Nomadland (2020)

electriccanyon26 said:The system exploits everyone—you’ve got the whole argument upside down...

If someone turned things upside down, then it’s the lady director. She views—or rather, presents—that system as benevolent. That's why she gets the Oscar. Her protagonist is an agoraphobic living within a system that allows her fulfillment, not mine.

northerncrane4 said:If someone flipped the script, it’s because she's the director. She views the system through a benevolent lens. That's why she gets an Oscar. Her protagonist is an agoraphobic living in a system that actually facilitates her fulfillment—not mine.

She’s basically a pro-China subversive celebrating everything, even the worst aspects of the USA. 😁

That’s exactly why the Academy and those bribed critics with their fake reviews adore her. 🙂

edit: btw, has anyone actually seen her previous two supposedly "good" films?

northerncrane4 said:If someone flipped the perspective, then it’s the director's doing. She views or portrays the system through a benevolent lens. That's why she gets the Oscar. Her protagonist is an agoraphobic living within a system that allows her to find fulfillment—unlike my experience.

No, you just saw fulfillment in the most depressing film of the year.

electriccanyon26 said:No—you're watching the most depressing film of the year and calling it fulfillment.

I suspect the issue is my own viewing history—I've sat through "Easy Rider", "Midnight Cowboy", and even this year's American contender "Atlantis". "Nomadland" is just inherently bleak, much like Pixar's "Soul".

I didn't see any depression in this movie. Depression is an emotion, and this film is totally lacking in any kind of emotion whatsoever.

This movie is just another one of those Oscar winners destined to be forgotten by tomorrow, swallowed whole by the sheer chaos of actual life.

Just like Artist, Green Book, Parasite, or Shape of Water...

On to the next one...

Moonlight. I remember how critics were all over it that year, claiming it was going to be some instant cult classic, only for it to pretty much vanish from the conversation by the next year.

Glad I checked out this unconventional flick. The mountain scenery and storytelling style gave me bits of *Easy Rider* mixed with classic Western vibes, though with one major twist: a real Western always has a clear villain. Here, our lead is Fern, a widow living life on the move in her van, crossing paths with others following the same nomadic path. There isn't a visible bad guy. If anything, the closest things to villains are the massive corporations that collapsed after the 2008 crash and left workers out in the cold. Yet, ironically, these same corporations are practically the only seasonal employers available to Fern and her crew. But that’s not the point. This movie isn't about villains; it’s about the everyday people who chose this wandering lifestyle—their struggles, their tragedies, and their small wins. The people we see are essentially playing themselves, while Frances McDormand completely disappears into the role of the gritty, somewhat detached Fern. Definitely recommend it if you're into slower, documentary-style films with stunning landscapes and great music as a bonus.

This film is a straight-up masterpiece. It’s basically Mad Max playing out in our actual everyday lives.

Emily Young76 said:In this one, our lead is a widow named Fern living life on the move—out of her van, meeting others with a similar lifestyle—but there isn’t really a villain to be found.

It's an obvious trend now. Neither “Druk” nor “Soul”—both Oscar winners—feature an actual antagonist. I'd link this directly to the dictates of political correctness—or rather, political opportunism—where having a villain is too risky; if any specific identity group sees themselves in a negative character, the film is finished.

Exactly my point. Besides, the real issue with Hollywood is that they’ve become so incredibly dim-witted in their own literalism that ever since Trump, they can’t even begin to grasp who or what their actual enemy is anymore.

This movie was clearly engineered specifically to chase the festival circuit—and it succeeded. Honestly, the caliber of this year's nominees is about as impressive as the Oscar viewership numbers.

I’d try to write two or three insightful critiques, but frankly, even this film isn't worth the breath. It just infuriates me—living in an era where such mindless, hollow cinema actually picks up awards. We've entered a strange age for art.

Nice

And that is essentially the crux of it...

The movie itself felt pretty lukewarm; nothing really hit home or forced me to sit and dwell on the subject matter. The acting is solid enough, the characters follow a predictable path, and the story doesn't offer much in the way of surprises. What actually worked for me was the overall vibe—the atmosphere kept things interesting. Between the visuals, the score, and the performances, there’s a compelling mood that prevented the experience from feeling like a slog.
With films like this, I usually enjoy seeing how life unfolds in those small, tucked-away towns scattered across a massive country like the USA—showing us a side of life we wouldn't immediately associate with the States. I love those moments where you can actually feel the pulse of a specific community or a local way of life.

Ultimately, though, this isn't the kind of film that sticks with you; they squeezed everything they could out of the theme and then called it a day. I was genuinely relieved that it didn't lean too hard into being overly sentimental, even though we're watching a pretty bleak situation unfold. They managed not to overplay the drama. One thing is for certain, though: I have zero intention of watching this again.

It’s a decent film, though it isn't quite Oscar material. It captures that Wenders atmosphere, and the score by Ludovic Eunaudia is excellent. I think McDormand got a bit too immersed in her role, given she showed up to the Oscars looking quite disheveled. Personally, I preferred Carey Mulligan in Promising Young Woman.
I appreciated the movie because it doesn't go looking for scapegoats, unlike those pathetic American film productions where everything revolves around blaming imaginary villains.
I read somewhere that homeownership in the USA has risen to 69%, while in Germany it sits at 52%, and in places like Romania or other parts of the US, it exceeds 75%. So, one shouldn't view this film as a reflection of a growing homelessness trend...

It was perceptive of someone to note that the Nomadland people are simply built that way. They value freedom, they can find work within a month, they travel, and they enjoy socializing around a campfire with some drinks and a gun... if you have a good RV, a person can truly enjoy that lifestyle.

Even Vedrana Rudan weighed in with her take:

https://www.rudan.info/ljepota-bijede/

A perfect article title.

Visually stunning... nature looks amazing.
A friend talked me into seeing it, though I was actually craving that other one with Statham... ended up watching Nomadland instead. Left the theater feeling okay... at least I didn't fall asleep. 😁

Passable rating. Might download it to watch again at home...

It hits on a real issue, too—homelessness is huge in the USA. Sadly, you see it all over New York now, people huddled together on the subway late at night, sleeping and clutching their plastic bags. It's becoming more common. There’s nothing romantic about it...

If nothing else, Fern at least had options. She could've stayed with her sister or a friend. So she was in a slightly better spot than most...

Morgan Newman7 said:It's a relevant topic—there are plenty of homeless people in the USA, too.

Except we don't actually see a single one in the movie.

🙂

My bad, forgot they were unhoused, not homeless.

But even if his sister hadn't stepped in when the car broke down... where was she gonna sleep? In some city shelter? If she was lucky...

Morgan Newman7 said:🙂

My bad—I forgot they identify as "houseless" rather than "homeless."

But even if her sister hadn't stepped in when the car broke down—where exactly would she have slept? In some crowded municipal shelter? If she was lucky?

She’s able to live that way specifically because she has a safety net—not to mention a social structure that makes that lifestyle possible.

I honestly struggle to connect with how poverty is portrayed in Western movies. Most of the time, what they depict as "struggling" looks like a much easier life than the reality we deal with here in the States.
I’m not talking about the homeless population, since that’s one of the few issues that isn't a massive epidemic here—most people actually own something.

In this particular film, I don't see impoverished transients. Instead, I see people traveling the country in RVs and picking up seasonal gigs. I find it hard to feel much sympathy for them when I look at people right here in America who rely entirely on summer tourism jobs, only to get ripped off by employers when it comes time to pay up. I see people grinding away for maybe 3000-$1333 a month, trying their best to raise kids and build a life on that.

To be honest, that kind of social commentary in Western cinema has never really moved me, especially when it’s coming from British or Scandinavian films.