/r/TrueFilm

Photograph via snooOG

An in-depth discussion of film

About Us

/r/TrueFilm is a subreddit for in-depth discussions about film.

We want to encourage and support in-depth, intellectual discussion. Clear, polite and well-written responses should be upvoted; opinions should not be downvoted.


Rules (Expanded)

General:

  1. All discussion must be related to film.

  2. No racism, sexism, or other forms of bigotry.

  3. Moderators have final discretion.

Posts:

  1. Threads must promote in-depth discussion.

  2. Threads must point discussion in a specific direction.

  3. Links to outside articles must be submitted in a self-post and are subject to the above posting rules. (Click for video essays)

Comments:

  1. Be civil and don’t downvote opinions.

  2. There is a 180 character minimum for top-level comments.


Follow us on:


TrueFilm Resources:


TrueFilm Projects

Fun and Fancy Free Discussion

Theme Months

What Have You Been Watching

Better Know a Director

TrueFilm Netflix Club


/r/TrueFilm

434,405 Subscribers

3

How Disney Does Culture (LOOONG POST)

Black, Asian, Latino, Indigenous and MENA people have disposable income nowadays and occasionally to see films or shows that feature their people and cultures with dignity. This seems to be a lesson Hollywood has to learn every decade or so. Right now we're living in the midst of a deluge of culturally diverse content. Iwaju, Black Panther 1 and 2, Encanto, Turning Red, American Born Chinese, Kizazi Moto: Generation Fire, Elena of Avalor, Moon Girl, Ms. Marvel, Echo, Prey, Reservation Dogs, Soul, Coco, Ramy, Amphibia, Owl House, Mira Royal Detective, Shang-Chi, Kiya and the Kimoja Heroes and many, many more are movies and television shows developed by the Walt Disney Corporation and it's various subsidiaries that feature non-white/non-Anglo leads and cultures. As globalization brings us even closer together, it makes sense why Disney is doing this. They want to make the maximum amount of dollars possible while also expanding their brand to potentially untapped markets. Right now, that untapped market seems to be Africa, specifically West and Southern Africa. Watching Disney's new animated series Iwaju was kind of an outer body experience. In a million years, I never thought you'd see that quality and style of animation being used to tell an African story. We've definitely come a long way since the days of Song of the South in regards to how the company portrays Black folk or really any non-European culture. Disney gets a fair amount of slack from culture war promoting conservatives and progressives alike for their approach to portraying non-white/non-Anglo cultures albeit for different reasons. But what exactly is that approach and how does it differ from their attempts in the past? In short, how does Disney do culture?

The company's history of utilizing non-white peoples and their cultures to serve the brand is incredibly vast and this write-up would be longer than Roots if I went through all of it. The long and short of it is that up until around 1992 the company either leaned up racial stereotypes to the nth degree or they ignored those cultures altogether. Aladdin was their first attempt to tell a story that was entirely set in a setting in a non-European culture based on a non-European fairytale. After having watched as much behind the scenes material as I could, I can safely say that representation was not on the forefront of anyone's mind during the production of Aladdin. Respectful representation of foreign cultures was a concept then but it just wasn't something that would've been brought up in production meetings the way it is now. Most MENA people I know at the very least enjoy Aladdin if not being slightly annoyed at a few things here and there. The same could not be said for Disney's next non-white endeavor Pocahontas. That will be our focus here: what mistakes did Disney make with Pocahontas and how are they learning from them today.

  1. Authenticity

Aladdin featured zero Middle Eastern/North African people in the cast or crew in any meaningful way that I could find. Pocahontas did have many Native American voice talents and behind the scenes consultants, but none of them were in a position where they could push back against certain creative decisions. Disney did in fact reach out to Powhatan scholars and historians to get their input largely on some things like outfits and dances. Had there been a Native American writer, producer, composer, lead animator or literally anyone with clout then things like Pocahontas falling in love with the first white man she sees, Native traditions and religions being painted as overly mystical and just the overall concept of making a love story about Pocahontas might've gotten vetoed.

In 1995, not much noise was made of the large amounts of Native Americans in the cast. Today, it would've been a marketing focal point. Think about recent films like Moana, Prey, Coco, Encanto and even stuff like Black Panther and Shang-Chi. A huge part of the hype, both genuine and generated, was around the casting. In the lead-up to Prey's release, much of the conversation surrounding the film was about how the director worked with Indigenous communities to ensure a level of authenticity in the film. Articles were written en masse about the impact of a largely Indigenous cast in a story like this. Shang-Chi got a similar reaction as it got closer to premiering. Nearly every interview with the cast brought up the historical impact of a film like this. Moana is the originator of this recent trend in how films like this are presented to the public. That production actually had an Oceanic Story Trust: a group of historians, educators, artists and performers from the Pacific Islands to give input on the story, music, characters etc. The directors and producers have often credited this group for Moana's success and global impact. Indeed the practice has not only become commonplace at Disney but industry wide.

It has become much more common for a project featuring Black, Latino, Asian etc leads to have directors and production teams with people of those backgrounds instead. You best believe the company is trotting out those creative heads at every opportunity. So much so to the point where questions of accurate representation and inclusion rarely come up in regards to these projects these days. Instead inquiries about overall quality take prominence. By using authenticity as a selling point, Disney officially sets the conversation. They are telling you why this is important. They are setting the benchmark by which you will judge this. Sometimes this works. Shang-Chi and Black Panther overall had very good reception during the first couple of years of their release. The conversation was about the cultural impact of these films and what their messages meant broadly for the groups they represented. Issues with writing, visual effects and pacing were present but you tend to hear those criticisms more now than when they first came out. This doesn't always work. Disney announced the cast to it's Lion King 'live action' reboot that was largely Black. There was some slight chatter about it but that could not save it from the fact it was shot for shot remake. It made money but it's not a film that even comes up in The Discourse™ because that's so far down the list of issues with the film.

  1. Messaging

Pocahontas' biggest folly was that the central theme and focal point story wise was not on Pocahontas herself but on the European invaders. At times, she kinda takes a backseat in her own movie. Recent Disney properties manage to avert this in a few ways:

-the story is set in a time period before European colonization or doesn't focus on them much if it does (Moana, Prey)

-the story is set in a futuristic or fantastical setting in which white people would not naturally appear (Black Panther, Shang-Chi, Iwaju, Raya and the Last Dragon)

-setting it in an idealized version of a real non-white/non-Anglo country (Coco, Encanto, Kiya and the Kimoja Warriors, Mira Royal Detective)

-the core theme of the story center around identity leaving white characters in supporting roles (Love Victor, Ramy, Reservation Dogs, Ms. Marvel, Turning Red, American Born Chinese and honestly just about everything else)

That final option is what they tend to go with most often because it squarely fits in the very broad 'Be Yourself' message Disney enjoys fitting into it's projects Post-Disney Renaissance. Themes of direct prejudice are only brought up on occasion and the focus always stays with the victim. We aren't getting long singing and dancing portions of European settlers explaining their misguided motivations anymore. Instead these projects ask 'what does it mean to be Chinese American?' and 'what's it like being a gay Latino teen?'. There is very little finger pointing at anything like systemic racism, forced removals, homophobic laws or intruding imperialist powers. Wakanda Forever is actually noticable for how it calls out Western interference in Africa. If the company can base these narratives around broad things like identity, fitting in and finding your place in the world then it can avoid any questions about its own racially insensitive past and practices. It allows people from outside of said culture in an to relating to the story. The Hulu shows are definitely more biting in their commentary when they do go there. But Ramy, Reservation Dogs and the like tend focus more on the internal cultural clashes rather than solely the external.

You can also sell this a lot easily than you can if your narrative features extended sequences of characters conspiring to commit genocide. Iwaju talks about class separations and social justice in a rather broad way. But nothing gets too granular and intense that the fun video of the main characters dancing to an Afrobeats song seems out of place. Encanto has forced displacement and unrest as a plot point in its story yet that doesn't clash with the characters being plastered on everything from ponchos to paper plates. Pocahontas' main villain being a literal colonizer feels out of place with the light hearted and vaguely mystical way they tried to present that story. It's one thing to make your villain a greedy industrialist. It's entirely another to have him represent actual imperialism and genocide. Modern Disney stories can largely avoid these topics, especially their animated works.

  1. Cultural Experience

Pocahontas doesn't have a ton of presence in the parks or really anything outside of her own movie. She'll pop up with the rest of the princesses in cameos here and there. Occasionally the Disney Store will carry some merch of hers. You don't see Native girls clamoring over her merch the way Black girls devour anything with Tiana's face on it. The company has tried in recent years to separate the character from her film. One way I've seen them try to do that is when she does show up, outside of comedic appearances, usually she's sharing some philosophy from her culture. The problem is that Powhatan culture barely managed to exist in any way that wasn't your more traditional 'buckskins and bare skin' depiction of Native Americans. In many of the recent projects by The House That Walt Built, you get the sense you're actually learning something about that culture and that particular walk of life. Even in something like Ramy, one could still feasibly walk away with knowing what being an Egyptian American is like. Reservation Dogs is much darker and granular about it's dissection of Native life and their relationship with the world around him in a way Pocahontas could never be. But even that show still leaves you walking away feeling like you have some insight into the lives of modern Native Americans. Americans have developed a taste for films and series about and/or from cultures outside of American mainstream culture. Even ethnic groups within the country get this treatment but there's something I like to call the 'Epcot Effect' in play here. While Americans want to engage with foreign cultures they also want to do so in a way that doesn't require a ton of them and is presented in a way that confirms your preconceived notions. Coco was integrated both swiftly and easily into the parks because while the film aimed for authenticity, it also presented a Mexico that was not unlike the one most Americans have in their heads, minus the carteles.

Encanto is possibly going to be the anchor for a new generic South American pavilion at Epcot. They're definitely investing a lot of energy in representing Encanto in the parks. Raya has popped up in Animal Kingdom's Asia a few times. Tiana is right at home in Frontierland which presents a sanitized version of America's past equal to her movie. Disney sure loves being able to tote their curated collections of ethnic content that they trot out during each appropriate month. The corporation has content that appeals to every lifestyle and way of life. They see your unique background, experiences and identity. They would like to hock as much shit as possible to you based on that identity. That's the rub isn't it? Ratatouille's Paris or Mary Poppins' London fits in as neatly to Epcot's France and United Kingdom as Moana would fit into the Polynesian Resort or the Iwaju characters in Animal Kingdom. Which is to say not perfectly but it serves the brand, it involves a popular IP and it gives the company the look of embracing other cultures. We just tend to notice it more when it's with underrepresented groups. Luca is as romantic of a version of Italy you're gonna get and I'm surprised he's not a mainstay in their Italy Pavilion by now. You're never gonna get a truly authentic story about Mexico or Colombia or Nigeria from a multinational conglomerate. I think most people know this on some level but Disney has made its bread and butter on selling fantasies so people want an authentic version of another culture based on that fantasy.

  1. Conclusion

As cynical as I sound, I want to reinforce that I do think that ultimately this is a good thing. Disney is probably doing it for all the wrong reasons but their investment in stories from non-white creators has made an impact in the industry. For one, Disney being so successful at it has had other studios trying to replicate that success. More studios are doing the bare minimum of being inclusive and performing respectful appropriation by having non-white creatives take the helm. That is what they should've been doing anyway but I'll take progress where I can. New voices and talents are being discovered. Our concept of the human experience is slowly being altered to fuller picture because we are getting more stories that add to said picture. Outside of rage baiting YouTubers, Zoomers are much less prejudiced on average than generations before them in regards to thinks like interracial marriage, immigration and living in diverse neighborhoods. Americans are actively engaging with non-Western cultures in a way we haven't since the Post War era. This is the generation that came of age during the full bloom of this boom in diverse content. There has been a definite shift in American media and the people who consume it. I will not say Disney is the sole reason for societal progress. But media does matter. It shapes our perceptions of the world, for better or worse.

Disney has owned some of the biggest media brands in the world for a while now. They are one of the biggest media companies in the world. Many Zoomers first real introduction to African culture may have genuinely been Wakanda, which is both hilarious and depressing. Many Zoomers got their first exposure to Polynesian, Mexican, Southeast Asian and Colombian cultures, among others, through Disney. How they choose to present one group of people could affect how those people are perceived for decades. So if Disney doing a little pandering to Black and brown kids results in the white kids also becoming anti-racist, I'll take it. At the same time, we should remain critical of regressive tropes in media and poorly thought out products when we see them. Media literacy means taking into account how the real world affects art. This becomes doubly impactful when we are discussing how one dominant culture chooses to portray anyone else. We should not let Disney rest on it's laurels and end making the Pocahontas of the 2020's. But we also shouldn't begrudge them for seeing value in our stories and trying to follow through.

4 Comments
2024/03/17
23:39 UTC

52

There's something that feels a bit dystopian about using very modern effects in historical films.

I was watching the 2022 version of All Quiet on the Western Front. I love the 1979 version so I was curious about this version.

Something feels very strange with the Dune-esque Hans Zimmer-ey droning and sound effects and A24/Netflix style lighting and cinematography. It almost feels as if they are rewriting history to fit modern sensibilities and political ideas and the style is used to adjust our minds to a new interpretation of how history should be viewed.

I'm definitely not saying that historical films have to be filmed in a boring or flat style to fit the time era, of course not, but the amalgam of futuristic sounds and effects makes it seem like you're viewing something that is happening now, instead of over 100 years ago. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, because I kind of got the feeling that the message of the film had been twisted and lost and something new was inserted in it's place.

In something like West Side Story, I don't believe this matters, but in highly important political films I think it can be used as a way of brainwashing people over how the past really was. Like the use of these techniques almost turns a historical time period into a "fantastical world", and because it becomes that, it's easier to mold the meaning of that into whatever the creators want.

Am I looking too much into this? It just felt really weird watching this film (btw this was my second watch, I didn't really notice this the first time)

56 Comments
2024/03/17
20:48 UTC

9

What Have You Been Watching? (Week of (March 17, 2024)

Please don't downvote opinions. Only downvote comments that don't contribute anything. Check out the WHYBW archives.

30 Comments
2024/03/17
16:00 UTC

284

One Way "Gen X" Writing & Some Films From The 90's Have Aged Horribly

I recently just watched Noah Baumbach's debut "Kicking and Screaming" and it really dawned on me there was a certain style of Gen X writing in these types of "indie films" (or aesthetically "indie" even if it's not real indie) that I don't believe has aged very well. It's hard to explain but you see it in Reality Bites, Singles, My Own Private Idaho, Fight Club, most of Greg Araki & Richard Linklator's output in the late-80's and throughout the 90's and in the aforementioned Kicking and Screaming; it was this idea that living a normal life, having a stable job, contributing to society, and being an upstanding citizen in any way is horrible and should be avoided at all costs.

I don't know if it was them rebelling against the perceived conformity of the 80's but it was like there was this central idea to all of these films that "fitting in", owning IKEA furniture and living a comfortable middle-class existence was the worst of all possible fates. The reason I believe this kind of writing has aged horribly is because I think nowadays the average Zoomer will look at the Narrator's life before he met Tyler Durden, with his nice one bedroom apartment in the city and all his IKEA furniture, and think...He had it pretty damn good. His drab life, the one he was complaining about is pretty aspirational in this day & age to the average college kid watching it. Even in Kicking and Screaming, it was a few dudes acting like they were destitute bums but all living in a house that is probably worth millions now. I mean how many people in their early-mid 20's can even afford that lifestyle nowadays that was so horrible to these Gen X characters?

Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of these movies but while our Gen X heroes complained about being a corporate cog in the machine while slacking off and trying to focus on their art or whatever, a lot of their problems just seem so minuscule now...especially now in comparison to the enormity of problems Millenials & Gen Z are now facing as the world crumbles before our eyes.

Gen X problems all just seems so quaint

278 Comments
2024/03/17
03:38 UTC

15

Morning Patrol is a love story that is not about people. It is about the existence of love in a dystopian world.

Can love flourish in a world where it's everyone for themselves? Does love exist in a world where trust doesn't exist? Maybe the absence of trust doesn't mean it doesn't exist—and when trust reappears, it could be a gateway to love. A love that is being strengthened by its contrast with the dystopian world—like a little point of light surrounded by darkness... like hope in a hopeless world.

A question I was wondering throughout the film was; why is everyone killing each other? Does our environment push us into being killers, or is it only testing our morality and are we ultimately the ones that make the decision? Are you a bad person if you kill someone? I personally don't think it is an easy answer. Killing is part of humanity—our will to live is often stronger than our morality. It is part of our primal instinct... a part that becomes visible under certain circumstances—in this film those circumstances are survival.

"I'm afraid of death... afraid of dying. Scared of black water and empty sculls."

But what we also see in this film is another reason why they are killing each other, which is the lack of any boundaries and structure—like laws, religion, work or education. These people kill others simply because they can.

Even though there aren't many characters on screen, the film never feels empty or lifeless due to the great set designs. Scenes are framed and staged in such a way that objects from the environment fill the frame. The camera moves along with the wandering characters so that we, the viewer, move through the dystopian environments with them—resulting in the environment becoming a character itself.

The cinematography sets a strong post-apocalyptic tone, which gets even further enhanced by the beautiful Blade Runner-esque score and calm inner monologue that introduces us to this dystopian world. We are not only seeing the lonely woman wandering this post-apocalyptic world... she is also describing it. Why 'show, not tell' if you can show AND tell. The decision to use a voice-over was a great one. I know a lot of people don't like voice-overs in films, but I think it fits the post-apocalyptic world building very well—just like it did with Blade Runner. It gives this feeling that the characters are talking to themselves because they are lonely... as if they are trying to keep themselves sane.

Talking about Blade Runner, the scene in the movie theater reminded me a lot of the scene from the original Blade Runner where Roy and Pris are in Sebastian's house, or the scene where Deckard is fighting Pris in Sebastian's house. The cinematography, the dark lit room, the strange and creepy characters, and their futuristic outfits—all these elements created a very strong Blade Runner vibe, which is always a big positive if you ask me.

Morning Patrol is a great post-apocalyptic film with a philosophical aspect at its core. The simplicity of the plot gives the viewer the room to focus on this philosophical aspect. Overall, a very interesting and overlooked film that I am glad I stumbled upon.

Read this review on Letterboxd

2 Comments
2024/03/16
16:36 UTC

122

Raising Arizona

I’ve been rewatching and catching up on some Coen Brothers’ films and one that I’ve missed out on until now was Raising Arizona. I was genuinely shocked at how funny and heartwarming it was and I thought Nicholas Cage gave the performance of his career (Wild at Heart is close). The cinematography was obviously fantastic, especially for a comedy. In my opinion it was one of the most touching romances I’ve seen on screen in awhile, and although some of the metaphors were pretty unsubtle like the biker representing HI’s irresponsible nature, I fucking loved it. I know it’s well regarded but I don’t see it considered among the best of the Coen Brothers, when I think it should be. Just wondering what people’s general thoughts are on this film. Is it one of their best?

53 Comments
2024/03/16
05:54 UTC

5

Casual Discussion Thread (March 16, 2024)

General Discussion threads threads are meant for more casual chat; a place to break most of the frontpage rules. Feel free to ask for recommendations, lists, homework help; plug your site or video essay; discuss tv here, or any such thing.

There is no 180-character minimum for top-level comments in this thread.

Follow us on:

The sidebar has a wealth of information, including the subreddit rules, our killer wiki, all of our projects... If you're on a mobile app, click the "(i)" button on our frontpage.

Sincerely,

David

3 Comments
2024/03/16
00:00 UTC

0

Dune 2 was strangely disappointing

This is probably an unpopular take, but I am not posting to be contrarian or edgy. Despite never reading or watching any of the previous Dune works, I really enjoyed part 1. I was looking forward to part 2, without having super high expextations or anything. And yet, the movie disappointed me and I really didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would.

I haven't found many people online sharing this sentiment, so I am hoping for some input on the following criticism here.

  1. The first point might seem petty or unfair, but I felt like Dune 2 didn't expand on the universe or world in a meaningful way. For a sci-fi series, that is a bit disappointing IMO. The spacecraft, weapons, sandworms, buildings, armor etc are basically all already known. We also don't really get a lot of scenes outside of Dune, aside from the Harkonnen planet (?). For a series titled "Dune" that totally makes sense, but it also makes Part 2 seem a lot less intriguing and "new" than part 1.

  2. The characters. Paul and Chani don't seem that convincing sadly. Paul worked in Part 1 as someonenstill trying to find his way, but he doesn't convince me as an imposing leader. He is not charismatic enough IMO. Chani just seems a bit one dimensional. And all the Harkonnen seem comically evil. Which worked better gor Part 1 when they were still new, but having the same characters (plus the new na-baron, who is also similarly sadistic, evil, cruel etc.) still the same without any change is just not that interesting. The emperor felt really flat as well. Part 1 worked better here because Leto was a lot more charismatic.

  3. The movie drags a lot. I feel like the whole interaction with the various fremen, earning their trust, overcoming inner conflict etc could've been told just as well in a movie of 2 hours.

  4. The story overall seemed very straightforward and frankly not that interesting. Part 1 was suspenseful, betrayal and then escape. But Part 2 seemed like there were no real hurdles to overcome aside from inner conflict, which doesn't translate well. For the most part, the fremen were won over easily. Paul succeeded at everything and barely faced a real challenge. It never seemed like he might fail to me. So it was basically just, collect the tribes, attack, win. The final battle was very disappointing as well. It was over before it began and there was almost no resistance.

  5. Some plot points and decisions by characters also seemed a bit questionable to me. I don't understand the Harkonnen not using their aerial superiority more to attack the fremen without constantly landing and engaging in melee combat. Using artillery to destroy fremen bases seems obvious. I also don't really get the emperor randomly landing with a giant army on foot in the middle of the desert. Don't they have space ships or other aerial vehicles? I get that he is trying to find Paul, but what's the point of having thousands of foot soldiers out in the open?

I also realize some of this might due to the source material, but I am judging the movie as I experienced it, regardless of whose ideas or decisions it is based on.

200 Comments
2024/03/15
18:30 UTC

43

Caché - Shame

By now we are mostly all familiar with the 1961 allegory – that what happened to the protesting Algerians in Paris led to up to 300 deaths that were covered up for more than 30 years. But I feel even though that historical event is now public, it will forever be important as a reminder of looking inward at our past mistakes.

The videotapes are a symbol. A reality we can see for ourselves. It’s footage. Boring footage, but footage. It shows us moments and truths, whereas what happened in 1961 didn’t even get acknowledged until the late 90s. That atrocity was not recorded. There is literally no footage of it happening. No photos, no news footage. It was easier to cover up.

As kids, George got Majid sent away to an orphanage. He was a jealous child and hated this ‘immigrant boy’ being there growing up in ‘his’ family. He told Majid that his father asked him to cut the head off the rooster. When he did, George told his parents that Majid did it to scare him. The rooster is obviously a symbol of France and today used as a sports mascot. This ‘scary immigrant’ literally cut the head off from the symbol of their country. The scary immigrant had to go away.

Now we call it cancel culture. George having acted in an unacceptable manner fears being ostracized – he gets especially mad when his agent finds out about the tapes; he feels it threatens his career. George is a representation of his generation, the people that swept the 1961 massacre under the carpet. Before he commits suicide, Majid says he’s happy George came to see him. He’s happy because symbolically this whole thing has been exposed. The country concealed its shame in the dark for so long. France can not be, ‘cancelled,’ but it can build a strong, inclusive future.

Things are different in 2024, and they were different in 2005 when the film was released. Pierrot’s bedroom is a great example. He has a Zidane poster on his wall. One of football’s most gifted players and a French legend… his parents both from Algeria. Influences from other cultures are also present on his bedroom wall: Eminem, a white man embracing black culture. Van Damme, embracing Asian martial arts. We embrace other cultures, and even let them become part of our own.

Majid’s son tried his best to shift George’s thinking, but he won’t budge. For his son, Pierrot, and for his generation there is hope. By now we are all mostly aware that Pierrot and Majid’s son appear over the closing credits talking, which has led to many wondering if they were behind the whole thing. I like to think it’s irrelevant. The film is symbolic, and these two young people chatting just shows us two cultural backgrounds getting along, looking beyond a past history of hatred, guilt and shame.

This is part of my video essay which you can watch here if you like. I look at films with a philosophical slant. Thanks.

5 Comments
2024/03/15
16:54 UTC

30

Hypnotic Horror & Nightmarish Trips. What are some other examples?

There is an unofficial genre of film that I love. It's hard to quantify succinctly, but my best attempt is to say films that are usually quite dark and strange without being outright horror and operate on a hypnotic, trance-like frequency. There is usually a signature of surrealism or heightened reality. These movies stand out from other horror films in that the focus is not on jump scares, gore or cliche imagery. They are usually artistic films that operate on a deeper fear in the unconscious and have their own unique visual signature. They sometimes mimic a dark psychedelic trip or use the hallmarks of dreams.

Sound: Music is a fundamental aspect to this genre - usually throbbing or gutteral or pulsating and often takes centre stage in many scenes, even when there is dialogue.

Visuals: Often slow motion and/or psychedelic and/or abstract sequences throughout (not necessarily the whole film).

Acting: Not always, but a hallmark is that these films tend to portray their characters at one end of the spectrum - either heightened melodrama OR completely restrained.

Some of the masterful examples of directors and their films:

David Lynch - Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me; Lost Highway; Inland Empire; Wild At Heart

Robert Eggers - The Lighthouse

Nicolas Winding Refn - The Neon Demon; Only God Forgives

Panos Cosmatos - Mandy; Beyond The Black Rainbow

Andrzej Zulawski - Possession

Halene Cattet & Bruno Forzani - Amer; The Strange Colour of Your Body's Tears

Gaspar Noe - Enter The Void; Climax

Shinya Tsukamato - Testuo: The Iron Man

Andrew Dominik - Blonde

Ben Wheatley - A Field In England; In The Earth

Abel Ferrara - Siberia

Johnathon Glazer - Under The Skin

Harmony Korine - Springbreakers

Jaromil Jires - Valerie & Her Week of Wonders

Juraz Herz - The Cremator

Some borderline examples -

Ari Aster - Beau is Afraid; Midsommar.

Brandon Cronenberg - Infinity Pool; Possessor

Eddie Alcazar - Divinity

Cristobal Leon & Joaquin Cocina - The Wolf House

Adrian Lyne - Jacob's Ladder

Kyle Edward Ball - Skinamarink

Is it clear what I mean? What are some others that I have missed?

34 Comments
2024/03/15
15:40 UTC

212

What do people mean when say they've outgrown Tarintino films?

I've heard several people say this online and I don't really understand what they mean, outgrown to what exactly? It seems to me the idea of outgrowing tarintino films comes from them being playful and not taking themselves entirely seriously, but then you could say exactly the same of Hitchcock, Fellini, Kubrick, Lynch, Early Godard. I mean all there films are nor meant to be entirely taken seriously, none of there films attempt to replicate reality and they don't have obvious meanings and messages on the surface. The depth comes from the film itself not from its relation to reality, there films aren't about real life, there about filmmaking and art the same as Tarintino. So what exactly is there to outgrow with Tarintino, unless you think that good filmmaking should be realistic and about actual human issues like Cassavetes or Rosselini, but I don't really see how you can argue Tarintino films are bad because they don't take themselves seriously and turn around and tell me you like Hitchcock or Lynch. It seems to me its more of a perception issue people have with Tarintino then any actual concrete criticisms, even the stuff about him taking from other films has been done by great filmmakers since cinema started. Blue Velvet for example is absolutely a riff on a rear window but I guess less people have seen that compared to the films Tarintino has allegedly ripped off. I honestly think a lot of this comes from not actually having seen stuff by filmmakers like Hiitchock and Fellini and not realising that the kind of superficiality that Tarintino films have exists in there films too

454 Comments
2024/03/14
06:23 UTC

32

Why do colors look different in old European films compared to American?

Idk how to discribe it but old European films have a very distinct look compared to, lets say, American films. For example, movies like Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant, and Girl With the Gun are all films made in different countries, different people, years apart but I could recognize the fact they're European by the way the colors look. In comparison, American movies( I feel I could be wrong) feel more natural in their coloring(?). Sorry I'm not verbose enough to explain but they just kind of look more naturalistic (or maybe Im just too used to them. I grew up watching American movies).

I recently watched A Matter of Life and Death (UK film), and I was blown away by how modern the colors look. You could've told me it was made in the 70s and I would've believed you. But the colors also look more 'American' — at least my own perespective of American color grading.

Is it due to different film stocks or coloring technology/technique?

12 Comments
2024/03/14
03:54 UTC

1

Poor Things aesthetics/acting question and observation

The themes of Poor Things have been discussed extensively here, but there are two things that I haven't seen mentioned in those posts.

The acting of Mark Ruffalo seems wildly dissimilar to the other actors. Despite the fantastical setting and action, the other principal actors all give what I would consider grounded performances. Even Emma Stone's Bella is connected to reality considering her condition. But Ruffalo is at first an over the top cad or rake. I kept expecting him to twirl his mustache as he drooled over Bella. Then his descent into madness is cartoonish. Is it just me, or does he seem like he's in a different movie? Or maybe you view the other performances as less naturalistic than I do.

The second is the use of the fisheye or peephole effect throughout the movie. What were they trying to convey with that?

37 Comments
2024/03/13
19:23 UTC

10

Question about Monster (2023) by Kore Eda

I recently watched this film and it instantly became one of my top 10 favorites.
Anyone who hasn't had the pleasure of watching this film is doing themselves a disservice. It's a must-see, addressing important themes that deserve widespread recognition.

During a rewatch today, I noticed a potential inconsistency and I'm seeking clarification.

Spoiler alert for those who haven't seen the film.

!In the film's early scenes, we are introduced to the pivotal moment when Minato is found in the tunnel, setting the stage for his mother's relentless pursuit of justice against the professor. As the story progresses, during Saori's third visit, we witness an intriguing development as Professor Hori is led by a young girl to encounter the deceased cat. However, upon closer examination, a discrepancy emerges regarding the sequence of events. When viewing the narrative from Minato's perspective, it becomes apparent that he and Jori had already buried the cat long before the encounter with the mother in the tunnel.!<

!Is this a chronological error? How could the filmmakers overlook this detail?!<

This is simply a curiosity and doesn't affect my overall appreciation of the film.

2 Comments
2024/03/13
19:01 UTC

119

The Zone of Interest and benign totems

Apologies if this exact angle has been discussed a lot, but having just seen The Zone of Interest for the first time 4 days ago, there's something quietly monumental that Glazer and his team pulled off here that I remain floored by.

The horror of the film, for me, is in its use of commonplace objects and places- things familiar to just about anyone- to represent how atrocity stains and encroaches on everyday life. These small signifiers are present in the Höss home, innocent on their own, but in the context of this film are horrifying.

In the days since I've been haunted by images of flowers grown in soil powdered with the recently cremated, a fur coat stolen from a prisoner, a river flush with human remains, boots soaked with blood, a toy drum that sounds like gunfire, a greenhouse reappropriated for a sadistic children's game, the apples that are the lone beacon of hope in the dark... the list goes on and on. Again and again, Glazer gives these common things immense psychic weight.

I've seen some say that the cold, anthropological approach to viewing the Höss family undercuts our ability to identify with them as intended (I disagree!), but what was most effective to me here was the weaponization of things that are strikingly familiar to us now. In the days since watching, I can't walk through my house or past a garden without being brought right back to that emotional place I was in when I finished the film. Being always surrounded by these banal reminders it's allowed it to grow within me; to stick and fester and nag.

It's one of the many effective methods Glazer uses without explicit comment (the sound, the staging, and the use of blocky, rotating edits are sickening in and of themselves, and rightly praised). None of these characters take inventory. Their Eden is filled with stolen and sullied objects, and nothing in the film grounded it in the present tense as much as these flat shots of things I always have within arm's reach.

We know, intellectually, about the weight of the Holocaust and atrocities like it; we feel it and move along or perhaps relegate it to the past altogether, and any cinematic framing of these events tends to make that easier to do. Glazer making these banal objects totems of unspeakable suffering made me truly feel it, and continues to. It's so psychologically effective that in the accumulation of these details over the course of the runtime, I felt like I could smell what the Höss family could not. My stomach clenched at every plume of smoke in the distance. Its shocks were given no purchase to desensitize; rather the opposite was true. The horror mounted in such a gradual, invisible way that I felt genuinely sick by the time it was over.

I'll never look at an apple the same way again, and even if this isn't a new observation, I think that's a powerful achievement.

25 Comments
2024/03/13
18:26 UTC

62

Best of optimistic, uncynical Communist/Soviet cinema

Putting the issue of whether or not a film is propaganda off the table (let's say it's all propaganda), what are some of the jolliest, most idealistic Soviet-era or, from elsewhere, generally Communist, films? I'm a know-nothing in the area but have seen some modern films lately -- Bacurau, Lazarro Felice & First Cow -- as well as Bertolucci's Novecento, that gave me strong, warm and fuzzy feelings about community & companionship in the face of adversity. I found myself wondering what similiar output there was from the OG commie era. What springs to mind for you? Please do expand on the reasons for your choice.

36 Comments
2024/03/13
15:34 UTC

14

Favorite character portrait documentaries?

I've been rewatching a lot of lesser-known Herzog works recently, and was wanting to find more documentaries where it is really just an intimate character portrait.

I love intimate stuff where a director will follow somebody around in everyday life, and it kind of reveals their inner world. I just can't really think of too many other examples apart from Herzog's work.

19 Comments
2024/03/13
07:16 UTC

118

The Lady from Shanghai blew me away

The film is often considered one of Welles' lesser works, if not an outright failure. It was meant to be an hour longer but Columbia cut it to pieces because they just wanted it to be a simple star vehicle for Hayworth. So many believe that it's just an empty shell of an unrealized vision.

But somehow I feel it's part of what makes it brilliant, the entire film is Welles constantly fighting against the constraints of a straightforward mainstream suspense picture and so many beautiful eccentricities and contrasts come out of it as a result.

The whole beginning with the horse carriage among a sea of cars; the bizarre Caribbean cruise, where Welles' sweaty and paranoid glances are juxtaposed with studio-mandated ultra-glamorous inserts of Hayworth singing the title song; a hysterical scenery-chewing Glenn Anders baiting him into an increasingly implausible and convoluted murder plot that basically completely dissolves into dreamlike surreality at the end; the satirical court scenes that foreshadow Welles' own adaptation of The Trial. And then, of course, the funhouse and unforgettable hall of mirrors shootout, which is breathtaking to this day.

It's absolutely insane and essentially plays like a high budget version of Detour, where instead of every shot being held together by duct tape the film has the full backing of a major studio with pristine on-location work and elaborate sets. It basically shouldn't exist but does. I'm sure Welles' intended version would have been great too but I still think it's very special in its current form.

So many great lines too - "Everybody is somebody's fool", "I've always found it very sanitary to be broke", ...

23 Comments
2024/03/13
03:45 UTC

9

I saw Nostalghia at the Film Forum!

I don't recall the last time I found a viewing experience to be so calming. I have also come to realize when it comes to Tarkovsky, reading a summary of the "plot" typically isn't helpful. I think his films are so much more effective when you go in blind and anticipate nothing. That way, you are encouraged to focus on the visuals instead of dialogue. For the most part, I stopped reading the subs early in the film. I just loved watching the interplay between the fire, fog, and water. I haven't seen all of Tarkovsky's work. I have only seen Solaris, Stalker, and Ivan's Childhood. Personally, this is my favorite of what I have seen by far. I may go back for a second viewing!

2 Comments
2024/03/13
00:03 UTC

48

That one thing hidden in plain sight in Dune: Part Two (or is it just me?)

So, hey!

I just watched both parts of Dune after having finished the book a week ago or so. The film does a great job at straightening the plot, clearing up a lot of things that are more ambiguous in the book. On the one hand this makes it more dense and captivating, on the other hand a lot of the religious and political backdrop, as well as the importance of seeing the future / following a prophecy / the mysterious role of spice in general are almost left out in my opinion. The book deals much more with determinism vs. free will, on an individual level ( = Paul) and a bigger scale ( = religion & politics). It's all about following or resisting the prophecy. I think if you haven't read the book much of that which is central to it might seem as added mumbo jumbo and won't captivate as much as it does in the book.

Anyway: Right at the start of the book / film it's a big topic that the leading Reverend Mother above Jessica judges her for having born a son, disrespecting the tradition and the prophecy. It's seen as insolent and blasphemous to try and give birth to the potential "one", against the plan of the Bene Gesserit. Of course one slowly realises that this prophecy is hypocritically used to justify the Bene Gesserit's gain of power. Jessica doesn't really know why she bore a son, it's either because the Kwisatz Haderach finds its way ( = the true prophecy against the evil order) and / or out of love for Duke Leto. Following that the plot really blows up and becomes absolutely epic, large scale, delving into the commencing Jihad.

In the end, in the film at least, it briefly returns to an important emotional and intimate finale (which the plot desperately needs because we humans need to relate to humans): The emperor reveals that he has killed the Atreides House because of Duke Leto's big heart, which he sees as a weakness in political terms. Nice touch, but kinda half-assed.

What's with the relationship of Jessica and the Reverend Mother that seems to be the puppet master behind the emperor? It seemed important in the beginning, right?

Isn't it alluded that she has a personal disliking for Jessica because she bore the messiah? It's like she tried to suppress the actual prophecy (by killing the Atreides) because she doesn't have control over it and she personally isn't the one that's special (basically how every nun wants to be Maria - which is blasphemous in itself). Isn't this a beautifully personal flaw of this almost superhuman being?

Her egotism and lust for power is greater than her respect for the true messiah. It seems like the true messiah finds his way himself and not via decree from the order. Also true love to a good man is needed to produce the messiah. It brings the whole topic of the Bene Gesserit using a religion for their personal benefit down to such a relatable, human, beautiful level. It ties together the whole idea of how dangerous it is to "know" or "believe" a definite future - because the all-justifying power that comes with it is dangerous.

Is it just me or was this conclusion kinda forgotten in the book and the film? Is it just how I would've preferred the plot to have concluded? Or did anyone else also read into this aspect of the plot? It seemed to me like that's what it's all about and then they never really touched it again...

45 Comments
2024/03/12
15:47 UTC

6

Casual Discussion Thread (March 12, 2024)

General Discussion threads threads are meant for more casual chat; a place to break most of the frontpage rules. Feel free to ask for recommendations, lists, homework help; plug your site or video essay; discuss tv here, or any such thing.

There is no 180-character minimum for top-level comments in this thread.

Follow us on:

The sidebar has a wealth of information, including the subreddit rules, our killer wiki, all of our projects... If you're on a mobile app, click the "(i)" button on our frontpage.

Sincerely,

David

3 Comments
2024/03/12
00:00 UTC

23

Nope, American Fiction, and exploitation.

I’m halfway through a rewatch of Nope, and I think that there are some thematic similarities with American Fiction, especially in terms of reducing and exploiting life experiences for a mainstream audience.

American Fiction clearly has a theme of exploiting the black experience and reducing it down to trauma porn for white media consumption. I don’t feel like I need to explain this much, the whole film is about this theme. It’s what gives Monk his disdain for Sintara’s work, and enrages him enough to write Fuck.

This theme is shared by Nope, although in a much more nuanced way. I see it predominantly in Jupiter’s story with Gordy, and how he monopolises on his traumatic experience for profit through his Gordy’s Home museum. The only way he can even tell the story is through an SNL reduction of his experience. The major theme of Nope is capturing spectacle at nearly any cost, and it seems like that cost can be the exploitation and reduction of trauma gained along the way.

31 Comments
2024/03/11
19:23 UTC

977

I know, another Poor Things post... (why I did not see this movie as anti-feminist/creepy)

I finally got to watch Poor Things this week, and prior to watching I had no idea the contention this movie caused. I actually kind of regret seeking out the discussions of Poor Things after viewing, but reading the many arguments did raise some questions for me, specifically why I (a woman) did not see this movie as anti-feminist/creepy when so many people disliked it (or even refused to watch it) for those reasons. At first I wondered, am I not viewing this critically enough? I fairly frequently dislike/reject movies due to their poor portrayal of women/misogynoir, and so I want to break down why Poor Things did not have this effect on me. 

The movie is a fairytale, and an absurdist surreal satire. I think it aims to be entertaining and escapist rather than be a morality tale. While it is reflective of the real world, it also asks the audience to put away their logic and exist in the fantasy world of the film. However, I am going to discuss some of the more contentious parts of this story, and I will use the real world in my arguments.

Bella’s creation by Godwin instantly made me think of the Pro-Life movement, especially in the wake of the overturning of Roe v Wade. Specifically, the way that the movement values the lives of unborn babies over the lives of adult women. In Poor Things, Victoria commits suicide, and a man swoops in and takes this choice from her. He saves her baby rather than saving her, and then steals her body for the purpose of saving said baby. This is an absurd, disturbing, and heightened reflection of a very real threat to women; the Pro-life movement tells us that our bodies do not belong to us as soon as we are with child, and that even if that child is to kill us, we must sacrifice ourselves in order to bring that child into the world. I do not think Poor Things necessarily intended to invoke that issue, but it was the clear connection I made at the start of the film. 

As Bella grows up, it is obvious that this movie is a fantasy. She does not act or age like a real baby would, if this were somehow a realistic thing to happen. We are not meant to track her growth in a realistic way. And while the men in Bella’s life attempt to exploit her for their own devices at every turn, Bella is consistently self-assured, headstrong, empowered, and generally delighted by life. Each man is inevitably tortured by the fact they cannot control her, and they become slaves to their own screwed up obsessions.

McCandles harbors an immediate attraction to Bella, despite his knowledge of what she is, and the fact that at the start of the movie she is basically severely handicapped. This is totally creepy and satirizes the idea that men’s attraction is based purely on the physical appearance of a woman, as well as perhaps the opportunity to possess and control her. However, Bella does not give McCandles the light of day. She is not attracted to him at all, and is not interested in her own appearance or attractiveness one bit. At no point in the movie does she concern herself with the “male gaze.” Is this realistic? Of course not; in the real world, women are socialized to make themselves into pleasing images to men. Bella rejects what society (particularly male society) feeds her (I mean, she literally spits out food the men are serving to her many times). This is one reason I find Bella to be such a refreshing character, and her ability to focus only on her own self-interest and self-satisfaction is one of the fantasies the movie provides. 

Bella is on her own journey of discovering the pleasures of material existence. She quickly discovers the joy of sexuality, much to the shock of the men in her life, who were hoping to control her sexuality for themselves. McCandles tells Bella he wants to wait until they are married before he lets her have a taste of real sex. Upon realizing he will not provide her what she wants, she immediately dismisses him in exchange for the sleazy Duncan. I’ve seen many arguments that Bella’s obsession with sex caters to the male gaze. I disagree. The sex scenes in Poor Things are gross, hilarious, and just generally not sexy. Bella is clearly only interested in sex for her own pleasure. This is highly taboo in the real world, where women are supposed to act like they do not want sex, and especially do not want it for self-indulgence. You’d think this would be a man’s fantasy, and Duncan definitely thinks it is his. However, Bella quickly proves that the opposite is true. While Duncan would have her be his personal sex slave, Bella does not conform to the idea of monogamy or faithfulness. He cannot control her, which drives him hilariously insane, all the while Bella is completely unbothered by his hysteria. Here again is a satirical look at gender: where society has told us men are rational and logical and women are emotional and romantic, Duncan proves to be the ridiculously emotional one of the pair. 

At one point in the movie, Bella realizes she does not need Godwin, Duncan, or McCandles to sustain her financially when she discovers sex work. She does not view being a sex worker as being exploited, rather, she is the one doing the exploiting. She can take men’s money in exchange for something that doesn’t bother her, sex. Historically, sex work has been the path to financial freedom for many women. I know this point in the movie is really problematic to some people, but I don’t really understand why. Some argue that sex work is shown in a positive light where women suffer no consequences, and I say, this movie is a fantasy! I personally love that Bella does not suffer at the hands of men in this movie, despite the fact that they may want her to suffer. I also just love that the film shows sex doesn’t have to be a big deal to women…the real world tells us it does; losing your virginity is precious, being promiscuous is a sign of bad character, etc. But Bella is not bothered with the implications of sex outside of her own pleasure. She also discovers lesbian sex at this point of the movie, and develops the first seemingly genuine romantic feelings for another character in her relationship with Toinette. Surprise! She not only doesn’t need men financially, she doesn’t need them for sex either. She is really free now. 

Obviously I didn’t touch on everything, and there's more I can say about this movie but I don’t want this to be any longer than it already is. I don’t think everything about the film is perfect, but it worked for me and I really enjoyed seeing Bella’s journey. It was impossible for me to be bothered by Bella's "mental age" because this movie is so absurd and fantastical; to me, she is clearly her own unique kind of mythical being and she is not characterized to be an innocent child being prayed upon. It is an interesting plot device to play out a thought experiment, and in my opinion, no more important than that. If you made it this far, thank you for reading, and I am interested to hear about your thoughts on the film.

301 Comments
2024/03/11
15:07 UTC

251

Why Dune Part II shows the importance of weirdness

I rewatched the first Dune in anticipation of seeing the new one this past Sunday. Above all else, the most striking image to me was Baron Harkonnen.

His submergence into the healing oil, dark as petroleum, and then subsequent levitation above it, was so alien to anything I have seen before. The largest and most grotesque character in the film has the most graceful and effortless movement. This, combined with the “minimalist maximalism” of the production design, created an image that burned into my minds eye as something so uniquely foreign.

Now enter Dune Part II. Any notions I had of the strangeness of Part I were completely blown open. While the first half of the film is a somewhat straight forward story of a fish-out-of-water character learning about his new environment, the introduction of the water of life throws the story—thematically, totally, and in terms of pace—in an entirely new direction.

Simply put, the movie gets weird. Fast.

Because of its confidence to lean into the weirdness, and its seeming disregard to cater to a pre-teen audience, this film became one of my instant favorites. I am so tired of the monotony of conformity that has long ran rampant in Hollywood blockbusters, most notably exemplified in the MCU. Conformity was the thing that audiences seemed to seek out, as a common narrative was “well, if I’m going to spend money to go to the theater, I want to know it will be worth it”. These films also had to make sure they won over every demographic, so they come across as safe as possible.

This idea of conformity can be beneficial for attracting a mass audience, and clearly bore fruit for Marvel for almost two decades. Yet with the recent performance of the MCU in the box office, it’s clear audiences are hungry for something new.

Dune provides this fresh film going experience, but disguises it in a clever way—casting.

Can you think of a more conventional cast for a modern Hollywood blockbuster? My shortlist of the most popular rising actors in Hollywood would be topped by Chamalet, Zendaya, Pugh, Taylor Joy, and Butler. They allow a more casual film fan a way into Dune, which otherwise might seem too weird to even try and watch. And on as a cherry on top, the performances are legitimately great.

The box office success of Dune Part II proves the filmgoing audience was ready for something fresh. Who would have guessed that the new thing they wanted was a story about how theology can be weaponized to brainwash a vulnerable population, and how worm piss can give you clairvoyance.

Dune Part II had so many weird moments that it felt like I was watching something entirely new, even in comparison to Villeneuve’s other work. The story blossomed into something larger than the borders of the screen, and now seems to have existed forever in the American film ethos. I feel so grateful to have been able to see this movie in theaters, and to have experienced the power of what truly original filmmaking can do.

As an aside, the score was unbelievable as well

206 Comments
2024/03/11
13:11 UTC

0

Why did Siskel and Ebert focus too much on violence?

I’ve watched hundreds of Siskel and Ebert clips. I love both greatly and almost equally. But i can’t help but notice how much they always have to preface a film as a “violent picture” or not. Or have to shoehorn a long comment about the violence, how mild or strong it is, if it makes the movie worse or not, etc.

Like who ever in the history of cinema cared whether there’s violence or not. People don’t go “man i wanna watch that True Lies film but I don’t know how much violence there is.” Or “Andrei Rublev sounds good. But there’s a violent war sequence in the middle. So i’ll pass.”

Violence, like any other mode of behavior depicted on screen, is just there. It’s either done well or not. But it’s a part of the whole film that you don’t just single it out and focus on as a major point of critique, and to do it to literally every other movie.

They used to be much worse with it in the beginning but they softened up towards the late nineties and began to subconsciously accept it. Still, i can’t believe these guys were really that squeamish. Or do ya’ll not see that too?

55 Comments
2024/03/10
23:55 UTC

9

Ending of The Mirror by Tarkovsky

I just watched the mirror last night, and the whole movie made an impression, especially the end. I wanted to ask if I'm interpreting the last part right: You see a structure overgrown with bushes and abandoned. I thought this structure was supposed to be the former home of Ignat and his mother. Is that what it is supposed to be? To me this symbolized the brevity of everything. What was once a place where so many childhood memories take place, and where a beautiful woman once lived, is now abandoned, surrounded by overgrown bushes and weeds, with only a few piles of wood left from what was once their home.

What resonated with you most about the Mirror?

26 Comments
2024/03/10
21:56 UTC

0

Oppenheimer, Poor Things, and the Isolation of Cinematic Contrarianism.

Cinema is an interesting art form, is it not? The amalgamation of every other major form of art, the greatest films can provide a truly immersive, potentially life changing experience. Of course, this being art, there is an inherent subjectivity to the enjoyment and experience.

I believe that we all experience great films differently, as it is impossible to have a homogenous viewing of a truly well-made film. All this is foundational to the cinema, and there is nothing groundbreaking about stating that our enjoyment of art is subjective and largely based on our own values, viewpoints and background. What is unique, however, is the isolation that often results when one goes against the current with regards to a particular film; sometimes, we love what everyone else hates--which is potentially frustrating on its own--but I believe true isolation results when one is against what everyone loves.

Enter Oppenheimer and Poor Things.

To be blunt, I disliked both of these critically vaunted films, for different but somewhat related reasons. Oppenheimer, I believe, sits firmly at the bottom end of Nolan's filmography, just above Tenet and The Dark Knight Rises, which occupy the last two positions. Nolan's latest film felt like a Wikipedia entry delivered with the pace, tone and technique of a sci-fi action film; in other words, it is the equivalent of Tenet as a biopic.

Poor Things, on the other hand, was an incredibly frustrating exercise in the most surface level feminism possible, i.e. women can best find themselves through trifling sexual encounters, as such trysts are some sort of shout of freedom against the oppression of men. While sexual freedom is certainly a major part of feminism, it is not the saviour of women, nor do I believe framing it as of greater importance than actual self-exploration and understanding is beneficial. The bulk of the sexual scenes past a certain point felt like titillation and simple-minded "adult filmmaking". I would have much preferred multiple scenes of Bella attending socialist meetings and medical lectures, as this would have given a more fully formed picture of what informs her perspective on the world after she is thrust into the proverbial light after breaking free of the domineering male figures in her life. Alas, the filmmakers obviously disagreed, and we were treated to interminable sex scenes that stopped saying anything meaningful fairly early on.

I have long accepted that it is impossible to ever have consensus with viewers or critics around all films, but this is the first time in over a decade of serious exploration and engagement with our wonderful film that I have ever felt so at odds with criticism and audience reactions to two films, especially two major award frontrunners as these two are.

The praises heaped on these two films are in the exact opposite realm of what I consider to be their strengths and weaknesses. All that is fine, but it certainly leaves me wondering how much longer dissenting voices are going to have significant platform to express their difference of opinion. It seems that, increasingly, the pervasive sports team mentality that has polluted politics and mainstream movies is making its way even to more "artistic" films.

The vitriol and disdain usually reserved for political opponents or those who don't believe that Marvel's previous output is precious cinematic gold has seeped its way to more serious film discussion. Very few people seem able to engage in level-headed discussion about a film's merits and faults without seemingly taking a personal stand and declaring all differing opinion as simple contrarianism, trolling or hating. The rise of review aggregation being utilised as both a cudgel and shield has certainly not helped issues.

The upshot of this is that one either learns to stay silent in discussion about these films or simply resigns themselves to the fact that the cinematic landscape has shifted enough to where what we recognised and loved is no longer what we should expect from beloved contemporary films.

Certainly, it would be disingenuous to imply that this is the case for all highly praised films. I was utterly engrossed and enamoured of Anatomy of a Fall, Killers of the Flower Moon, Past Lives, and a number of other awards contenders. However, given that the two films in the header are likely to win a bulk of Academy Awards in a few hours, the oppressive feeling of isolation, of looking through an increasingly narrow doorway, is stronger than ever.

64 Comments
2024/03/10
21:08 UTC

6

What Have You Been Watching? (Week of (March 10, 2024)

Please don't downvote opinions. Only downvote comments that don't contribute anything. Check out the WHYBW archives.

20 Comments
2024/03/10
16:00 UTC

2

Cinematography in Cabrini

Just saw Cabrini last night and firstly I think it was an excellent movie about America's first saint. Really touching, extremely well done in my opinion.

My main take away is actually about the cinematography. This is perhaps the most beautiful movie I have seen in the last decade, maybe ever. Every shot is a masterpiece. The cinematographer is Gorka Gómez Andreu, someone I have frankly never heard of. He has also done "The Sound of Freedom" (another Angel Studio film) but I have not seen that. Scroll through a few of the photos available on IMDB to get the idea, that is the entire movie. I was blown away.

Has anyone else seen it, and do you agree with my take?! Also any other lesser know films with great cinematography you can recommend? My favorite cinematography is in Tokyo Story, but this is giving it a run for it's money

1 Comment
2024/03/10
15:34 UTC

52

Stalker (1979): Disenchantment of rationality and the disillusionment of salvation

Three men wander into the Zone, a desolate area where a meteorite has impacted and now allegedly houses a room that can both make one's deepest desires come true, as well as kill all those who dare to conquer the hermetically sealed of location. Even though these two final outcomes don't materialize at all during the film, these fears and wishes still grasp the protagonists and determine there every move. For the viewer, more than anything else, the threesome seems irrationally afraid of their own shadow.

Both the physicist and the writer are men of knowledge who hold high status in society, but are still battling a certain feeling of existential uneasiness which drives them to risk it all to make it to the room.

The physicist is a man of science for whom the natural world houses ever less mysteries because of the rapid development of our knowledge of the world. So he ought to know better, but still fears the room because of his disillusionment in the motives of mankind. He fears what may happen when a malevolent individual wanders into the room and makes his desires come true. The enlightened idea that knowledge of the world will eventually solve the world's ills clearly hasn't materialized, which is ironically symbolized by the nuclear weapon he has constructed himself to destroy the room, thereby projecting his cynicism on mankind.

The writer is a man of knowledge himself, but he realizes he has made a career out of his own self-wallowing - as many artists do. He values the natural sciences, but argues against the physicist that his interest in the humanities looks for a more profound understanding of the world and is actually a more complex endeavour for every time you seem to grasp the meaning of life, it seems to slip away.

He says: "At any rate, all your technology, all those blast furnaces, wheels, and suchlike hustle and bustle... they're all crutches. Mankind exist in order to create works of art." He calls this the only unselfish activity as it creates grandiose images for people to believe in, while actually he's quite aware of his own Faust-like hedonism and nihilism which he uses to attract people around him while slipping into alcoholism. The physicist is bothered by the confrontation as he tries to dose of after the long march. He replies by implying the writer is a fantastic person as it's the sciences that cure illnesses and can solve world hunger, something he clearly doesn't believe in himself anymore.

Disenchantment is a term coined by Weber in the early 20th century and has been a theme ever since the romantic reaction against the enlightenment, scientific and industrial revolution. The banishment of God from the world disenchants the world, without the sciences seeming to have given us the feeling of salvation we appear to long for. It is this disillusionment that drives the writer and physicist towards the room. The belief in something greater or in human salvation, which is partly but a masquerade for the secret desire for world domination.

This is brought up by the Stalker's story about his predecessor who thought he was wishing for the revival of his brother, but who only became rich after entering the room and therefore had far less noble desires than he though he had. The Stalker comes to term with this inherently lingering selfishness of mankind by returning to his family and letting his wife take care of him.

The dog he brings back shows that man's true salvation is at best found in companianship and camaraderie. His daughter being able to use telekinesis and seeing the world in a brighter color than the adults can, are there to show that every new generation believes in a better world. She gives hope to the viewer. She recites the poem with the title "there has to be more"

The wife of the Stalker has accepted the male desire for greatness and the misery it brings with it, for it also gives her an interesting life. Where the viewer at times gets bothered with the irrational longing and fears of the stalker and his companions, the wife has for a long time smilingly accepted the uneasiness men bring over themselves.

3 Comments
2024/03/10
13:08 UTC

Back To Top