(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clubcultura.com%2Fclubcine%2Fclubcineastas%2Falmodovar%2Fmalaeducacion%2Fimg_pag%2Ftitulo.gif&hash=e13d1f9dfcc8a5868bb92f466ece43dccc062b97)
Trailer here. (http://www.lamauvaiseeducation-lefilm.com/video/videos/mauvaiseeducationvffa1.mov) (in Spanish with French subtitles)
Release Date: TBA 2004 (platform limited release)
Cast: Gael Garcia Bernal (Szara), Fele Martinez, Leonor Watling, Francisco Boira, Daniel Gimenez Cacho, Javier Camara, Alberto Ferreiro, Lluis Homar (Padre Manolo), Francisco Maestre, Petra Martinez
Screenwriter/Director: Pedro Almodovar (Talk to Her, All About My Mother, Live Flesh, The Flower of My Secret, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown)
Based Upon: This film is reportedly loosely based upon director Pedro Almodovar's own experiences as a child.
Premise: This is the story of two men, one of whom is a film director, in Spain who meet again in the 1980s, 20 years after they attended a Catholic school together as children during the time of Franco's rule in the 1960s. The film will flash back to extended sequences from their youths (in addition to sequences in between, in the 1970s), and will also include a movie-within-the-movie sequence.
And aren't we all looking forward to this? :-D
This was set to open on April 29th here in Portugal (same day as Kill Bill: Vol. 2) but was pushed back to May... Damn! I really think this movie will blow my mind.
after seeing talk to her, i'll see anything pedro, whether it's good or bad.....but it will most likely be great.
Damn that Pedro, that guy's getting better and better with every film he makes. I'm sure minds will be blown w/ Bad Education.
is there going to be crossdressing involved?
Quote from: Pedro the Wombatis there going to be crossdressing involved?
i just finished a movie within a movie that has crossdressing in it!
i'm also a big almodovar fan!
i'm also a no talent hack!
Ok, I crossdress.
This was the best time to come out and say it.
I'm comfortable with my sexuality, ok guys? I say "guys" because 99.99% of this board is guys.
So are we cool, guys? I crossdress. Happy? I said it. It's all out in the open.
What do you want to know next? That I crossdress?? I already let that cat outta the bag, gentlemen. That would be redundant.
Ok I'm going to go cry now. Sleep tight. Hope you boys sleep better tonight knowing I'm a crossdresser.
Oh and another thing. Lay off the peer pressure, guys. It's not nice to push me around, ok?
Geez Louise (Ok, that's my crossdressing name too! Louise!! HAPPY NOW!!??!!!!!!!!).
Rawrrrr, feeling hot hot hot.
But seriously, I am really excited about this movie. I am more excited about this movie than anything else. This is nice.
Almodovar pic yanked in distributor flap
MADRID -- Preeminent Spanish exhibber Enrique Gonzalez Macho has announced that he'll pull all Warner Bros. pics from his cinemas.
Effective from today, the move comes after Madrid's Cinesa Proyecciones hardtop began screening Pedro Almodovar's "Bad Education" on March 26 -- eight days after it opened at Macho's Roxy B, which lies straight across the street.
Macho claims he hadn't been notified of the competition.
Movies which suffer from the boycott include "Education," which was unspooling at 12 Macho hardtops, "Mystic River," "Something's Gotta Give" and "Taking Lives." WB was taken aback by the move.
Macho "will be offered every single movie we have. He's one of our favorite exhibitors," Enrique Posner, deputy general manager of Warner Sogefilms, told Daily Variety.
Sources as Macho's distribution-exhibition house Alta Films said they didn't know when the spat would be resolved. WB has been moving to find new theater slots for its Macho-handled prints. The WB-Macho tiff may well prove to be a storm in a teacup -- passions wax and wane dramatically in Spain.
But it comes at a significant time: just two weeks after Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialists surprisingly won Spain's March 14 general elections.
In foreign policy, Zapatero has already distanced himself from the U.S. declaring he'll withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq.
As Zapatero readies a government, Macho has served to widen the media debate about future state film policy from production to U.S. studios' allegedly abusive practices in distribution and exhibition. More skirmishes between the local industry and U.S. distribbers expected to follow.
Almodovar, Cannes get ready for 'Bad Education'
Pedro Almodovar is unique in the international market. A film by the Spanish director is clearly identifiable by the layered meaning, kitschy scenes and bright colors. Even he can get lost in the multiple labyrinths of his scripts, he recently confessed. But Almodovar's films have set new highs for international filmmakers. He's back this year at Cannes, the festival that loves him. But this time, he's not competing. The Hollywood Reporter's Spain bureau chief Pamela Rolfe caught up with Almodovar in the frantic days before the festival to talk about the Catholic Church, wardrobe and his latest film, "Bad Education."
The Hollywood Reporter: You have said this is a film about forbidden love. But people are also talking about child molestation and the abuses by the priests and the church.
Pedro Almodovar: I think the film makes itself very clear and puts everything in its place. People have talked a lot -- and maybe I have too by using the title "Bad Education," which refers to that part of the film -- about where I narrate the boys' lives at school with the priests. But that is one unit within six or seven more in the film. I think people that see the film know what I mean with the title. And I think the film doesn't even go against the church. What's more, I'd even say the opposite. I don't treat the priests poorly. I like lots of the characters in the film, but if I had to choose one, it would probably be that of the priest who falls madly in love and deposits his life in the hands of an adolescent. I don't mistreat the priests. You can see desire and faith mixed with shame. But that doesn't impede him from doing what he wants to do and abusing his power. In the end, he's a man who's in love with something that is forbidden. I'm agnostic; I don't believe in God. I didn't have that luck. But when I was little, I really enjoyed the religious ceremonies, and that is also visible in the film.
THR: How does inaugurating the Festival de Cannes help the distribution of the film?
Almodovar: The French are pulling all the stops. They're dedicating limitless attention. In addition to the inauguration, they're preparing an authentic top-notch celebration of my cinema. The newsstands in France are filled to the brim with me or the actors talking about the film. There are 1,000 trailers around the country in preparation for the opening. There's tremendous expectation in France, according to the distributors. In England, it will be released a week later. Cannes is an incredible platform
THR: Do you have a date for the United States?
Almodovar: In the U.S., it will be in November. It will follow the same trajectory as ("All About My Mother"), which went to Cannes In Competition. Then it was released throughout Europe. And then, conveniently, the Americans reap the fruits of everywhere else.
THR: A few years ago, you were at Cannes In Competition, with a lot of attention. This time, you're not In Competition, and you don't have the same nervousness. Which do you prefer?
Almodovar: I'm never going to have a low profile. I've spent the last two weeks worrying about my wardrobe. You have no idea what it's like for a fiftysomething director who Prada, Dior and Gucci want to dress, and they send you two or three tuxedos and they don't quite fit. I don't know what I'm going to wear. But I'm not going there to keep a low profile. I guess you're referring to competing, but I'm going to compete with everyone. We're all in the same market, but of course, I'm not competing for the Gold Palm. I feel much more comfortable. It was I who said I didn't want to compete. It always has struck me as horrible that you have to go against films that you love. This way, I can be fabulous with everyone.
THR: You do have a film In Competition, though, in a way.
Almodovar: We do have an Argentine co-production, "La Nina Santa," and I suggest you go see it. I really like it a lot.
THR: There have been more Latin American films in Cannes and in Spain in the last couple of years. Why do you think that is?
Almodovar: We chose Lucrecia (Martel)'s film ("Santa") because I really liked the script, and I loved her first film ("La Cienaga"). And there's something very natural in co-producing with Latin America because we have the same language. We also produce Spanish directors. What I want to say with that is that we move based on the interest stimulated by the script in Spanish. Argentine cinema is experiencing a splendid period, especially given the horrible economic crisis the country is undergoing. It's absolutely true that it's producing better cinema than 10 years ago. It's amazing given the social and economic crisis. But it's like the agriculture: Some decades are good harvests, and some are bad. And Argentine cinema is having a very good harvest.
THR: How do you feel being the first Spaniard to open the Festival de Cannes, and does it say anything about the Spanish film industry as a whole that you are inaugurating Cannes?
Almodovar: For me on a personal level and from the point of view as a producer, it means a lot, and it's the best privilege we could have in France. As far as Spanish cinema, I would say exactly the same. This is a Spanish film. It's the first time a Spanish film opens. I want to include the Spanish industry in this honor and this celebration because it's Spanish cinema that I'm opening with. It's our language and our cinema. Yes, it's done according to my point of view, but it's Spanish.
It's not as good as his previous three masterpieces, but that would be really hard to be. La Mala Educación is a film so well shot and edited and scored and acted. And the credit sequence kicks butt in a way I don't remember a credit sequence doing so. It's not a trully amazing film (although I think it'll get better with subsequent views) but it's really damn great to look at and to feel. The problem here is maybe the script, which although is quite complex and interesting to follow, it just gets a little boring and out of place on the final act. All in all, it reminded me of Road To Perdition in a way that it fullfilled everything I expected when leaving the theater except for one little part of me that somewhat wanted a bit more.
Mark your calendars. According to the new Premiere, Bad Education will be released November 19th.
Well i saw it last week in a Film Festival here in Lima
The movie is interesting, the way how Almodovar plays with time is very well done, but i must admit that i expected for something more :(
despite the disappointment performances are excellent particularly Fele Martinez...
I saw it today, and while it is as entertaining as any Almodovar film could be, it doesn't have the same empathetic qualities of his last few films. I find it rather funny that this is so personal a film to him -- while most directors pour their hearts out on their sleeves, he's taken something intimate and turned it into, well, into film noir as only Almodovar could do it. It's all great until the last act, which either ends too soon or takes a wrong turn, or both.
Whenever it opens, don't miss it, but don't expect another award winner...
As mentioned above, the titles are awesome enough to warrant a mention, and the score is phenomenal.
This was fantastic.
I'm glad there are filmmakers doing homosexual love scenes without a singleweight of guilt and commitment like this Almodovar gentleman does. He's doing what he thinks he's right, and rarely do you see an artist projecting all his passions in the way he does. The critique to the catholic church is , in JB's words, so deliciously irreverent.
The credits are ace.
DAMMIT:
Quoterarely do you see an artist projecting all his passions in the way he does.
maybe that's because there aren't many Pedro Almodovar's in the world.
Reflecting on this movie, I quickly realized it was a lot better than my initial reaction. My full review is here. (http://www.road-dog-productions.com/badeducation.html)
Quote from: Ghostboythe score is phenomenal
Quote from: cronopioThis was fantastic.
The credits are ace.
Agree, if I were a critic of EW I'd say 'There's nothing bad about Bad Education', and well there isn't, as his previous films (haven't seen Talk to her) performances, cinematography, score are really great.
I'd like to know in the not so distant future if Mac or Mini-Mac thought old Hitch was a big influence on this one, or how about you GB?
Exactly what a friend of mine said.
He compared it to Vertigo a lot, a film I haven't seen.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fsony_pictures_classics%2Fbad_education%2Fbadeducation_bigposter.jpg&hash=31f7fb67bdfad19fbf70927afe975d3184572b42)
Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/bad_education.html)
Pedro Almodovar on the Red Carpet Again
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fentertainment.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fent%2Fap%2F20041109%2Fnyet309_film_pedro_almodovar.sff.jpg&hash=6d98c066bb5c2a60ba60048c8171e5d4b305a3bd)
Pedro Almodovar has been down the red carpet before, but the director said it felt like the first time at the Hollywood premiere of his new film, "Bad Education."
"For me, premieres are like when you fall in love," Almodovar explained, speaking in Spanish. "It's like the first time in that it's going to last forever. So, in that sense, this premiere is like the first time I've premiered the movie, and that's the way I'm celebrating it."
The movie has been shown at film festivals in Moscow, Toronto, New York and Telluride, Colo.
"Bad Education" teams Gael Garcia Bernal and Fele Martinez in an often gritty examination on the effect of Franco-era religious schooling and sexual abuse on the lives of two longtime friends.
Hollywood isn't just talking about the 26-year-old Bernal, who also stars in Walter Salles' "The Motorcycle Diaries," they're saying good things.
"Really? Is that true?" Bernal asked at Sunday night's premiere. "I don't get to know that. I've been doing too many interviews to realize what goes on in the outside world."
Almodovar said he's not surprised that Bernal has been embraced by Tinseltown.
"Really, he's amazing. I think I give him very good luck," the director told AP Television News with a laugh. "No, truly, he deserves it. He's working very hard and very courageous and with risk, and I'm very glad that he's becoming so big here."
'Bad Education' = NC-17
"Bad Education," the new film by Pedro Almodóvar, right, about two young boys who meet and fall in love in Franco-era Spain in the 1960's and are subject to abuse by a priest at school, has been given an NC-17 rating (no one 17 and under admitted), the Motion Picture Association of America announced yesterday. The two-second scene that elicited the rating appears early in the film and involves the head movements of a transvestite, played by Gael García Bernal, while performing oral sex. A publicist for "Bad Education," Jessica Uzzan, said that the director and producers had been alerted early on that this was an issue and argued it with the M.P.A.A. but that they had never considered cutting the scene. "It's a film for adults," Ms. Uzzan said. "Bad Education," loosely based on Mr. Almodóvar's upbringing and life, is to open in three theaters in New York on Friday and in Los Angeles on Dec. 10. CATHERINE BILLEY
~New York Times
Gael Garcia Bernal 's acting in the film was so nice...
'Bad Education' NC-17 rating stands
Pedro Almodovar's latest film, "Bad Education," will carry an NC-17 rating, which says that no one under 17 will be admitted.
The MPAA Classification and Ratings Appeal Board said Tuesday that after listening to arguments from Ken Lemberger, consultant to the Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group, it has decided to uphold the ratings board's earlier decision to award the film an NC-17 rating, which it earned for what the board said is "a scene of explicit sexual content."
Almodovar's film, which delves into the issue of priestly sexual abuse within the context of a homoerotic film noir, received an 18 rating in Almodovar's native Spain, though other countries have rated it more leniently. According to IMDB.com, it has received a 12 rating in the Netherlands and a 15 in the United Kingdom.
Although the movie intentionally does not portray childhood sexual abuse, it does include a sexual encounter between two consenting adult men, played by Gael Garcia Bernal and Fele Martinez.
Sony Pictures Classics opened the film with an NC-17 rating last weekend in New York in three theaters, where it grossed a strong $147,370 for the weekend. The film, which is expected to figure in the upcoming awards season, opens Dec. 10 in Los Angeles.
SPC execs declined comment.
"Bad Education" is the second film that the specialty distributor has released this year with an NC-17 rating, following the Scottish film "Young Adam," which it released in April.
Quote from: evaderheadGael Garcia Bernal 's acting in the film was so nice...
if by "acting" you mean the way his ass looked in wet underwear then YEAH IT WAS!!!
this was a good movie. almodovar is cool. and i don't see how this got an nc-17 and kinsey got an r. that is all.
MINOR spoiler
wow, what a director, almodovar. I don't think anyone else's name appearing in the opening and ending credits have as much weight in a film as his does. I hope I'm not being irrelatable when I say that it's so much easier to see this film as a part of his collective works than any other director; that you can see where exactly this film falls on his timeline and what it means to his career and evolution as a director. Does anyone know what I mean or am I solo on this one?
I liked how the movie played like a mystery but you don't ever feel like you're watching a mystery until it is revealed. that's pretty cool. it's also quite mundane, how everything happened, and frankly, the ending didn't hit me until I thought about it while the credits rolled up. then all of a sudden, the movie became so dark and so tremendous. I hope people can see where I'm coming from.
i know exactly what you're talking about, pete. i don't know if i would have liked this movie if i didn't know it was almodovar, but viewing it as a film within his oeuvre, i was blown away. i still need to see kika, high heels, and matador.
SPOILERS SPOILERS EVERYWHERE!Quote from: bonanzatazi don't know if i would have liked this movie if i didn't know it was almodovar, but viewing it as a film within his oeuvre, i was blown away.
see, i am not particularly a fan, so this movie did little to sway me.
Quote from: MacguffinThe Hollywood Reporter: You have said this is a film about forbidden love. But people are also talking about child molestation and the abuses by the priests and the church.
Pedro Almodovar: I think the film makes itself very clear and puts everything in its place. People have talked a lot -- and maybe I have too by using the title "Bad Education," which refers to that part of the film -- about where I narrate the boys' lives at school with the priests. But that is one unit within six or seven more in the film. I think people that see the film know what I mean with the title. And I think the film doesn't even go against the church. What's more, I'd even say the opposite. I don't treat the priests poorly. I like lots of the characters in the film, but if I had to choose one, it would probably be that of the priest who falls madly in love and deposits his life in the hands of an adolescent. I don't mistreat the priests. You can see desire and faith mixed with shame. But that doesn't impede him from doing what he wants to do and abusing his power. In the end, he's a man who's in love with something that is forbidden. I'm agnostic; I don't believe in God. I didn't have that luck. But when I was little, I really enjoyed the religious ceremonies, and that is also visible in the film.
perhaps this is stirring up a similar controversy, as TTH did with the sympathy to the raper of the comatose, the way this film seemed to excuse the priest from 'loving' the boy was sick. i also found the scene of the two boys jerking each other off to be in poor taste, and after thinking about it, not so much because they are gay and its forbidden as they are so young i shouldnt be watching this. if it were a girl doing the same to a guy at their age, it would still be just wrong.
Quote from: FernandoI'd like to know in the not so distant future if Mac or Mini-Mac thought old Hitch was a big influence on this one, or how about you GB?
other than the score and a few elements after the twist, i really was not feeling the hitch influence very much. actually, had it not been for my reading that this was supposed to be like hitchcock or the psycho score i would have never placed that.
the opening credits were great, but my favorite part of the film unfortunately. the score particularly during them was an adept rip-off of Bernard Hermanns often imitated Psycho score, which was fun but also unfortunately more intense than any particular scene in the movie. it never seemed to rile up any emotion during 2 hours that rivaled the intensity of the opening credits. thats a shame. i liked the sort of 'twist' halfway through, not that it was that shocking but it was successful. i dont know that its due at all to any sort of almodovar genius, so much as just better marketing keeping these details out of the synopsis/previews etc. whereas, most movies you never have a chance to feel any sort of twists like that because its been spelled out for you before you enter the theatre (recent exception, also sucessful being MILLION DOLLAR BABY.) so, it worked, but mostly because its a fairly small budgeted foreign movie i guess and not the latest george clooney vehicle or whatever. i also didnt feel like i had any idea WHY juan was willing to go so far to do this. just because he 'grew up in a small town with a transvestite brother' he was so willing to become a famous actor he was willing to have continual buttsex with two different people, not to mention murder his brother? i mean, within the noir context, okay its the plot, deal with it thats fine. but, i'm just saying i didnt really 'get' his character or why he acted that way other than 'its an almodovar movie'. the long shot after the movie setup where he is crying, what was that about? it seemed liek it should've been the 'end of the movie' shot, but wasnt. so i cant say i felt there was much of a reason for it. this movie was one notch gayer than alexander, but only a little. so, there have been in all three of his films that i've seen, aspects that i want to like, so many elements that could add up to a movie i loved but it just never connects and builds something worthwhile for me. it was okay, but just not my taste. i guess to paraphrase Hanzel here, the movies he's created over the years, I don't really like them, but the fact that he's making them, I respect that.
MALA SPOILERSQuote from: themodernage02i also didnt feel like i had any idea WHY juan was willing to go so far to do this . . . i mean, within the noir context, okay its the plot, deal with it thats fine. but, i'm just saying i didnt really 'get' his character or why he acted that way other than 'its an almodovar movie'.
Enrique didn't understand Juan either. (He kept talking about Juan's "enigma.") Anyway, we can come up with some explanations about Juan's motivations (see below), but the point is that he's mysterious. That's what's so great about this movie, it's irrationally mysterious and multi-layered, but it's just a character drama. It's a noir film without guns.
Quote from: themodernage02the long shot after the movie setup where he is crying, what was that about?
I think it was about him realizing that he really truly wanted to be his brother. That's probably why he killed him. And I'm sure the "killing Ignacio" scene brought back memories of killing Ignacio.
To make a Mulholland Drive analogy, Juan as Zahara is Betty to Ignacio's Diane.
Quote from: themodernage02he was so willing to become a famous actor he was willing to have continual buttsex with two different people, not to mention murder his brother? . . . this movie was one notch gayer than alexander, but only a little.
The "gayness" of the movie seems to bother you. Why?
the gayness didnt bother me, but the excusing of pedophilia did. the movie was only noir in the sense it took its plot twists, but it also managed to drain any actual tension or suspense out of it by turning it into a gay melodrama.
Quote from: themodernage02the gayness didnt bother me, but the excusing of pedophilia did.
When is the pedophilia excused? I don't think he even tries to explain it... he just describes it.
Quote from: themodernage02it also managed to drain any actual tension or suspense out of it by turning it into a gay melodrama.
I thought the suspense came from the melodrama (like it does in most Almodóvar films), but I guess there wouldn't be much suspense if you didn't get into the melodrama. You probably have to be prepared for a certain level of playfulness and grandiosity with an Almodóvar movie. Like the thing at the end explaining what happened to the characters... that was a bit much for me.
But a lot of great noirs are based on rather lusty melodrama...it's just usually straight. What Almodovar does so brilliantly in this is take all these cliches and remove all trappings of gender or sexual orientation. Think about Gael's character -- he's essentially filling the same role dozens of film fatales have played in the past -- he's the Barbara Stanwyk charcater.. Sexuality in Almodovar films is completely amorphous, and it's both daring and, in my opinion, refreshing.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWhen is the pedophilia excused?
he goes to great lengths to give the audience a sympathetic view of the priest and his 'forbidden love'. but turning him into a hero by giving him the last laugh with blackmailing in the epilogue titles was too much.
SPOILERSQuote from: themodernage02but turning him into a hero by giving him the last laugh with blackmailing in the epilogue titles was too much.
Honestly, I was so horrified by the epilogue titles that I didn't really read them. What exactly happened?
the priest ends up blackmailing juan after he becomes a famous actor when the film is released.
Okay. I don't see how that makes him a hero. It just makes him seem petty. And at that point isn't the focus shifted completely to his relationship with Juan and away from pedophilia?
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanOkay. I don't see how that makes him a hero. It just makes him seem petty. And at that point isn't the focus shifted completely to his relationship with Juan and away from pedophilia?
becuase he gets the last laugh. the audience is meant to side with the priest, atleast in the screening i was at the audience laughed and practically applauded the priests resolution. his character isnt punished becaues almodovar doesnt think he's done anything wrong. almodovar is basically saying that forbidden love is forbidden love. as in, romeo and juliet are no different than the priest and this little boy. its just societies inability to recognize this as a valid/acceptable love to have and no less real than any other kind of love.
Quote from: themodernage02becuase he gets the last laugh. the audience is meant to side with the priest, atleast in the screening i was at the audience laughed and practically applauded the priests resolution. his character isnt punished becaues almodovar doesnt think he's done anything wrong.
Why must the good people always win in a movie? Do you really think that if the good people don't win, the filmmaker must be making a statement against them?
I'm sure Almodóvar understands that pedophilia is a bad thing (especially if this is a personal story). Didn't you think the pedophilia scenes were a little dark and frightening? Do you expect absolutely clear moral affirmation?
His style is not to judge. He also doesn't judge Juan, which is why it confuses me that you think the audience is "meant to" cheer for the priest against Juan. Just because the audience you saw it with laughed doesn't mean Almodóvar intended that to be some kind of sweet revenge heroic moment. And if you think Almodóvar has an obligation to judge the pedophile, well, I can understand that, but I disagree.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanHonestly, I was so horrified by the epilogue titles that I didn't really read them.
Huh? Those title were pure Almodovar! I loved 'em.
And he's not justifying pedophilia -- he's just going way out of his way to create sympathy for the priest for the melodrama's sake. In this movie's vocabulary, pedophilia is not a perverted desire, but a forbidden love. Almodovar isnt' condoning it, mind you, but using it for dramatic purposes in the same way he used, say, the rape of an invalid in
Talk To Her (although he rightly presents the priest's desires in a much less ambiguous manner than the rape).
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: themodernage02becuase he gets the last laugh. the audience is meant to side with the priest, atleast in the screening i was at the audience laughed and practically applauded the priests resolution. his character isnt punished becaues almodovar doesnt think he's done anything wrong.
Why must the good people always win in a movie? Do you really think that if the good people don't win, the filmmaker must be making a statement against them?
I'm sure Almodóvar understands that pedophilia is a bad thing (especially if this is a personal story). Didn't you think the pedophilia scenes were a little dark and frightening? Do you expect absolutely clear moral affirmation?
His style is not to judge. He also doesn't judge Juan, which is why it confuses me that you think the audience is "meant to" cheer for the priest against Juan. Just because the audience you saw it with laughed doesn't mean Almodóvar intended that to be some kind of sweet revenge heroic moment. And if you think Almodóvar has an obligation to judge the pedophile, well, I can understand that, but I disagree.
the good people dont have to win. but in 'noir', if thats what this is trying to be, evildoers are always punished. they ALWAYS get whats coming to them. but like i said earlier, he doesnt think theres anything wrong with the priests actions so he doesnt feel the need to punish his character. i think the quote i used on the last page goes to support my statement that he wants us to side with the priest because thats the character he treats the most sympathetically. like i said in noir, those who do wrong get whats coming to them, its just the rule of the genre, if that is in fact the genre he supposes to be working in. juan, for lying and scheming his way to stardom gets his dream, but the catch is that now he must pay the blackmail. the priest receives no such punishment for his character is absolved of any wrongdoing. i think the subtitle at the end really goes to hammer home this point.
Quote from: GhostboyAnd he's not justifying pedophilia -- he's just going way out of his way to create sympathy for the priest for the melodrama's sake. In this movie's vocabulary, pedophilia is not a perverted desire, but a forbidden love. Almodovar isnt' condoning it, mind you, but using it for dramatic purposes in the same way he used, say, the rape of an invalid in Talk To Her (although he rightly presents the priest's desires in a much less ambiguous manner than the rape).
yes and i understand the comparison but i still dont see quite the reason for doing it. other than 'he's almodovar'. or maybe, like i said its just not for me. it just seems like something like pedophilia should be treated as more of a serious subject and not something treated so lightly, but maybe i'm just a square.
Title: Bad Education
Released: 12th April 2005
SRP: $26.96
Further Details
Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment has officially announced Bad Education which stars Gael García Bernal (The Motorcycle Diaries), one of the most dynamic young actors in the Latin film scene today. The film, from the Academy Award®-winning director of Talk to Her and All About My Mother, Pedro Almodóvar, will be available to own from the 12th April this year, and should retail at around $26.96. The film itself will be presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen along with a Spanish Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Extras will include an audio commentary with the director, an American Film Institute Tribute, a Poster Exploration Gallery, deleted scenes and some red carpet footage From AFI. English subtitles will also be provided. pretty crappy artwork here: http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0&s=1&c=5724&n=1&burl=
And it's just started playing here this weekend, too. Sometimes I love the arthouses here. Others, I wonder why they bother. There's $5 I may not have to spend. Thanks, Geritol Netflix.
Firstly, this did not deserve an NC17 rating. The blowjob at the beginning was mildly explicit, and the gay sex was filmed similarly to hetero sex, in other movies. I think of the film Sleepers (which dealt with pedophilia in a more graphic manner) and all it got was an R rating. Truth is, the NC17 was a censorship issue due to the homosexual nature of the film. Get over it, a penis is still a penis regardless of where it goes.
Now... what I love about Almodóvar films... is that he takes the ambiguous nature of human sexuality and morphs it into portrayals of truth. I do not excuse rape (as in Talk to Her), nor do I excuse pedophilia, but I do believe in adolescent sexuality. I was not offended by the two young boys in the movie theatre. I'm sure there are a lot of 12 year olds out there that experimented with friends. Homosexual or not, childhood experimentation is normal, not offensive.
Long and short of it, sexuality is largely animalistic, we just like to pretend that we are above instinctual impulse. This movie wasn't about young boys being groped, or about pseudo gay twentysomethings. Rather, this movie was about getting what one wants, and using their charms to do so. I guess men in movies can use sexuality to get what they want as well... (the Closer thread comes to mind).
Great movie.
It has also a subtext concerning the effects of the Franco dictatorship in Spain. During a repressive era, there's hardly any red, blue or yellow. Then in the eighties, everything is free and colorful. Juan has the freedom to achieve his dream but his bad education under a repressive system does not exactly serves him in the perfect way.
I don't think almodovar is condoning pedophilia, or condemning it. That's simplistic. Father Manolo es pathetic. Even if he blackmails at the end, he's way too pathetic to be considered a hero.
Almodovar shows the CHARACTER of manolo as a sympathetic character, but only in movie within movie form. The real father manolo (Berenguer) is shown has a very bad person, Almodovar even has him very sick (coughing and weezing) All it shows is that Enrique was trying to make an emotional film, and he never really knew the whole story, he was just showing what HE knew. The whole thing isn't layed out for him until Berenguer shows up, and even then the film is pretty much wrapped.
Quote from: Alexandroes
u rule.
whether he's comdemning it or condoning it, i think we can all agree: the film still sucks. :yabbse-thumbup:
I would disagree and argue that it is indulgent and mildly flaccid but still delivers a good story. We should encourage story tellers and not pick them apart based on individual tastes. His story might have been out of our element but fuck, I'm just glad he had a story to tell and told it.
the movie rocks....but i don't expect everyone to agree with me here...i like it because of the reasons a lot of people hate it. it's over the top and self indulgent, but it is too entertaining...
Quote from: sundown all overI would disagree and argue that it is indulgent and mildly flaccid but still delivers a good story. We should encourage story tellers and not pick them apart based on individual tastes. His story might have been out of our element but fuck, I'm just glad he had a story to tell and told it.
that's a generic comment if I've ever heard one.
Quote from: peteQuote from: sundown all overI would disagree and argue that it is indulgent and mildly flaccid but still delivers a good story. We should encourage story tellers and not pick them apart based on individual tastes. His story might have been out of our element but fuck, I'm just glad he had a story to tell and told it.
that's a generic comment if I've ever heard one.
I took it from a Support Storytellers 2005 phamplet.
Almodóvar has always been raunchy. It is easy for forget that given the relative calmness of All About My Mother and Talk to Her, but think even one back, to Live Flesh. Think about how much more vision and technique is in Bad Education. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask for a bit of blind optimsm in this scenario, perfectly reasonable to look beyond the specific elements of the story and speculate from a safe distance. Almodóvar has my trust, is what it comes down to, I guess.
This film was a mixed baggage for me. I know why modernage just can't get into the films of Almodóvar. I held his position for Talk to Her when I saw it in theaters. The film does sympathize with moral positions he does not agree with. It doesn't distance the action the way Pulp Fiction did. You follow Almodóvar's characters like the traits of the characters are really some of your own. For whatever reason, I wasn't sidelined by that for this one. I think I grew out of it so I wonder what my responce to Talk to Her would be now.
I came into the film expecting what the headlines said, "Almodovar pays homage to Hitchcock and Film Noir". In a way he does, but in a way he doesn't. As modernage correctly summed up, the line of moral justice never is drawn in this film the way it is with those earlier genre films. I didn't mind it. I saw the film as an Almodóvar "re-imagination" of that genre. Because if any genre is as stuck to the past, it is the film noir. It was a genre that was a comment on the time of America involved with and coming out of World War II and experiencing its own effect of Neo-Realism. Timely then, out of date now. But yet films ever since then have loved to pay homage to film noir without ever really getting the genre to speak for their own time. At least Almodóvar does that. (Also, I hope no argument comes out this whether Noir is even a genre. I really am not sure myself. What I said before could have been said without the context of "genre")
The film is magnificently made. Almodovar has tapped a spirit of artistry reminiscient with what Fellini was able to do at his highest point. Thing is, the film never had the clarity of what it really wanted to be for me. In the delicacy of death and lost love, I saw reminders of All About My Mother. In the twists and turns and dangerous exploitation, I saw film noir. Film noir though never really popped its head til the very end and not carried through with as much energy as I expected. Also, I saw nostalgia tapped reminiscient of Fellini's 8 1/2 and Amarcord. Both films bring the past alive and so did this one. Thing is, Bad Education seemed unsure on what strand it really wanted to follow. I kept thinking Almodovar was happy enough to keep the film at almost a seeming stand still sometimes because he was so confident with his photography. My interest kept lagging when I had just seen All About My Mother recently before and its power was still fresh in my mind.
As I said earlier, it feels like I'm growing with Almodóvar all the time. I'm going to really look into his early works more. In the future, I'm not sure what position Bad Education will hold for me. I even feel obligated to write a second review of Talk to Her when I get to it.
I've been thinking back, and maybe i'm wrong but I don't remember any review in mexico that mentioned the pedophilia thing. Almodovar was very clear on interviews that the film wasn't trying to be an indictment on anything, catholic church included. I just think is weird that american reviewers make an emphasis on pedophilia and mexicans don't give a shit about it...i certainly didn't gave it that much thought until now...i just didn't think that was the theme of the movie, cause it seems kind of incidental...i mean is it a rule that if you have pedophilia on your film it has to be the main theme?? the big problem for gael's character wasn't pedophilia as much as the fact that he was separated from the kid he loved...well, i think...
MINOR SPOILERS
Watched this over the weekend. Needed a little bit of time to digest it and I need a second viewing to really solidify things.
I definitely liked the film, I would consider it another great Almodovar film. But it's the first film of his that I've seen that left me kind of cold, not necessarily in a bad way, just different. I was expecting an abrupt ending, because that's his thing (when I saw Live Flesh the first time, I had to go back to make sure that the DVD wasn't skipping chapters).
And not to rekindle an argument from 7 months ago, but I don't agree with mod's stance that the priest was made to be a hero or that the pedophilia was justified. I think that it was left up to the viewer to make that judgment, which everyone will (or should) find revolting. I can totally understand mod being put off by Almodovar not taking a firm stance on saying that pedophilia is bad but it's just such a deplorable thing that it doesn't really need saying. I don't think Bad Education was like L.I.E., which I thought was awful because it justified pedophilia.
One thing didn't quite settle with me, though. The real Fr. Manolo, was he supposed to have AIDS? Because the coughing was never mentioned, as far as I can remember. Or was that Almodovar doing that to make us think that?
Just to add my two cents:
I loved this film. I think it's my favorite Almodovar, and his masterpiece.
I find the discussion of the priest and Bernal's character interesting...true to any film noir, we're meant to see how amoral most of the world is and not be too shocked. I thought the priest and the Bernal character were both equally "wrong," i.e. exploitative and purely selfish, by the film's lights, which were hardly moralistic (how terrible a film would that have been?)
Honestly, I thought the hero(ine?) of the film was the transvestite heroin addict/brilliant writer. She is the one betrayed by everyone except the Fele Martinez (sp?) character. On one significant level, it's a Brian DePalma Dressed to Kill/Blow Out kind of vibe, Hitchockian in the impotence-horror/Vertigo way, where the "hero" is too distracted or powerless (impotent) to help the vulnerable/exploited person he really needs to save--and he fails (but, also like DePalma, finds consolation and maybe even vindication in creating cinema).
I do think it's ingenious, as Ghostboy astutely pointed out, that Almodovar made an excellent, morally despondent film noir with complete nonchalance toward the sexual orientations of its characters. In film noir and in Hitchcock's sexually charged modernist masterpieces, the view of human nature, sex, and love is almost always cynical and even depressive; Almodovar simply believes that same-sexers are just as human as that--no more, no less.
To top it all off (so to speak), whereas the sex in Brokeback Mountain was touching and realistic (awkward and fumbly), the sex in Bad Education was hot (in the eroticized Mulholland Dr. way).