Closer

[Jeremy Blackman]

Jeremy, it's all well and good that you're wanting to debate.  I like that.  But please stop passive-aggressively insulting people who disagree with you.  It is insulting to say that just because we don't like something means we don't understand it or somehow weren't paying attention.

I really didn't mean to be insulting, I was just frustrated that I'm seeing a lot where you're seeing nothing, or that I appreciated that "something" where you didn't. And I'm not sure that I intended the "not paying attention" comment as an insult. I said before that you probably just didn't get into the story (or didn't think it was believable), so it was probably a conscious choice or a personal experience filter. I didn't mean to imply stupidity or anything.

[cowboykurtis]

it's empty because the only thing it really says about relationships is these people are shallow and they have no business being in them and inflicting their emotional baggage bullshit on others.  But they do.  Like 90% of the maladjusted population.  So perhaps the writer may have had a point there.

i think the most simple way to solve his reason for not relating to the movie -- he's in the other 10%.

[ono]

I'm failing to see how that's a bad thing.

[cowboykurtis]

I'm failing to see how that's a bad thing.

i never said it was a bad thing - theres no reason to get defensive - youre a man of moral values - you're "adjusted" - thats something to take pride in.

[Jeremy Blackman]

One other thing I want to respond to...

SPOILERS

I do think this story is a bit trivial.  A suspension of disbelief on some level is required to enjoy a story.  I tried, I really did.  I think, though, the first time I was really turned off was during the inexplicable chat room scene.  Sometimes people just do things, and that's fine.  But some things demand more of an explanation than that.  This took me out: why would Law's character go in a chat room to seduce horny men?  I guess we're meant to take it at face value, but it struck me as a plot device that was clunky and didn't work.

Dan was playing a practical joke on Anna, because he was immature and didn't know how else to approach her. I think the scene is that simple, and I wouldn't look for much else there. He was also insanely stupid, because, of course, his lie brings Clive Owen's character into his life, who takes away Anna and perhaps indirectly takes away Alice. And it was all in his control. If only he hadn't lied. That's painful. And it works. And I don't think it's too heavy handed. (Clive Owen's character never says "Gee, Dan, if you weren't a lying pervert, none of this would have happened to you." The point is simply stabbed into him slowly and deliberately every time they call him "Cupid.")

[SoNowThen]

yes... what he said (european keyboard, don't have that little up arrow thingy)




Anyway, as to clunky plot stuff, okay, I'd be willing to admit that things like "Hello Stranger" were a bit out there, except that once those relatively minor obligatory moments were dispensed with, it got us into meaty wonderful situations where Nichols could have them go at it in a room for ten minutes, and that's really what we went to see. I for one have always felt that massive character based movies could be forgiven for a few eye rolling plot points that the writer needed to get a particular situation together.... just like flat characters (let's say Batman or Bond) are forgivable for a good SuperPlotted flick.

[SiliasRuby]

Saw it today, thought it was quite powerful I enjoyed it emmensely, for some reason it reminded me of my third favorite film in the whole world, Magnolia....and I agree with JB as well.

[Gold Trumpet]

[I still don't understand why you and Ono think this is a vacuous movie. Were you not paying attention? What do you mean by "surface revelations"? There were big, deep, emotional revelations that came from somewhere far below the surface. In fact, doesn't the film contain a series of deep emotional revelations (with the "I've been lying to myself" epiphanies), and isn't it concerned with tearing away the surface?

I won't argue with you that the film was seeking out deep, emotional revelations. My argument is in the nature in which they were presented. When the film concerned itself with just the beginning and ends of the relationship, not the "big uneventful middle" as you put it, I felt it harder to be involved in the story at all. This movie is hardly naturalistic in any sense. In a naturalistic vein, I may have been more accepting because I would have felt greater honesty in the portrayal of the characters. One review nicely said the Jude Law-Natalie Portman meeting hadn't been done so stylistically since Cary Grant and Irene Dunne. Not only did some of the set ups scream stock as well as the characters, but they spoke so well too. It just wasn't that they said nicer and better spoken sentences than we do, but it sometimes seemed they even understood they were in a movie ridden of plot cliches. With Natalie Portman's character I felt this the most.

The thing it seemed to me is that like other films on similiar subjects, they got to the point where it was not just an open secret they were lying to themselves, but they never allowed us to view the pain they had to go through to get to this point. Its not about explaining their situation, but detailing it. I felt like I was missing something, the something good dialogue couldn't provide.

At the beginning, he was breaking hearts and with little remorse. His character was nothing more and so the audience was asked to take him for it. But, then things turned around and he was put in the middle of a very different relationship

So you're opposed to character development?

Its not character development. Its character strangulation by an overseeing plot. Like I said, this film reminded me of Clockwork Orange. Alex's portrait in the beginning in that as a criminal is just to paint him as a criminal for the audience to loathe so they feel conflicted when asked to see him as a victim in the second half. It felt like the same manipulation here because I didn't see a true character in Jude Law at the beginning. I saw a character overwritten to just bring out an opinion from the audience so the audience can get the plot's message over everything else at the end. That, yes, assholes just aren't assholes and there are two sides to every coin. Wow.

[Dtm115300]

i agree. Great film.

[Thrindle]

i agree. Great film.

But why was it a great film?  For this movie you definately need reasons to back that comment up.


(Why it was a bad film:  It was disgustingly manipulative, the characters were not realistic, the entire movie was about debauchery and pain...  not that I'm against those things... but the whole thing would have worked better as a porno.)

[cine]

(Why it was a bad film:  It was disgustingly manipulative, the characters were not realistic, the entire movie was about debauchery and pain...)

Fahrenheit 9/11?

[MacGuffin]

Closer (SLP $28.95) will be a Superbit DVD with both Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 surround sound. Extras will include Damien Rice's The Blower's Daughter music video and previews.

[ono]

Closer (SLP $28.95) will be a Superbit DVD with both Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 surround sound. Extras will include Damien Rice's The Blower's Daughter music video and previews.

That's one expensive coaster.

[Jeremy Blackman]

How do you say that in Gaelic?

[ono]

sin tá aon costasach teasc