21 Grams

[Jeremy Blackman]

I found Mystic River to be a lot more enjoyable, because with movies like Mystic River, there's at least a chance that every thing's going to turn out okay, there's hope.

Ugh, I couldn't disagree more with this kind of approach to movies or art.

Me too.

The world is full of sad endings, and if you don't tell the truth, you become obsolete and meaningless.

I don't think art should compromise, especially not for the comfort of the viewer.

[godardian]

did you not see the word personally on my post ? When did I try to moralize "like that" ?  I simply stated that it was difficult for me personally to connect with her character, because of personal beliefs.  

It always kind of scares me when people moralize like this about characters in movie, especially movies like 21 Grams, where they're trying to get these people to behave like "real" people.

when the movie is obviously done in a way to present real characters with flaws, (like 21 grams) there is always going to be some characters that connect with some people, while others simply wont.  this is obviously not like a crappy rom-com with characters designed to delight everyone in their target audience, hence why people will judge the characters like people judge others in real life. It happens. People ARE judgemental of others, some act accordingly, others can look past it and dont.

Hypothetically, instead of Mary, my post could had been aimed at Jack Jordan's character, saying that i could not muster any sympathy for him because i felt he was blinded by religion and i have trouble tolerating  religious fanatics. Would that make any difference? No, i would just be stating a personal reason why a character could not connect with me.

But you said you "didn't like" Mary. I would never live like Jack and I do find his kind of zealotry to be frightening and potentially destructive (hitting that little boy, man... come on), yet I still "liked" him, wanted him to come out okay in the end, and believed he was trying to do what was best, in the best way he knew how. Just like Mary. Of course people are judgmental, but this categorical dismissal just bugs me. It doesn't seem at all in keeping with the spirit of the film. It's kind of a double standard, really, in my view, to single out one bit of selfishness or ill-advised action on the part of one character, when every character in the film is cut from that same (human) cloth.

I wasn't offended by anyone saying they think art/movies shouldn't be "depressing." I was just saying that I couldn't ever see it that way, and that it's about 180 degrees from the way I do see it. Do want it to be a disagreement, don't want it to be an unfriendly disagreement.

I like the recurring "Good movie, though." It's like the "Not that there's anything wrong with that" on Seinfeld.  

[bonanzataz]

after watching this movie, i wanted to give naomi watts a hug. i get too involved in these types of movies. people wonder why movie stars are so revered in our society. my obsession with actors comes from a good performance that makes me want to sit down not with the actor but the character and say, "you okay, buddy? you want a soooooda?"

dard, you said something about mystic river before, i'd like to know what you thought about it.

[ProgWRX]

Well maybe i didnt express myself correctly from the get go. I could certainly feel for her character in the way she chose to stick to Paul during his sickness, which has to take incredible strength, but lets say that the issue i had with her "selfishness" prevented me to move that important notch from simple pity, to empathy.

[thedog]

I found Mystic River to be a lot more enjoyable, because with movies like Mystic River, there's at least a chance that every thing's going to turn out okay, there's hope.

Ugh, I couldn't disagree more with this kind of approach to movies or art.

Me too.

The world is full of sad endings, and if you don't tell the truth, you become obsolete and meaningless.

I don't think art should compromise, especially not for the comfort of the viewer.

It sounds like you guys didn't exactly understand what I said.

*mystic river spoilers*

The reason I made the comparison to Mystic River, along with it being fresh in everyone's minds, is because you don't know how it's going to end, because it's told in sequence. It's definitely a sad movie, no doubt. There's nothing very happy about the movie. But the reason it's easier for me to enjoy is because while I'm watching the movie, even though in the back of my mind I know it will probably have a sad ending, there's still that small chance that the end will actually be happy, that they'll find out who the real killer is before Sean Penn gets the chance to blow Tim Robbins' brains out. Of course, this wouldn't necessarily be a good ending, it just makes the experience easier and more enjoyable to watch.

But what if Mystic River decided to take the non-linear structure, and within the first ten minutes or so they showed Sean Penn killing Tim Robbins? The movie would be depressing, because I know for a fact that everything is going to turn out for the worse even before I understand exactly what's going on in the story.

*end spoilers*

I do agree that sad endings are a part of life and no life is perfect. Everyone dies. But lets say you found out that you were going to be run over by a truck in one week, every moment leading up to that sad ending of your life would be extremely depressing. Because it isn't natural to know how things are going to turn out, if everyone knew how their lives were going to turn out, everyone would be depressed. That's what 21 Grams was kind of like for me. Before I got a chance to say "I hope everything turns out okay", it showed me that it isn't going to turn out okay, and that was in the first ten minutes or so.

Don't get me wrong, it's not bad. Actually it's kind of clever. But it definitely makes a sad story even sadder.

[RegularKarate]

It's not like they give you the exact ending...

in fact, it reveals more and more to make you feel like you don't really know how it's going to end... besides, the end of 21 Grams was happy and wasn't shown anywhere BUT the end.

[Gloria]

I finally saw this movie.  It was exactly what I expected it to be and nothing more.  I think I may have read too much about this movie, so it lost a little bit of its edge on me.  But I still found it engrossing and powerfully acted.  Benicio del Toro is brilliant and I think he was the best in this movie.  Sean Penn and Naomi Watts were also really great, but I think it was Benicio that really took over.   Each of the characters were portrayed in such an indifferent light, which was refreshing.  The audience wasn't beat over the head with bad/good guy roles.  We were left with our own opinion on the characters and the decisions they had to live with.  I wish I didn't know so much about the film when I went in to see it, but I still found it deep and moving at times.

[ono]

Spoilers possible.

Just saw this tonight, along with five other films in the past two days.  It's been a great weekend.

what i kept asking myself during the movie was, does showing us this out of order actually do anything? like, would this have been just as good or made any real difference in telling this story had it just been told in order? and i am not sure of the answer.

Same thing I was thinking.  And for me, this movie didn't work nearly as well as I was led to believe it was.  The first 30-40 minutes were really clunky, and it was all because of the director's insistence on telling a story in this non-linear fashion.  Soon enough though, I did get in a groove and was able to follow without thinking about it, but I felt the technique was more distracting than helpful.  I'd want to see a linear cut of this movie to measure it on its own.  Yeah, Naomi Watts was amazing.  The swimming scenes reminded me of Kieslowski's Blue, but I don't know if that's just a coincidence.  There's a lot that this movie could make you think about, but a lot more that makes you wonder if the actions of the characters are really believable.  Since we must suspend disbelief in a film, that really is a moot point, but if we've thought about it, it brings up a weakness in the film.  So I'm not sure what to make of that.  Needless to say, the ending was weird, bittersweet, and gave us a bit to think over, and I felt a bit cheated at the little surprise twist at how Penn's character got shot.

I really don't know how to "evaluate" this film.  It seems in some ways to belie that because it is so unique.  I admire it a lot, and finally felt some sort of smile of appreciation creep up on my face once Penn's and Watts' characters interacted more.  Don't know why that is.  But still, I feel a lot of people are overpraising this, just like they overpraised City of God.  Still, a good film.  ***½ (8/10)

[Jeremy Blackman]

But still, I feel a lot of people are overpraising this, just like they overpraised City of God.

1. 21 Grams
2. City of God

[ono]

Heh, yeah.  The only reason I brought that up is I noticed the same people who seem to absolutely love this movie love City of God as well.  It's a funny parallel to draw, but somewhat true, because both films employ techniques that the people who love the film call "revolutionary" and "brilliant," while the detractors say that these elements hold the film back and mask a much simpler, less compelling story.

But don't get me wrong, this film works, and it does so because Naomi Watts and Sean Penn are astounding.  Del Toro makes you hate him good, so he should get props, too.  It really made me sick seeing his crazy interpretation of Christianity, as it probably should have.  And that was just one of the many compelling elements of the film.  My gripe, as I said before, is hard to put my finger on, but it does lie somewhere within the choice of technique.  And since I've read Inarritu's opinions on technique (forget where, I think it was in a local independent weekly newspaper), I can see where he's coming from and still disagree.  The phrase "eschew obfuscation" fits well here, I was thinking during the film.

[Gamblour.]

Man, y'all have really got me questioning the necessity behind this film's structure. At first, I thought it was just as valid for it to be nonlinear rather than linear. I mean there is no actual reason driving the structure like a movie like Memento, that provided an extra insight into what Lenny's life was like, it was completely useful and well-used, I think. But now, the restructuring of 21 Grams seems almost unnecessary and pointless. But maybe that is the point, perhaps this is just an exercise for Inarritu, he's showing that nonlinearity can work just as well as linear storytelling.

I want to talk about comparisons to the benefits Resevoir Dogs gets from its structure, but I haven't fully thought about it yet.

Also, Ono, what are Inarritu's thoughts on technique?

[Jeremy Blackman]

Man, y'all have really got me questioning the necessity behind this film's structure . . . now, the restructuring of 21 Grams seems almost unnecessary and pointless.

I still think the structure is perfect...

I liked how it was constructed like painful memories, shattered and broken, unwilling to resolve.

[Sanjuro]

yes i finally saw this... and i loved it. everything has been said already
as for the structure i guess it had both its good and bad points. for me, structure wise it started working better toward the ending. but yes it does make the movie predictable, but i guess innaritu knew this wasnt really important.  i guess he wanted to show more how these were all merely incidents in the lives of these 3 people that had happend and no matter what happens or goes on first youll always reach the same dest. whats important was the specific incidents itself which happend to the characters . and although yes at times some (few) parts lose its power, i think its really meant to be a steady emotional build up to the end which is its emotional peak. its like he built it up till the very end so you can walk out of the theatre with that emotion made to last. such a powerful story , and still powerful storytelling.

[NEON MERCURY]

....i have heard that the reasoning of the nonlinear structuring of the film ...was to keep it  like real life.....to explainnn....the writer who i think his last name is Arrigia....explained that when you overhear bits of connnveration(i.e. evesdroping)....you donnn't hear the "beginnning".but rather the middle then if you keep on listening to the connnversation you can pick up on past details and present...etc......this could paralell also when you youirself first enngage in connnversatioon with someone you meet.....ffor example-when you first meet someone you donn't ask....."when were you born and where"?.......most people  "small talk"....which openns doors for fleshing out deatails and sh*t .like that......so when you unnderstannnd that the Arrigia's method of the story was to envoke ...a "real life cinnematic connnvesation per se".......the structure is completely valid IMO.......
also as a bonus i had a "funn" time peicing the puzzle together......usually the nonlinear ennnvolves more of an participant of the filmgoer......which is cool....

[modage]

understandably, but it felt like kind of a cheat since it was done for no discernable reason other than to 'quickly and easily' make a 'difficult art' film that engages the viewers.  i didnt see it as an aid to that particular story other than to mask an otherwise possibly melodramatic standard story of loss with that 'quick art' method.