key quote : Kurosawa does not have access to The articulation of Shakespeare and He therefore refashions visually What Shakespeare achieves linguistically
Kurosawa does not have access to the articulation of Shakespeare and he therefore refashions visually what Shakespeare achieves linguistically: the enclosed set of the castle, fog, arrows, circular movements around the set and, with the overall framing of the film by beginning and ending at the same point.
You could also dive into Macbeth and learn a thing or two about Japanese Noh theater.
//ps. Check out the bibliography in those top two links.
It’s all pretty irrelevant, really... because any critique written by anyone reveals just as much about the person writing it as it does about the subject itself.
Personally, I’m more interested in how people actually experience or interpret specific symbolism presented in a movie. That kind of stuff usually happens on a level far beyond theoretical discussions about cinematic time and space, camera angles, and other trivialities. I realized quite early on—mostly through school reading assignments—that most people don't feel anything at all... and even if they do, they lack the vocabulary to put their genuine feelings and opinions into words. 😁
I tend to avoid those types who claim to watch everything live, as well as the ones watching movies that haven't even been seen by 1% of the population.
Modern-day "criticism" is so commercially driven. There's this unwritten rule that you can write about a film, but you aren't allowed to actually say what it's about. It’s like going to an art gallery and writing about a painting without being allowed to mention what is actually depicted in the frame. Completely pointless...
For me, criticism is only worth reading if it’s written in the spirit of debate and feels truly unorthodox...
He wanted sex just to convince himself everything was fine now—but it wasn't. She isn't fine because things aren't okay. She goes along with it, sure, but then she gets her revenge right after the act, because he basically forced her into it.
You really have to learn how to tell the difference between what’s actually happening on screen and just making up some subjective interpretation of an event. The fact is, she accepted the sex; she wasn't forced at all, and you can see that clearly... so, yeah, your whole theory just falls apart.
How much they both enjoyed it is pretty obvious from the next scene where you see her back.
Seems like you might have a point there... I mean, who else brings pain and sexual pleasure into a relationship like that? 🙄
When I put everything you just said together... honestly, it feels like you were watching a completely different movie. Plus, you're being pretty rude. You come across like a total brat... so... go away.
if you’re talking about that staircase scene, you completely missed the mark here.
The whole thing has an entirely different point than whatever you're trying to pull, which is honestly kind of pathetic.
Moguce is possible... though I guess that's just subjective... how we all perceive certain scenes within the context of a movie. I don't know... to me, it felt like right after she slapped him and he lunged for her neck, everything just shifted into this high-tension sexual moment... idk... feels like a nod to the idea that sex and violence are intertwined. I won't get too deep into the weeds with the analysis, but sex has always been about power plays and dominance. If you compare that staircase bit to the earlier scene where the 69 position was clearly about pure pleasure, then the staircase scene takes that dynamic to a much more intense level. I think both scenes serve a purpose regarding how people react to someone displaying violent traits—whether those traits are justified or not. Also, keep in mind the 69 scene happened earlier, back when she actually knew who her husband really was.
Alright, your turn... let's hear what you actually think this time.😉
I see we’ve started making lists 😁 so here’s a flick that most people have probably seen... or at least caught a few scenes from... I still remember watching the whole thing on TV back during the Sundance Film Festival days.
It took me much longer to realize why this movie actually matters... basically, it was one of the first films to actually utilize a narrative structure... what we’d call having a coherent plot today 😉
That’s usually how women react when I ask if they’re down to hook up...
Basically, through that polite little dance, they're trying to tell you they haven't given it a second thought—they're just too well-bred to shut you down instantly... 😁 😛
Then again... that’s pretty much how I feel about this topic too 😉
The movie is fine, I guess, but nothing special. Personally, I’d say... the lead actor (and that's a critique for David, not Viggo Mortensen) is totally unconvincing as someone who kills people while casually saying "pathetic little snack"... if you remember the scene where those three show up at his house... the guy approaches him, the main character knocks the gun out of his hand, hits him three times—literally says "THREE!"—right in the nose with his palm, grabs the gun, kills one guy, and ONLY THEN does Ed Harris (a man who’s been a criminal for at least 20 years and is suspected of way more murders; so, it’s reasonable to assume he’s fired plenty of guns in his life) reacts by shooting him... come on.
Regarding the exaggeration... those scenes of body horror where you see the impact of a bullet to the head or face, cut up in several places by glass... basically, the physical result of violence is very much Cronenberg's style, and a normal person watching that scene usually feels nauseous... kind of like when you watch a skater wipe out hard on a rail and smash their ass, and you just feel this reflexive twinge in the same area... that's what I mean.
As for the scene mentioned... I think it’s irrelevant to the whole story, and besides, it isn't some "cowboy" flick. What matters about that scene is that it serves the process of discovering who Taj Stall actually is... and, well... the final result of the film is really the key thing... as a viewer, that whole process sort of "cools" us down toward the protagonist... the director spends the whole time trying, and succeeding, to make us emotionally disconnect from how this cold, violent guy is portrayed... he has his moments, sure, but... we don't trust him.
It's sad when a film's success is measured by how much you identify with a character.
And regarding Viggo Mortensen... I think, in the sense I’m describing the film itself, he played it flawlessly... somewhat suspended, yet cold and calculated... at times you don't know if his moves are genuine... whether it’s instinct or love driving him to protect his family... which is personally what I find most interesting... where is the point where the obsession with violence becomes uncontrollable and almost unconscious... though the film shows me that it is possible to resist the temptation. Though it's incredibly difficult and costly... for those close to him, but especially for himself.
If you have violence that spreads like a contagious disease from the opening credits to the end... something that acts like a virus, infecting characters no matter how immune they think they are or how much they resist... and if the movie only brushes past that idea superficially to head down a different path—one focused on questioning identity, the emptiness of the present, and ultimately picking at that eternal question of "who are we really"—then it just isn't that.
Great observation... and there are certainly hints of that throughout the whole thing... but I feel like the focus was more toward a sort of meditation on that question of "who are we" or—from everyone else's perspective—who this guy played by Viggo Mortensen actually is. Visually and dramatically, that process where all these people, especially his family, start looking at him differently as the film moves away from that initial conflict in the restaurant... it’s handled incredibly subtly... specifically through those two extremely—and I mean *extremely*—well-done sex scenes... one before and one after... that one on the stairs afterward is honestly some of the most unique filmmaking I've seen in a while... The character played by Maria Bello... she starts to doubt him generally, of course... feels betrayed... basically, the bottom line is she starts to fear him... and that actually ignites this animalistic urge in her which then creates a certain distance. I guess... my impression is that the idea from the quote above... that contagion of violence... I think it really does spread through the entire film, and the reaction to that virus varies from person to person. This spreading infection is almost an abstract context in which the lead character struggles with himself to confirm his decision to become a different person. Uh... I could go on about this 😁
For most people, everything involving computers is just incredibly complicated. Only a tiny fraction of the population actually bothers trying to wrap their heads around how, what, where, when, and why the tech business works. What the masses expect from technology is simply for it to work—everything boils down to utility. That’s all the average person wants, and eventually, that reliance turns into an addiction once you factor in things like gaming and the internet. Meanwhile, those who aren't intimidated by the inner workings quickly realize that with a little effort and a fair amount of manipulation, you can live quite well without breaking much of a sweat. I’m one of those people myself, so it’s honestly pretty hard for me to be critical or even want to change anything. Just human nature, I guess.
There’s a similar principle at play with illegal drugs, and honestly, even with legal ones—you know, medications. But ultimately, this logic applies most to oil. The end user just says, "Give it to me at a price that makes sense given its value," and everything is fine. In the meantime, what’s actually happening behind the scenes—how that oil actually reaches the pump where your average American fills up—is, well, actually and truly UNIMPORTANT.
From that perspective, ignoring that context, Syriana actually makes about as much sense as a film like Traffic—not just because of the principle I mentioned above, but because of its structure; it uses several parallel storylines that culminate in one final sequence. So, I find this movie totally irrelevant and unimpactful because it doesn't really bring anything new to the table that an informed person doesn't already know or an average person hasn't already guessed.
Clooney plays a disillusioned CIA operative who finds himself on the "wrong" side of corporate thinking at some point; basically, he gets suspicious of a certain shipment of high-tech weaponry and tries to push things forward by sending that famous old concept of a "memo"—something nobody actually wants to read. From that moment on, the film moves quite predictably, devolving into a political pamphlet set against the backdrop of the current movement in the USA to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The film features more than one disillusioned and fed-up character with a few moments of raw truth being pushed out there, which is exactly why it feels like "someone" made it overly complicated just to keep the uninitiated at a distance. Because, realistically...
...for most people, everything regarding oil is incredibly complicated, and only a very small percentage of the population actually attempts to understand the how, what, where, when, and why of the oil business. What the masses expect from oil is for everything to just function, and in the end, it all comes down to usage—that’s all the average person cares about, and eventually, that usage becomes an addiction with the rise of cars and planes. Meanwhile, those who aren't struggling to grasp how it all works quickly figure out that with a bit of effort and plenty of manipulation, you can get by quite comfortably without much struggle. And people making a living from it find it very difficult to be critical or want to change anything. Probably just human nature.
As far as movies go, it has good pacing; things are happening, but unfortunately, it's predictable and offers nothing new. Because of the parallel storytelling technique, none of the characters are particularly well-developed, and you don't really know who holds any actual weight in the story. Otherwise, regarding the idea that there's nothing new here—some might call it a variation on the conspiracy theme... though for some people, the mere fact that two individuals agree to grab coffee is a conspiracy. In reality, it all just comes down to how much power or influence you have to do what you think needs to be done. Everything else is just momentum.
To make a long story short... the film isn't really... 😉 😁
Best tip ever... if you ever find yourself in the Middle East and instead of making up some elaborate story about what you want or where you're going... just say I'm a Canadian! 😁
The whole point of this movie is just to make money. End of story. You could overanalyze it and claim maybe Hanson wanted to branch out since he hasn't really done a chick flick before, or perhaps he was trying to elevate a standard Hollywood script into something more elevated than usual. Or whatever. Anyway, I watched it. It’s fine. For its genre, it works—funny enough, easy to watch, though the ending gets a little pathetic. It doesn't offer anything truly groundbreaking, though. Just a decent, technically correct exercise in genre filmmaking.
Not bad... with talent like yours, you could probably defend any movie directed by Jakob Sedlar... especially that little phrase it's fine, for its genre 😉 😁
//ps. also thanks for the sharp breakdown; I can definitely use this when my better half asks why I shouldn't bother watching it 😬
I honestly don't see the point of this movie. What was Polanski actually trying to achieve with this adaptation? I'll admit, I haven't a clue.
Kingsley on the subject:
Question: To what degree do you think Dickens
Kingsley: Unfortunately the dilemmas that exist that millions of children are disempowered and we need to empower them., I think is still very, very true. Hopa that WE have premieres in this film for Save the Children and other charities - First star, Save the Children, UNICEF, The Princes' trust - have masses of charity premieres for organisations who are absolutely committed to empowering and saving children. ... Question: Can you explain - this is a much different film - how did he change as a director, i mean , after The Pianist and you see him again, what did he bring to this film that was different from that film?
Kingsley: For me, because I've seen him over the years and, been with him over the years - just the occasional dinner, the occasional lunch and the occasional social meeting - and more recently I was at Deauxville with him and he was Chairman of The Jury. So I spent ten days with him and it was wonderful - I was on the jury. It was beautiful. he loves his wife and he loves his kids and that gets in deeper the more I know him. When i First knew Him ten years aga , i think One of his children was tiny and The other i think maybe Had Just been born or about to be born. He's a lovely dad and he's a very happy man. He deserves to be because his childhood was... it's a miracle he's alive. It's a miracle he survived the stuff he's been through.
What prompted him to turn to Dickens was The Desire to make a film his children could see for a Change. 'They come on the set of my movies, they know what I am doing, they live around all that, but the result of all this work is something so remote from their world they can't identify with it,' he says. 'I wanted something they could, so I started looking for subjects that would be suitable.' Although he reads to his children every night, the only Dickens he had read them was A Christmas Carol; it was his wife, Emmanuella, who suggested Oliver Twist, knowing his fondness for Carol Reed's film of The Lionel Bart musical Oliver!
//ps. And now for something completely different 😁 -- alright, now that I've given such a nice answer, someone please tell me what the point of this movie actually is http://forum.us/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120704
There’s this whole thing called a "limited release" where they drop a movie in just a few "selected cities." If you happen to live in one of those spots, you get an early look. Then you just spin a yarn about how incredible the film is, give it two thumbs up, and suddenly you're pocketing a cut of the box office revenue... 😬
But honestly... New York City is basically a tiny town in the North of the USA when it comes to movies... especially when we're talking indie or art house stuff... you know how it is. 😉
Now, there's something actually pretty great here... just a few minutes from my workplace, there's the National Film Board of Canada. You can't really get any films made without them... at least, that's my take... given their involvement in so many projects... and they have this neat setup where you can walk in and watch anything they have in their archive at a dedicated viewing station... it's super cool for documentaries and things like that... a solid foundation for filmmakers like Ed Wood... 😬
But seriously... just head over to http://www.nfb.ca and check out what they're doing...
Feeling a little bored, so I'm scanning the theater listings for something to watch. Going through everything available and realizing I have absolutely nothing to see... in this state of psychological unrest, I'm basically just jotting down my internal monologue while trying to decide whether or not to commit to a movie... //ps. as you can tell from the attached, I've been thinking in English lately.... so... sorry about that 😉 😁
The 40-Year-Old Virgin Is this actually meant to be funny? Only if there's actually such a thing as a 40-year-old virgin... The Aristocrats Stand-up comedians should probably just stick to the clubs and those 22-minute sitcoms... The Bad News Bears Jeez... The Brothers Grimm Watched it! The Cave Was looking for Spider-Man... excuse me, Batman... Chicken Little Yeah... cool... The Chronicles of Narnia Title's way too long... unwatchable... The Constant Gardener Not really into gardening... Cry Wolf Seriously, how many horror movies can you squeeze into a single year... Deuce Bigalow: Male Educator Oh... so that means the first one was actually funny... The Devil's Rejects Maybe... Domino When I caught the trailer, I thought it was Wynona Rider, not Domino... but no... it was Beckham... Doom A game turned into a movie... isn't it usually the other way around? Dreamer A small, cute, super smart, and occasionally devious kid who makes you laugh and cry... nah... I've got one of those at home... The Dukes of Hazzard I'll just wait for the DVD so I can actually control the frame rate, pause, and rewind... Elizabethtown Skip The Exorcism of Emily Rose Could be interesting... but you know how it goes... the trick is waiting for something familiar, but then they throw something "unexpected" at you... The Family Stone Had to check IMDb... and honestly, wasting two seconds is enough for me... Flightplan Let me get this straight... I'm on this plane and I don't even know where my daughter went... khm... pass... The Fog Skip Four Brothers A new spin on the already messy world of foster homes... khm... skip The Great Raid Might be interesting... The Greatest Game Ever Played I thought this was a movie about a game of tag or something... turns out it's about baseball... talk about cultural differences... Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Could be interesting... IMAX: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire See above A History of Violence Watched it!!! Hustle & Flow Khm... skip In Her Shoes Everyone has smelly shoes... so... skip Into the Blue Niiiiiiceeeee.... SKIP! The Island Hey, it's Mr. Bay... could be a massive waste of time... Just Like Heaven Just looked at the poster and made my decision right then and there... SKIP! The Legend of Zorro Could be good... Catherine Zeta-Jones is still the best-looking woman in Hollywood... Lord of War Gone in 60 minutes... except this time it's about weaponry... SKIP Samuel L. Jackson Can Samuel L. Jackson be any less cool? Well... apparently he can... Must Love Dogs Definitely skipping this one... North Country Got to see it... sorry, but I've always been a sucker for those slim, beautiful blondes in movies who can actually act... Oliver Twist Watched it! Pride and Prejudice Read it! Twice... no real need to see it on screen... Prime Had to look it up, and I've now officially wasted a total of four seconds on the "time-wasting scale"... Red Eye Word on the street is... watching this is painful... so... SKIP!!! Rent Look, I hate musicals... and this is a musical... so... what do you think? SKIP! Roll Bounce I don't even want to know what this is... Saw II I saw Saw I twice... that should be plenty to cover Saw II... Serenity That title alone puts me off... feels like some weird cult promising eternal happiness, when all they really want is ten bucks and two hours of your life... The Skeleton Key Alright... I've been mulling this one over... unlock what, exactly? A skeleton key is transparent... so, what's it opening? If they had called it the Pajama Key, maybe I'd be interested... Skip! Sky High What a killer title... now please, just go away... A Sound of Thunder Actually sounds pretty intriguing... I've been hearing whispers about an Oscar... something like... some guy named Oscar... he supposedly lost his lunch watching this... though, honestly, probably just gossip... Stay Yeah... no... I'm passing on this one... Supercross: The Movie Skip! Tim Burton's Corpse Bride It! Transporter 2 Wait, didn't the first one end with the Transporter getting shipped off to some God-forsaken corner of the map? Or am I thinking of something else? Whatever... Skip! Two for the Money Sure... two movies for the price of one... one great film and the one you're stuck watching... Underclassman Who's actually interested? Sounds like a movie about a bunch of nobodies... skip. Undiscovered Oh, look, an "undiscovered" piece of junk... Hint: features a hot sister... Valiant Animation... yeah, I'll pass. Venom A horror flick with the tagline “He Never Hurt A Soul Until The Day He Died”? Sounds absolutely fantastic! Skip! Waiting Some silly, crude comedy about the chaos in a restaurant kitchen... I think I'll pass. I'd prefer to keep believing that restaurants actually provide top-tier service... watching this would feel like a devout believer sitting through a lecture on pure logic and reason... Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit Skip. The Weather Man Cage... again. I've officially declared a one-year moratorium on Nicolas Cage films... which brings my total count of skipped movies to twenty... Where the Truth Lies Might actually be decent... Wolf Creek Catchy title... but where's the rest of it? Skip!
By the way, when the local critics brought back reports from >, they didn't exactly give it a glowing review.
I feel like one of the biggest hurdles in actually watching American cinema is just a complete lack of familiarity with how American society works—the whole cultural landscape, really. Sadly, it’s not just about film criticism; it bleeds into everything. Literature, sociology, economics, the political system... you name it. It's almost absurd, thinking about how folks over in Eastern or Southeastern Europe might have these specific, skewed perspectives on violence in American movies or American life, even while living right next door to such high rates of mass shootings. But, that's a rabbit hole for another day... 🙄 😁
The point is... khm... 😉 .... that our aesthetic standards are shaped by certain factors that we... whether fortunately or unfortunately... simply can't control.
Probably nobody else has checked this out yet, but I just had to drop this review from The New York Times in here. Manohla Dargis puts my thoughts into words so much better than I ever could—I honestly couldn't have formed a single coherent sentence if I tried... and even though it's in English, it’s just fascinating to read... especially that part where she breaks down why the violence in this film actually matters... how it isn't just some "mindless violence" but serves a purpose within the story. And, well, of course, someone has to suffer along the way... including the audience...
It’s hardly news that films get adapted from comic books—or "graphic novels," as people like to call them when they want to sound 'serious' here in the US. What is actually refreshing is how this movie respects the medium of film itself, utilizing its own unique tools to visually convey what a great comic sometimes does: telling a gripping story with controversial undertones that really sticks with you.
Cronenberg himself mentioned that when he first picked up the script, he didn't even realize there was a graphic novel involved. It wasn't his motivation, which feels like a deliberate move to distance himself from those extreme aesthetic crossovers like Sin City.
The story unfolds in a quintessential small American town, home to a typical American family. After a random incident involving the violent deaths of two bandits, the internal dynamics of the household shift. Everyone starts drawing their own conclusions—some reactions are pure instinct, while others feel calculated and, at times, selfish. When asked about parallels to themes found in the work of David Lynch and David Cronenberg, he just said, "I heard of him some scenes"😎
Certain scenes are visually stunning and emotionally heavy, often relying entirely on silence, yet they reveal so much about the characters. The sex scene between Tom (Viggo Mortensen) and Edie (Maria Bello) suggests that the path to climax is often 95% intense imagination tied to fear and dominance, with the rest being almost primal. There's another scene—spoiler alert—where the main character's son, usually a quiet kid bullied by the local high school jocks, sees his father's 'heroic' act and suddenly realizes that maybe solving problems with violence isn't such a bad idea after all.
The violence, particularly the aftermath, is classically Cronenbergian and honestly nauseating. But you shouldn't miss the core question the film poses: can a person truly change? And more importantly, would we even recognize that person if they tried?
Overall, the film is brilliantly executed, mostly because it stays so simple. The pacing, tone, and acting are flawless. For me, it’s the best film of the year so far. Just a small, perhaps unnecessary observation: the title starts with an 'A,' which in my interpretation makes it "a history of violence." After watching it, that title feels oddly appropriate.
I never really grasped why people call this movie "good."
It probably comes down to the fact that, just like any other film, you need some level of connection to a character—or at least a situation that feels familiar or relatable.
It caught me off guard, though. Since this was my "three-quarters better" rental, I ended up surprised by how much of a comedy the first half actually is... some of the dialogue reminded me of those early years we spent together... specifically that whole clash between being a rigid "structuralist" and the "it’s not that big of a deal" mindset. We both found ourselves laughing...
Then you hit that second dramatic half which, I'll admit, feels a little dragged out. But then I find myself focusing more on Penélope Cruz who is just... well... stunning... which makes getting through the rest of the film a lot easier.
Though I have to say, she did a great job in certain spots where words weren't enough; she’d step in with these intense gestures—which we can just chalk up to that vibrant Latin influence—and she'd pretty much command the entire scene.
