Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
News and Theory / Re: Assorted movie news
« Last post by jenkins on Today at 05:49:56 PM »
2017 WORLDWIDE GROSSES

Worldwide   Domestic / %   Overseas / %
1   Beauty and the Beast (2017)   BV   $1,262.9   $504.0   39.9%   $758.9   60.1%
2   The Fate of the Furious   Uni.   $1,238.8   $225.8   18.2%   $1,013.0   81.8%
3   Despicable Me 3   Uni.   $1,015.7   $261.4   25.7%   $754.3   74.3%
4   Wolf Warrior 2   HC   $870.3   $2.7   0.3%   $867.6   99.7%
5   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2   BV   $863.4   $389.8   45.1%   $473.6   54.9%

2
This Year In Film / Re: mother!
« Last post by pete on Today at 04:35:13 PM »
I think this film has a very college grasp on what an allegory is, and is kinda lazy with its own writing, hence the rift in consensus right now. I see Aranofsky kinda trying to channel his inner Von Trier, but Von Trier - even at his most manipulative/ exploitative/ smarmy, still put in the work and still made sure the audience would be invested in what was happening on screen. This whole film felt like an explanation video for a better movie. I think this man hides behind the buzzword "allegory" to deflect from having to write an actual female character.
3
This Year In Film / Re: mother!
« Last post by Cloudy on Today at 03:43:41 PM »
you're right, but i think it's a very fake self-loathing confession. . . . and i can appreciate that.
4
This Year In Film / Re: mother!
« Last post by Jeremy Blackman on Today at 03:42:38 PM »
[CONTINUED SPOILERS]

Whoa, I completely disagree. I think the movie is clearly part confessional, complete with an actress in the beginning who looks like Rachel Weisz, Aronofsky's ex-girlfriend. The artist in this story is deliberately characterized as selfish and needy. He acknowledges but willfully ignores his wife's feelings. He just sits in this house doing nothing until he receives an adequate amount of praise and drains enough from those around him. His need to be praised and worshipped leads to tragedy and then the apocalypse. This is most unflattering depiction of an artist that I can remember seeing. Are you suggesting that was all accidental?
5
This Year In Film / Re: mother!
« Last post by Cloudy on Today at 03:17:46 PM »
this kind of talk about the movie, and the allegories the movie tries to force upon itself makes me also think the artist who made this is just like the Javier Bardem character.

a movie about an artist who has zero self-awareness. don't blame it on god, the earth, climate change? whatever, fuck I am a fucking asshole who creates these kinds of life catastrophe's, selfishly destroying the people who love me for this art. and I spark these allegories to distract the viewer and myself that I am this way.

i enjoyed it for sure, but vay... it's probably true that the best stuff comes when you have zero distance from your work.
6
This Year In Film / Re: mother!
« Last post by Jeremy Blackman on Today at 12:28:53 PM »
Personifying the earth as a Mother wanting a perfect home has some beauty too it, and maybe even enough to validate it for me, but it also supposes that the earth gives a shit. In reality we're not destroying the earth, the earth is just earthing away, we're just destroying our ability to live on it.

This is how I see it. As I was describing, Mother doesn't literally represent the earth ó she is Mother Earth, and Earth is her creation. She is the "inspiration" (as Javier Bardem says) that makes earth possible. So as the actual creative force behind Earth, Mother would be acutely interested in Earth's beauty as well as its structural/physical integrity. We see this throughout the film. Mother is constantly going around checking on things and fixing things, making sure her home remains in working order and in good aesthetic condition.

So Aronofsky presupposes that our actual earth does have a kind of "spirit" to it. If that idea repels you, I can see being resistant to this angle.

But still, all this aside, I definitely connected more with the feeling of personal space being invaded

I basically agree. For sure, the biggest initial impact the movie had on me was as an introvert's nightmare.
7
This Year In Film / Re: mother!
« Last post by Just Withnail on Today at 11:54:47 AM »
I agree, itís more than blatant enough, and I completely agree with your plotting out of the allegory, that was exactly my thinking about it as well. I'm not saying I'd actually want the imagery to be more obvious, I'm just asking what these spesific ones add to the allegory. Why choose this spesific way to tell it?

Personifying the earth as a Mother wanting a perfect home has some beauty too it, and maybe even enough to validate it for me, but it also supposes that the earth gives a shit. In reality we're not destroying the earth, the earth is just earthing away, we're just destroying our ability to live on it. Not become silly about it, but a more accurate allegory would be actually inviting the people in and then they trash the place. Or making a beautiful hotel. Haha. Sorry, this is getting silly. And anyways, this is Aronofsky's vision and I don't need to agree to find it beautiful and interesting.

But still, all this aside, I definitely connected more with the feeling of personal space being invaded, than the for me more distant thought of humanity invading the earth. Of course, watching it, both these things were constantly flittering back and forth in my brain, so Iím not saying I want to force a choice. It can be both. ALLEGORY! Ta-da!
8
This Year In Film / Re: mother!
« Last post by Jeremy Blackman on Today at 10:53:18 AM »
SPOILERS

When Iím trying to think of how the plot fits into the climate change allegory, it all fits very neatly, but Iím not sure if I feel the imagery does the same. It's obviously possible, and easy even, to make this film about climate change. But then what about the actual images?

That specific allegory works for me because the images don't neatly match. The film uses its limited visual vocabulary to express that figuratively. If we were to see more obvious visuals, I feel like the metaphor would become too literal.

And I think it's already blatant enough.

Mother and her home, inextricably linked (I love how they seem to share one heart), represent Mother Earth and earth itself. As the invaders multiply, they recklessly assault the house until it's all but completely destroyed. When she finally can't take anymore, Mother hastens the apocalypse and incinerates all life (no coincidence that it's heat that wipes out humanity). And yet there is still a structure upon which new life can grow, with Mother's help, until humanity encroaches once again. And maybe one of these times they'll listen to her.

It's a deeply misanthropic film, but it's also accurate.
9
This Year In Film / Re: mother!
« Last post by Just Withnail on Today at 04:22:06 AM »
SPOILS!


This was an incredible experience. Intense, hilarious, thought-provoking. I love how there was literally a kitchen sink thrown in there.

I also side more with Drenk and Brody on this. For me itís a problem that the supposed underlying allegory is so far removed from the fabric of what weíre actually seeing, the actual images. When Iím trying to think of how the plot fits into the climate change allegory, it all fits very neatly, but Iím not sure if I feel the imagery does the same. It's obviously possible, and easy even, to make this film about climate change. But then what about the actual images?

Why tell a story about climate change through these exact images of the mother and the poet? In which way do they actually enlighten us about that? Itís so soaked in their domestic dynamics, that I feel to ignore the spesificity of that would be to ignore the very fabric of the film.

This doesnít necessarily dampen the mythological aspects at all. It just angles it more towards being about the interplay between domestic safety/calm and creative destruction, aided by a grand mythological background. As you say JB, itís really just flipping it around. Do the images act as supporting characters to the allegory, or does the allegory act as a supporting character to the images? I think the imagery will always have primacy for me, and I just donít see a lot of things in here that gives me any profound sense of the dynamics of climate change (in the images, not the plot). Whereas the images fucking burn with details about relationship dynamics, domestic life, creativity.

Of course, there maybe shouldnít be a need to call one thing a ďsupporting characterĒ to the other, but I feel when the imagery is so far removed from what the allegory is supposedly about, and the direct links are pretty much zero, one is forced to choose which perspective to take when one wants to interprete what went on. For me the most fruitful place to start, is with the mother and poet.

Of course, watching it, it isnít so clear cut. Then it was more of a constant oscillation back and forth between the drama and the myth, as it should be. The drama was the myth. But the aspect I get the least giddy thinking about afterwards is the literally-God-and-literally-climate-change angle. There are so many other ways to bring the mythological aspects into play than that.

As an introvert, this is a harrowing film about loosing private space. As a writer, itís a harrowing film about how nervous I am about habits, perfection, domesticity killing a creative spark (though thatís probably more an anxiety than a truth). These two oppositions in me found extreme resonance in both characters, and found more than enough to chew on on the ďsurfaceĒ of the film - in the actual imagery weíre seeing. To me the mythological aspects helped make these dynamics seem universal and eternal.
10
The Art Gallery / Re: 4210 Strand
« Last post by WorldForgot on Today at 02:30:06 AM »
then after this shot she puts her lighter in the pocket of her hooded cape, which felt very Bressonian. in its entirety, i thought of Kelly Reichardt and Tom DiCillo. there's a pulse in here which makes me feel how alive you are, and i look forward to you continuing to live, to keep writing and making movies. you just keep going is what you do.


Thank you ~ Your projects in prose and publishing have been an inspiration lately in the bounds that are fun, that I'm learning to take more of, in styles of writing. As far as I can tell I cannot stop, and hope to write more about those fun bounds, leaps. It makes me happy you felt life in Brinsworth, much mulled wine and hot cocoa went into weathering the exteriors.

right, it's like a mumblecore Forbidden Zone.

!! If the vibe at all works I am glad, and hopefully each episode offers a variety of style. Getting to watch different friends direct and having a micro-writers group made sleepless nights worth it. In the last few years I've come to understand sleepless nights, is a lot of this series, the sleepless nights, and gratefulness for conversation.

I don't feel that there should be a stigma toward 'mumblecore,' but it was a hard sell getting anyone in the production to agree to that as what this was, and I have heard recently that 'indie' carries its own weight. Hrm. More subgenres, I say!

where does the name 4210 Strand come from? it's an address with personal meaning?

All that Something Spanish covered, and that this Texas boi (me) got to make most of the college productions thanks to friends in SoCal for the post production work. IV always comes up. And there's always laughs, usually there's pizza. If it's up to me from where I send out postcards, it'd be from where Doc lives.

I was in LA last month and had some time to kill, so drove to the beach and felt compelled to light one at that spot.

Right on!
Thank you both~
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy