drifts in from the radio. I didn't make this up. If you don't consider that hyperrealism or a way to build an atmosphere of everyday monotony, then what on earth do you call it?

I am not being emotional; there simply isn't a scene in the movie where some guy spends fifteen minutes slowly eating soup.

shadowtinker15 said:I suspect you’re actually talking about hyperrealism—where the focus is on building an atmosphere rather than strict realism—when discussing the Dardenne brothers' films. Svilicic's work attempts realism, yet the dialogue feels disjointed and serves no real purpose; it just sits there. Not everyone will agree, obviously, but for many, it misses the mark. In the Dardenne brothers' films, the dialogue is crisp and purposeful, devoid of any aimless chatter. The protagonist is always in active conversation with those she turns to for help, and even then, the film isn't trying to manufacture some hyperrealist vibe. As I mentioned before, it is incomparably superior to what Svilicic produced.

What on earth are you rambling about? Hyperrealism built on atmospheric tension? I honestly can't follow your logic, and frankly, I fear you might be just as lost as I am.
Real life is nothing if not filled with mindless babble. Look in the mirror.

Regarding the two films, my point wasn't about which one was better, but rather how they relate to one another.

shadowtinker15 said:I really don't have the energy to debate this, but comparing Svilicic's last film to this one feels wrong; with Svilicic, you constantly find yourself wondering if the characters are actually dim-witted because they spend so much time explaining obvious facts to one another in such a painfully literal way.

What you’re pointing out is actually just a matter of narrative structure, where the portrayal of mundane, everyday chatter through endless dialogue isn't meant to convey vital information, but rather serves to highlight the most important things by choosing to leave them unsaid, which is a fairly standard technique within the genre.