Natalie Portman is a stripper....
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fcolumbia_pictures%2Fcloser%2Fcloser_bigposter.jpg&hash=306c778f1bb30bd4b8c4eacd4246874b70a560cd)
http://www.empiremovies.com/movies/2004/closer.shtml
looks good
As soon as that trailer's in Quicktime, I'll comment on it. I saw the play; I thought it was okay, with some really good stuff and lots of rather standard relationship material (it especially seems old hat if you've seen anything by Neil LaBute). It'll be interesting to see Julia Roberts talking graphically about her sexual experiences. Other than her (although she certainly could be great in the part, if she makes the right choices), the cast is great and between them and Nichols, the material could be elevated to a level beyond what I saw on the stage. Portman and Owen have the best roles, so regardless, they'll make the whole thing worth watching.
i wanna fuck you like an animal,
i wanna feel you from the inside
my whole existence is flawed
you get me closer to god
nice trailer, but I hate it when they label the actors award winners and nominees.
suzanne vega=cool
Not to mention all of the stupid ass,
Truth is a game..
You play to win..
(duh duh duh!)
:?
Hate all that stupid plotline text crap. Show us some select scenes from the movie which make us FEEL what you are putting on the screen in text.
Quote from: Myxomatosis
Hate all that stupid plotline text crap. Show us some select scenes from the movie which make us FEEL what you are putting on the screen in text.
completely agree.
yesterday, I saw the trailer for this film "slap her, she's french" on tv http://imdb.com/title/tt0187512/
I didn't care for it, it was like everyother teen movie, then, in giant letters, and with a deep voice over: "IT'S TIME FOR AMERICA TO STRIKE BACK!". could they have come up with a more stupid tagline?
Trailer Here (http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/0-9ABC/Closer/trailer-page.html)
(Quicktime)
cool, another adult drama.
it's like "We Don't Live Here Anymore" with bigger stars.
It's a good enough trailer. The text didn't distract me too much. Looks almost word-for-word like the play, except with the benefit of close-ups.
Funny you should mention Slap Her She's French, rustin. A few of my friends worked on that, and I visited the set a few times. The US distributor ran out of money and couldn't afford to release it, though, so no one ever got to find out exactly how crappy it was.
man, when i was doing market research we had to work on Slap Her, She's French! several times. it looked hideous and i was embarrased to show it to people.
i like everyone in this cast (closer) and hopefully this will be good/okay.
Quote from: rustinglass
I hate it when they label the actors award winners and nominees.
me too.....i felt bad watching the Adaptation trailer.
Academy Award Winner Nicolas Cage
Academy Award Winner Meryl Streep
and Chris Cooper
of course, he won for that role, but still
excuse me while i puke..
no, really, excuse me.
Sorry, not excused.
i like "if you believe in love at first sight...you never stop looking" i think it's clever.
and here's a picture of natalie from the movie
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fffmedia.ign.com%2Ffilmforce%2Fimage%2Fcloser_natalieportman_1093384432.jpg&hash=ed198339a4521c431ac2107c2dbd8bdf75cb2a79)
Actress Natalie Portman ordered director Mike Nichols to remove her full frontal nude scenes from her latest movie Closer - despite playing a stripper in the film. Nichols is very protective of the 23-year-old beauty and agreed the topless footage was acceptable, but decided raunchy shots of her fully nude :shock: were gratuitous and should be deleted from the drama. Portman explains, "He wants to see my bare ass much less than (even) my father would. He's as or more protective of me than my parents are. So doing sexual, physical stuff for him felt very uncomfortable."
I suppose it was the classy thing to do.
If it was the classy thing to do, why did she do the scenes in the first place? For the art? Right...
she said in EW that she couldnt do something like that 'half assed'. but decided they were unneccesary later.
Quote from: themodernage02she said in EW that she couldnt do something like that 'half assed'.
Buh dum ching.
''He wants to see my bare ass much less than [even] my father would. He's as or more protective of me than my parents are. So doing sexual, physical stuff for him felt very comfortable.'' (Nichols made good on that trust. After shooting the strip-club scene fully nude — ''You can't do this stuff half-assed, pun intended,'' notes Portman — the director supported her decision to nix the skin shots.)
Same thing Hedwig quoted, I guess. But is it "comfortable" or "uncomfortable?" Either way, it's all very Freudian.
Can someone tell me the name of the main song in the trailer?
Quote from: CinephileCan someone tell me the name of the main song in the trailer?
"Caramel" - Suzanne Vega
Quote from: CinephileCan someone tell me the name of the main song in the trailer?
I would assume you're referring to the second one, which is "Caramel" by Suzanne Vega, if I'm not mistaken. I think someone mentioned her on the first page, but going back to find out who would be way too much work.
The first song, if anyone cares, is "The Blower's Daughter" by Damien Rice
EDIT: Damn you Macguffin. That's what I get for making myself a sandwich before I finish typing.
Quote from: UncleJoeyThe first song, if anyone cares, is "The Blower's Daughter" by Damien Rice
Thanks. That's actually what I was looking for. :oops:
Quote from: HedwigNichols is very protective of the 23-year-old beauty and agreed the topless footage was acceptable...
Oh thank God.
does anyone else think that suzanne vega's voice sounds a lot like natalie portman...maybe it's just me, but it's really apparent.
on a side note, both songs are great
This movie's really good, for the most part. It's like a Neil LaBute film with the venom replaced by sadness.
For the most part, it doesn't feel too much like a play -- Nichols is good at making things just cinematic enough(a la Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf). The sparse structure of the play really becomes dynamic when actual editing is involved (the way it plays with our understanding of narrative progression works much better -- or at least more interestingly -- on screen than it did on the stage). Furthermore, the changes made to the play make it a better piece of work overall. I still have a few problems with a few little things, but for the most part it's a nice, depressing little film.
Julia Roberts is surprisingly really good. I expected her to be the weak link, but she's wonderful, and holds her own with everyone else.
Going to write my full review...(3...2...1...) now.
Holy crap this movie is amazing. I suspect the MTV crowd won't be as enthused because it requires some commitment to enjoy, but if you've ever had a relationship with someone outside Daytona Beach Spring Break...then you'll relate.
Incredibly brave in it's honesty, it has a way of making you contridict your emotions the way everyone pretends they don't everyday. Performances are really strong all the way around. This is a study for anyone wanting to make movies or write about real human emotion and relationships.
wow, it was like being punched in the stomach for 2 hours.... but in a good way. at first i was worried it did seem a little too play-y and overly wordy staged etc. but after it got going i didnt have that problem anymore. yeah, really strong performances all around. just miserable though. why are we so miserable? some of the movie makes you so uncomfortable to hear these things but only because its true. if this movies only strength was managing to have a mostly naked nataile portman writhing around NOT exciting because of the emotions involved that is a feat in and of itself. this movie should be watched by anyone whos considering cheating on someone. its like a PSA.
SPOILERS MAJOR
the end of the film when he realizes hes made a mistake and grabs the rose but its too late. god, HEART BREAKING. and to top that off with the passport and the reprise of the beginning......... great ending.
END SPOILERS
so very good. i need to see more mike nichols. i netflixed Whos Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Catch 22, Angels in America, Regarding Henry and Silkwood to coincide with this but havent had a chance to watch them yet with all the christmas movies going on...
wow....excellent excellent movie. clive owen was just phenomenal. mike nichols continues to amaze me.
magnificent
I'm conflicted.
I didn't dig this movie as much as I hoped to.
The performances were great and the script was well-written. Mike Nichols did a great job as usual (mod, you must see Catch-22 and Angels in America IMMEDIATELY). Everything seemed to be in the right place for a brilliant film.
But, at the same time, it didn't completely work for me. Unfortunately, I can't put my finger on it right now. I think it was either that it was too much of a play for a film OR that I was so angry at/frustrated with/sad for the characters that I transferred those emotions onto the film itself. It was so painful to see these people doing these things to each other. But certain scenes felt too much like they were ripped right from the play and put right into the screenplay, which sometimes works (Angels in America, Glengarry Glen Ross) and sometimes doesn't (Oleanna). The frustrating thing about this film is that it worked about as often as it didn't. I can't say that I didn't like it but I can't say that it's necessarily brilliant either.
For the moment, I'm going on record to say that I admired the intentions for it and the effort put forth but that it didn't entirely click the way that I had hoped. I'm going to walk away from this film for awhile and see it again in a couple of years. By then, I think I will have been able to digest the whole thing.
In fact, I'm kind of glad that I feel like this. I haven't been able to shake the movie since I saw it last night (back to back with House of Flying Daggers) and I want to see it again to pick apart why I can't really make up my mind about it.
Well, you're not alone, hacksparrow. At least someone (http://indyweek.com/durham/2004-12-01/movie.html) thinks this film is awful. I haven't seen it yet, just thought that review was interesting.
Definitely an interesting review.
I didn't like his (IMHO) unnecessary politicizing of the film as a way of justifying why he didn't like it, but I understood and somewhat agree with a lot of what he didn't like about the film itself. It just didn't bother me as much as it did him.
I don't see even the worst films I've seen recently as a sign of cultural decay. Even a misfire (maybe, I still have to give it some thought) like Closer can't be counted as such, especially in light of all the shit that is on TV every week. A film that tries to successfully address social issues and questions of morality and ethics, even if it fails, is still a more responsible and admirable endeavor than The Amazing Race or The Simple Life. The popularity of a rich, unaccomplished, unremarkable waste of space shoving her hand in a cow's ass is more of a sign of cultural decay than Closer, even in less capable hands, ever could be.
I just got back from seeing this film. I thought is was excellent. I really enjoyed it alot. This picture made me feel bad for the characters but at the sametime you forget there all portrayed as cheaters. Which made me feel like they got what was coming to them. I do understand alot of the negative comments i have heard though. It may have not been the best movie of all time, but without a doubt one of the best that 2004 had to offer as of recent. I thought the directing was very well done, and the performances were excellent. I thought Natile Portmen was great, and thats not just because SPOILERS Shes does a nice little strip dance in one scene. But that did help lol
Cultural decline? Palleeeze! Anyone heard of Caligula? Or how about Ben Franklin's eploits? Roaring 20's? Hell, we're as puritan as we've ever been.
Like extramarital sex is a new thing....
Unbelievably Huge Spoilers DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVENT SEEN THE MOVIEQuote from: Some guy on IMDB message boardsFirst of all, I loved the movie, it deserved all the hype it got. But I was just wondering if I was the only one who noticed this. At the end i felt like Mike Nicholes left suprise for all of the people who read the play. Whether he did this intentionally or just to add mystery to the ending I don't know. But anyone who hasn't read the play would have trouble realizing that Alice died. I mean, I felt it was obvious because I was looking for it, like a wink at the people who were really into the movie and had read the play. Did anyone else feel like that? I'm glad she died, I had a fear that she wouldn't die at the end, and thats just not right.
did anyone get that? she doesn't die, unless i missed something in the last snippet of the movie.
That guy's an idiot. She SPOILER died in the play, but that's something Nichols changed (obviously), and it's one of the things that makes the movie so much better than the play.
The final shot is the most brilliant shot I've seen in a long time.
Quote from: mutinycoThe final shot is the most brilliant shot I've seen in a long time.
i wholeheartedly agree.
same here, it was a great shot. Great movie.
Loved the movie. The ending was great. Great performances by the four. I was surprised seeing Clive Owen acting so well. Natalie Portman did a great job too. I did see the play, but the movie was so much better!
Does Clive usually not act so well?
To be honest I saw him only in Bourne Supremacy which was almost nothing... and Gosford Park which he is fine but he doesnt stand out... he was the only name on the cast that I didnt know very well and surprised me the most!
The two films I've seen Clive Owen in he pretty much played similar characters. In Croupier and I'll Sleep When I'm Dead, he plays a character who has an underlying mysteriousness to him and a certain stoicism. Rumour was that he was going to be the new bond, not sure what happend to that.
So does Nat Port get naked in this?
While I'm still in love with this movie...I do say that I find the exclusion of Portman's nudity gratuitious. It was just too obvious in avoiding it. One of those "we'll time it so she goes out of frame just as her clothes come off" deals. I mean if you are going to make the choice that the character is a stripper...then you gotta sorta own that. If you are afraid of nudity, then maybe you aren't ready to play a stripper or direct one.
Does anyone know if the play included nudity?
"Gratuitous exclusion of nudity." I like that.
Quote from: metroshane
Does anyone know if the play included nudity?
Yep... lots of it... but unless you are very close to the stage you dont get to see much :roll:
Anywhoo... I think I'm glad I didnt see Natalie Portman completly naked... I wouldnt be able to watch StarWars Ep III if I'd see that... I already find her amazingly attractive and sexy and it would have been too much (I wouldnt mind seeing her privately naked of course 8) )
Quote from: metroshaneWhile I'm still in love with this movie...I do say that I find the exclusion of Portman's nudity gratuitious. It was just too obvious in avoiding it. One of those "we'll time it so she goes out of frame just as her clothes come off" deals. I mean if you are going to make the choice that the character is a stripper...then you gotta sorta own that. If you are afraid of nudity, then maybe you aren't ready to play a stripper or direct one.
Does anyone know if the play included nudity?
Are you sure you aren't just finding a way to rationalize the fact that you wanted to see her naked and didn't? You started this thread with the words "Natalie Portman is a stripper.." I find Natalie Portman amazing attractive and wouldn't have objected if she was nude onscreen, but I disagree that just because she's a stripper you need to see her naked. I don't think the scene needed it at all. It was one of my favorite from the film.
***READ NO FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM!***
They came into the scene late, I think they would have shown her naked sooner, so it wasn't missed. And as for the end of the scene there's no way they would have shown her naked from behind, bent over in front of the camera. I fail to see where the need for the nudity was.
Quote from: jasper_windowI fail to see where the need for the nudity was.
A stripper that doesn't take her clothes off in a movie about sex is like a soldier who doesn't come under fire in a movie about war. Sure, there's a story there. But an air of inauthenticity lingers.
Jasper, you are right...I did start the thread that way...but I was just being goofy. I do find Portman attractive, but I have DSL...I can get all the porn I want.
While, I agree that the scene didn't need a gyno exam I do think there are altenate ways to approach the scene. I mean when you have 10 strippers in a room and only one has their top on...it's distracting.
The lack of nudity didn't annoy me. If you think about it...if she HAD done the nude scenes...the movie would have ended up being defined by them, which wouldn't have been benificial for the film itself. So in in the end, I think it's very much for the better.
Quote from: metroshaneJasper, you are right...I did start the thread that way...but I was just being goofy. I do find Portman attractive, but I have DSL...I can get all the porn I want.
While, I agree that the scene didn't need a gyno exam I do think there are altenate ways to approach the scene. I mean when you have 10 strippers in a room and only one has their top on...it's distracting.
Good point. Obviosuly it didn't bother me. The movie was terrific though. I saw it yesterday and I can't get it out of my head. Natalie P and Clive Owen were great.
I thought it was fantastic.
The whole cast was great (even julia roberts), but Clive Owen and Natalie Portman owned.
Natalie Portman doing a split in a strippers outfit = :shock:
QuoteThe lack of nudity didn't annoy me. If you think about it...if she HAD done the nude scenes...the movie would have ended up being defined by them, which wouldn't have been benificial for the film itself. So in in the end, I think it's very much for the better.
Ghostboy, I have an issue with that stance. Granted you are probably right, but then the film is being defined by the actors and their "celebrity" not the art. If Portman was an unknown it wouldn't be an issue at all. THAT'S my real problem. I think the material called for nudity during that particular scene...and as good as Portman is...maybe she wasn't the right actress for it if that's the case. Remove yourself from contempory mentalities and imagine the way people will look at it in 100 years. By the way, I hate how we can show infidelity and even domestic violence , but not tits.
I'd really hate for this issue to dwelve into debate any more than it has to (why can't I let things go?) because in the end, it's really a small issue. I don't want it to be misrepresented into any critisism that would make it any less of a beautiful film. It is beautiful.
Portman did do the nudity, but Nicholos cut it. I wonder if she regretted doing it and asked him to remove it, or if he truly felt it was gratuitous...But you and Ghostboy are right - some films become dcefined by shit like that. "hey natalie portman's naked in this film, and Chloe Sevingy goes down on Vincent Gallo in the brown bunny" and it takes away from the film as a whole.
Quote from: jasper_windowsome films become dcefined by shit like that. "hey natalie portman's naked in this film, and Chloe Sevingy goes down on Vincent Gallo in the brown bunny" and it takes away from the film as a whole.
Isn't that
our problem?
It wasn't needed. It would've totally taken the audience out of the scene. Leaving it to our imaginations was more tasteful.
she did an interview on Letterman not too long ago and i believe she addressed the nudity on there. unfortunately my comment is useless as i have forgotten what was said :cry: but i did record it and i might revisit and come back with some info
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: jasper_windowsome films become dcefined by shit like that. "hey natalie portman's naked in this film, and Chloe Sevingy goes down on Vincent Gallo in the brown bunny" and it takes away from the film as a whole.
Isn't that our problem?
Yeah. That's what I was trying to say.
ode to the unexperienced...shut the fuck up/until youve banged a stripper/throw your hands up/if you know how to tip her/drop yo head down/if the stripper was nasty/flipped yo smile round/when you found out too lasty/as in weeks player/few tweaks later slayer/the steadies shaky skater/programs shady mayor/but you wasnt there was you/doesnt care or matter cuz you/couldnt fathom or wonder/the chasm or the blunder/
which has properly numbed her/sent your ship all asunder/so shut the fuck up/and keep livin through movies/suck your life up/watchin pussies and boobies/dreamin lives you cant live/creamin wives who wont give/peaks of skin and pubescence/in sweet celluloid presents
what you want...you cant have...what you have...you dont want...
if you got what you wanted...you'd soon not want what you gotted
and then it rains
This movie was incredible, I just kept turning to my friend and saying that. The dialogue is so well written, the movie balanced being funny and being dramatic extremely well.
Quote from: hacksparrowA stripper that doesn't take her clothes off in a movie about sex is like a soldier who doesn't come under fire in a movie about war. Sure, there's a story there. But an air of inauthenticity lingers.
Shit or get off the pot I believe is the phrase we're looking for.
;)
Quote from: MyxomatosisQuote from: hacksparrowA stripper that doesn't take her clothes off in a movie about sex is like a soldier who doesn't come under fire in a movie about war. Sure, there's a story there. But an air of inauthenticity lingers.
Shit or get off the pot I believe is the phrase we're looking for.
;)
That's a good way of putting it.
And your avatar goes very nicely with that sentiment.
Closer is an empty shell of a movie. Nothing is explained, everything is taken at face value, and emotions and motives can be turned on and off with the ease and speed of the flick of a switch.
There is nothing real or human about the emotions of anyone in this film. Most people don't behave like this, and I'd hate to meet ones who do. It's almost as bad as a LaBute movie (except the characters are all slime). But in this case, it's just the men, which is where the comparison to LaBute comes in. Solondz might be another accurate comparison, though, sans sarcasm and irony. In the end, everyone has fucked everyone, and everyone is left empty as a result.
There were a few shining moments in the film that didn't make me hate it totally. While most of the dialogue was really quite unrealistic and unfocused, there were a few memorable, well-played/written/directed exchanges. Unfortunately, these exchanges moved a bit too fast for me to record in my mind verbatim what the lines and exchanges were that I truly loved. And the film did leave the indelible impression in our minds of Julia Roberts getting it in the face from Jude Law. But still, this whole thing was just very contrived, and tried too hard, from the opening sequence. "Hello, stranger?" After you've been hit by a car? Okay. These people can't make up their minds, and Jane at the end there, just decides she doesn't love Law's character because he wants to hear the truth from her. Again. Okay.
I guess the whole tone the movie tried to project on to me bounced off and made me regurgitate any profundities I may have otherwise absorbed. Come to think of it, I have yet to see a great relationship movie, a great adult drama, that is purely about relationships, leaving me to believe that if a movie is only about one thing, and it tackles the subject in an overt manner, it will fail, because there is nothing else there to anchor the story.
I'm curious about the "final shot" that everyone is saying is so brilliant? The passport? The stone in the wall with Alice's name on it? Jane walking down the street in that white tank top in slow motion, her breasts bouncing up and down and guys turning around to stare at her? I didn't see the brilliance in any of those things.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that I remembered one of the things that turned me off to this movie so much. It was the questions. "Was it good? Did you come? Better than with me? Blah, blah, blah, orgasm-cakes." These are the questions that immature, insecure high school students just experimenting and learning about sex might ask. 'Cause we're all that inadequate, inexperienced, and ill-advised when it comes to the subject, right? And that's what makes this so "real." (My tongue is firmly in cheek, my eyes almost falling out of their sockets from rolling around so much.) Maybe I'm just a little more mature than these people and that's why I didn't like this flick. Because these people are stupid. They care so much about how their "other"s have fucked another person, and they care so much about the quality of these fucks, when if they really loved their "other," it wouldn't be an issue. And that's what killed Dan's and Alice/Jane's relationship.
Quote from: wantautopiaJane walking down the street in that white tank top in slow motion, her breasts bouncing up and down and guys turning around to stare at her?
i just thought it was well shot. the ending and the beginning shots kinda made the movie for me. can't really explain it.
I really enjoyed this film. I felt it was really honest about the way it dealt with relationships, jealousy, lust, etc. Aside from a few awkward moments early in the film, the dialogue was exceptional. All of the perfomances were solid, but I was especially impressed with Clive Owen. All in all, I'd probably give it an A-.
I'm with wantautopia on this one, I felt Closer was empty and ultimately pointless. Kudos to the guy who wrote the play (I couldn't care less about him) and Mike Nichols for portraying relationships with the kind of "honesty" that they do but a shallow narrative about shallow people doesn't make for a good film; this is one of those cases where the form fitting the content doesn't exactly work. These people aren't characters but caricatures and obvious devices to evoke a certain thought or emotion, thus losing any sense of complexity. Closer leaves nothing to the imagination -- well, except for the things I wanted it to be explicit about like NAKED NATALIE PORTMAN -- and is, in my opinion, a preachy morality tale without any real morals except that it frowns on lying. The supposed insight about relationships in the film is incredibly literal and simpleminded, and not in a poignantly simple way either. Nichol's lack of subtlety in his direction makes me really sad; it only reminds me of how far he's fallen since, well, The Graduate. I haven't seen Angels in America yet so I'll still hold out hope but Closer is an omen to the demise of a once-great artist.
THERE MAY BE THINGS CONSIDERED MINOR SPOILERS IN HERE - TREAD LIGHTLYQuote from: wantautopia?if a movie is only about one thing, and it tackles the subject in an overt manner, it will fail, because there is nothing else there to anchor the story.
Just wanted to say "Good call" on that. There's only so much you can do with a film that's about sex; Girl 6 is a perfect example. You'll get that occasional one, like sex lies and videotape, but I don't think there's anything new to be said on film about normal sexual relations between consenting adults, which might have been why I was a little disappointed by Closer.
Quote from: wantautopia?I'm curious about the "final shot" that everyone is saying is so brilliant? The passport? The stone in the wall with Alice's name on it? Jane walking down the street in that white tank top in slow motion, her breasts bouncing up and down and guys turning around to stare at her? I didn't see the brilliance in any of those things.
Other than the fact that Natalie Portman was stunning in that final shot, I don't get the big deal about it either. Not that it was a poor choice of image to end on but it didn't kick my ass. And since it never felt like it was her movie, why end on her? I think a more interesting final shot, for example, would have been Jude Law's POV catching the eyes of several attractive women as he walks down the street; I think that would have made more sense considering that his actions set everything in the movie in motion. Ending on Natalie is fine but it doesn't come close to holding up against the look that Claudia gives the camera at the end of Magnolia or Celine dancing at the end of Before Sunset or the door closing on Kay at the end of The Godfather.
Quote from: wantautopia?These are the questions that immature, insecure high school students just experimenting and learning about sex might ask. 'Cause we're all that inadequate, inexperienced, and ill-advised when it comes to the subject, right? And that's what makes this so "real."
I got news for you. You
never stop asking those questions. It's not an issue of maturity, it's just plain old human insecurity. If your significant other is cheating on you, you want to know why. We may not be inadequate or inexperienced when it comes to sex but all of us are when it comes to love, whether you're in a happy relationship or not. You can only learn so much and what you learn, you may decide to ignore at times. In the scene when Julia Roberts confesses to Clive Owen, I thought his reaction was the most real thing in the movie.
Quote from: hacksparrowI got news for you. You never stop asking those questions. It's not an issue of maturity, it's just plain old human insecurity. If your significant other is cheating on you, you want to know why. We may not be inadequate or inexperienced when it comes to sex but all of us are when it comes to love, whether you're in a happy relationship or not. You can only learn so much and what you learn, you may decide to ignore at times. In the scene when Julia Roberts confesses to Clive Owen, I thought his reaction was the most real thing in the movie.
Well put.
The final shot is brilliant. Not for its technique. Not for its look. But for its depth. In slo-mo, Jane, with her hair growing back in, is walking through Times Square, attracting head-turns from passing men.
First, its a perfect bookend, as the opening shot was of her walking down a London Street. What's happening in this final shot is that we're witnessing first hand men's sexual objectification of women. The film is about, to a large extent, the way that men create fantasies of their women without ever really knowing who they are. During that opening sequence, Larry spends the entire day with Jane before he finally even asks her name. And when he does, she gives him a fake name. His fantasy proceeds into the form of a novel he writes about somebody he doesn't even really know -- it's his idea of who she is. Even when she tells Dan her real name at the strip club, he doesn't believe her. He wants his idea of her reality, as Alice -- and even argues with her as a stripper about who she is. He does what all men really want in their fantasy, and that's to totally dominate their woman. The only person to capture the real Jane is Anna, who takes a photograph of her crying. The men, so self-absorbed, never even inquire as to what made her cry? So self-absorbed with their fantasies that Dan actually goes to meet a "woman" he chatted with online, completely ignorant that it was really a man.
So, that final shot. "Jane walking down the street in that white tank top in slow motion, her breasts bouncing up and down and guys turning around to stare at her?" Exactly my point.
What are the men looking at? A sex object. They're not really interested in who she is. It's her exterior. Same with the men in the audience. And to take it a step further, it's "Natalie Portman". Who's Natalie Portman? I don't know. I have an image of her as an actress and celebrity, but not of the "real" person.
I wonder whether this shot was staged, or did Nichols simply film her walking down the street recording genuine reactions? If he did that, he is brilliant, because not only would it represent everything I've already said, it would illustrate it without staged manipulation. Either way, it still works. This single shot sums up the film.
/\ What he said.
Had to've been staged though. Otherwise people would have looked at the camera before/after looking at Natalie.
Quote from: GhostboyHad to've been staged though. Otherwise people would have looked at the camera before/after looking at Natalie.
Well since I've already spoiled the ending and the beginning for myself, I'll jump in.
A Natalie Portman
stalker fan website has on-set pictures of (I'm assuming) the scene you're talking about at the bottom of
this page (http://www.natalieportman.com/npcom.php?page_number=758). It looks extremely un-staged.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.natalieportman.com%2Fimages%2Fprivate%2Fcloser_natportmanset40.jpg&hash=8583d68f6a411295562e87f0552f1258ef863569)
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanIt looks extremely un-staged.
Well, sorry to disappoint you but those are all extras reacting to her walking down the sidewalk.. it's staged.
Brilliant.
Quote from: cinephiléWell, sorry to disappoint you but those are all extras reacting to her walking down the sidewalk.. it's staged.
Silly Cinephile! Extras don't act!
.. you are not the landscape.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
A Natalie Portman stalker fan website has on-set pictures of (I'm assuming) the scene you're talking about at the bottom of this page (http://www.natalieportman.com/npcom.php?page_number=758).
That is one creepy website. Sometimes I wonder if I like Natalie Portman too much, but now I know I don't.
Re: the pictures: zoom lens + natural light + talented NY extras = non-staged looking shoot.
Quote from: GhostboyRe: the pictures: zoom lens + natural light + talented NY extras = non-staged looking shoot.
It's just not credible that they'd shut down a Times Square intersection and fill it with that many extras just to get a shot of somebody walking down the street. They might close off one sidewalk for a finite distance, but these photos make it look like she's walking freely. The reactions on the people's faces are immediate and almost with a look of surprise -- like they're reacting to Natalie Portman, not just a hottie passing by.
Though I could be wrong...
But then again, Mike Nichols is brilliant; it's well within his powers to make a staged shot look unstaged. My guess is that it was staged, because it did end in a crane shot, if I'm not mistaken. It would have been kind of hard to have Natalie Portman walking through Times Square, have average joes turning their heads to gawk at her and not start staring at this crane across the street with a camera on it.
After reading mutinyco's breakdown of the final shot, I've warmed up to it. I still think it's a bit overrated on this board anyway but I get it now.
Quote from: mutinycoWhat are the men looking at? A sex object. They're not really interested in who she is. It's her exterior.
And that's exactly how Alice wants it (I'm probably not the only guy on this board who had a girlfriend like this, am I?). She's in a new city where she can reinvent herself and she doesn't want anyone to see more of her than what she has on display, yet she still justifies to herself that she's giving a lot because she's a stripper; she's giving as much of herself (on a superficial level) as she is willing to and it's all non-committal so she's still in her comfort zone.
Goddamn, I need to see this again.
Yeah, it definitely looks like she's walking freely. What they might've done is use extras to turn and look at her...
anyone notice that alice is about to cross the intersection with a "don't walk" sign on? And so the cycle continues.
Yeah I remember that, pretty funny.
Quote from: metroshaneanyone notice that alice is about to cross the intersection with a "don't walk" sign on? And so the cycle continues.
That's it, I take back everything I said. This movie is a masterpiece.
And if anyone believed that, I have some nice beachfront property to sell you.Anyway, I still don't buy the whole "everyone asks questions about infidelity" thing. To me, it still sounds so juvenile. It is something I believe people should outgrow. It shouldn't be the concern if you've found someone is cheating on you. There is so much more to consider that "did you come?" and "was s/he better than me?" should've been thoughts abandoned years ago.
Quote from: wantautopia?
Anyway, I still don't buy the whole "everyone asks questions about infidelity" thing. To me, it still sounds so juvenile. It is something I believe people should outgrow. It shouldn't be the concern if you've found someone is cheating on you. There is so much more to consider that "did you come?" and "was s/he better than me?" should've been thoughts abandoned years ago.
Considering how Clive Owen was introduced into the story he is a sexually immature person, so it felt believeable that he would ask those questions. "Was he better than you" seems like it would be a common question for anyone in that situation.
Quote from: wantautopia?It is something I believe people should outgrow.
Yes, it's something people
should outgrow, but few people actually do. It's the same with fighting (I mean in the physical sense) or Full House - things we should lose interest in as we grow older and (presumably) wiser, but never do.
This movie really was incredible. Very sad and brutal, but so well done. All the performances are great and the writing is superb. I really loved the opening sequence particularly with The Blower's Daughter playing.
I think I just vomited a little bit in my mouth.
Quote from: wantautopia?I think I just vomited a little bit in my mouth.
hahah thats how I FEEL in the IHH thread! :-D
This film is the skeleton of another film. Not only do the emotions feel hollow, but the focus of the film only allows for that: every relationship is viewed only at their beginning and ends. Its focuses just on the surface revelations and the initial flirtations. Never does the film allow itself to view any couple or person in a way that really begins to explain or detail who they could be. I even felt Portman's revelation at the end was more a gimmick than such. But, the film I actually kept thinking about was A Clockwork Orange. The point of the film felt like it was a role reverse for Jude Law's character to show dimension to the so called "bad guys". 'spoiler' 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 and then he was hurt and portrayed simply as the victim, ala Clockwork Orange's point about the dehuminization of criminals in our society. Did i really buy into what the film was trying to do and be moved? No. Writing can be good and sometimes its too clever to be really moving. Way too clever here for the job it wanted to do. Nichols films with every artistic touch expected of him but the film misses the point and so much more.
*Spoilers an' shit*
I just saw this (cos it just came to London). I didn't read what has been said 'til now, as I want this to be just straight up first impression, so apologies if I reiterate anything that's already been beaten to death.
Very good flick. Somewhat similar, even, to something I'm working on right now. When it started off I thought I might hate it because of the too-witty banter and style of acting, but it just came together nicely and really kept picking up momentum. Some capsule reviews had mentioned that Nichols took it to an almost surreal level by isolating the four main characters, and I kept thinking along the lines of Carnal Knowledge (which, I think I've said before, I consider a full-out masterpiece and one of my top 30 of all time). But that wasn't the case. Not that I would've minded seeing ONLY the four characters (in fact, it's an exciting idea), but I suppose that would have really called attention to itself, and he kept it minimal but still believable, and it worked very well. In fact, he was able to use lots of 'extras' at key moments to punch something through, an emotion, let's say -- like in the opera house when all those people flooded past Julia and Jude, or for the very last shot. Oh, and as to Julia and Jude, not to take anything away from them because I thought they were great... well, another review I skimmed had mentioned something about Clive and Natalie stealing the movie, and I just put this down as another 'hate the star actors' thing some reviewers have. But hell, this critic was right. Natalie Portman is, of course, my current favorite actress, and proves yet again that she is BOTH the hottest AND most interesting of anywhere near her age group / generation. And finally she got to play a character who you can only completely love some of the time, as opposed to most of her other characters who you love all of the time. Again, not that it's a depth issue, but it's just nice to see her doing great at something different. Variety is a much more respectful word than branching out. Basically shitty actors 'branch out' to try something different, good actors sometimes pick a 'variety' of parts, is all I'm trying to say. But Clive, damn was he fucking hardcore. The end of his big fight scene with Julia, and then the best scene in the movie, the strip club bit -- just totally unafraid. Maybe deep deep down in Julia and Jude's mind they know they still have a star image to uphold outside of this movie, but Clive just kept getting deeper and deeper; an asshole, a pervert, a savage... and yet so fucking aware of it. That line "because I'm a fucking caveman!" was the best delivered of the year (2004, that is, as we'll count it by American release).
But I must be fair, and still say it was a less than perfect movie, for two reasons (and a bit):
1. Shit shit shit Damien Rice song to open and close the film. Why? There's at least five other singer/guitar player guys who fit the mood mode in the same ballpark as this guy, and they're ALL better. Damien Rice is like Ryan Adams or Ray LaMontagne for 15 year old girls. A song by a sad romantic does not fit a movie about bitterness and shallowness and selfishness and need. Take Nick Drake for instance (cos that's what Mikey boy was really looking for: a modern Drake) -- he is a sad romantic for sure, but one who's songs come across as extremely bitter and needy... and that's why we love him. Cos the 'him' in his songs is not a phony.
2. The style. Post Carnal Knowledge Mike Nichols is a fucking boring visual director. It's a sad sad crying shame. You can be minimal and not take away from performances, and STILL find a way to not shoot a made-for-tv movie. Plus, there was a point where the fact that this movie was really a play shines through, because too many cross-cut Medium Close Ups just weren't working. Any shot that held both people in a wider frame (with a few notable exceptions) played much better. But this is coming from a guy who has become, of late, more and more disgruntled with standard coverage, so take that with a grain of salt...
But on the whole I really can overlook this stuff (like I can overlook the completely retarded CBC-esque Native Indian scene in the otherwise perfect Notre Musique). When you take chances, some fail. Fair enough. In closing, I'd like to mention some guilty pleasures of Closer. To begin, a movie shot in and around many Central London locations, of which I have walked in the last year. And yet still aware of its half-American cast, enough to emphasize "bird' and "bloke" and "loo", and have them not sound quite right coming from Nat. That hits home in a cute, funny way. Also, hearing How Soon Is Now in that stripclub. Fucking ace. In fact, besides the Rice fiasco, it was a great soundtrack. And finally, if I may revert to my most lad-ish self, seeing Natalie Portman's fine fine super fine ass in a G-string was a treat unto itself. Not too distracting to take me out of the movie, but enough for my eyes to just nearly pop out of my head.
The movie could take you into the realm of near generalization, where all women use their bodies/surface sexuality to gain power and then say 'I'm not a slut', and all men display emotionless obsession with sex and sex alone and then want to be taken seriously as higher thinkers, and in the face of this you would think that it was slipping into unfairness or cliche or the easy way out until you realized that this really seems to be the foundation of most human relationships (like it or not). We have the capacity to be giving and loving in near tandem with our destructiveness and pettiness. At least that's what me and Jean-Paul Sartre think...
Sorry for the double post. Now that I've read through the history here, I'd just like to add some quick things. Not as an attack, but just from a different point of view on this:
Quote from: wantautopia?Closer is an empty shell of a movie. Nothing is explained, everything is taken at face value, and emotions and motives can be turned on and off with the ease and speed of the flick of a switch.
These people can't make up their minds, and Jane at the end there, just decides she doesn't love Law's character because he wants to hear the truth from her. Again. Okay.
To what you said in the first bit (nothing explained, face value, off and on with a flick of a switch) -- that IS the very makeup of intimate (or would-be) relationships. You love someone sooo much, you care about them sooo much, then the minute you see them you hurt them. And then you think 'oh, I must have
really wanted to hurt them, I guess I don't like them'. Then you look at them feeling bad and you wanna puke and all of a sudden become so totally selfless and caring for them. But then maybe that's because you're a coward and don't wanna be seen as the bad guy. And on and on and you'll never really know. If it looks facile or staged on the surface, I would suggest it's because of a little tool of drama called Text and Subtext.
As to Jane deciding she doesn't love him at the end, it would seem to me that it's because through his actions she is able to see that he is more interested in whether or not he 'beat' Clive Owen and got to fuck both women, than the fact that he is back with the person he is supposed to be with.
That was the little knife twist of this story. That insistence on "truth" -- damn, I can be like that. People running around with little Martyr For Truth complexes can be equally or moreso shallow than those who can't be bothered to think about it at all.
Oh, and as others have mentioned, that little mystery over Natalie's name was some nice gravy.
Quote from: SoNowThenOh, and as others have mentioned, that little mystery over Natalie's name was some nice gravy.
Not to put too much thought into a crap movie, but it was more than just gravy. It depicts how much we change for those that we love, or want to receive love from. In the end, we go back to a person that is rather unlike the version of self we presented to our lover, because it is closer to who we actually are.
This movie just beat you over the head with that idea.
I didn't see much in that movie that had to do with love...
though your point is an interesting one. Surely we change everyday, from person to person, regardless if we want love, hate, fear, or respect from them. Also, as with any close friendship/relationship, you can only present so much of your "true" self at a time... people need to get climatized. The really good relationships are the ones where you get to the point of being as close I guess as to how you wanna be around them, warts and all. But even then, I dunno... your being around someone is gonna change you, change your tunes, your harmonies.
It seemed like the movie beat you over the head with the whole "the truth is..." idea, not just centered on 'self' or 'love', but on information, revelation, memories, and moment to moment thinking -- and that insight being honest rarely excuses it from being painful -- and damn we need to get beaten over the head with that one, at least I do sometimes.
Quote from: wantautopia?Closer is an empty shell of a movie. Nothing is explained, everything is taken at face value, and emotions and motives can be turned on and off with the ease and speed of the flick of a switch.
There is nothing real or human about the emotions of anyone in this film. Most people don't behave like this, and I'd hate to meet ones who do. It's almost as bad as a LaBute movie (except the characters are all slime). But in this case, it's just the men, which is where the comparison to LaBute comes in. Solondz might be another accurate comparison, though, sans sarcasm and irony. In the end, everyone has fucked everyone, and everyone is left empty as a result.
There were a few shining moments in the film that didn't make me hate it totally. While most of the dialogue was really quite unrealistic and unfocused, there were a few memorable, well-played/written/directed exchanges. Unfortunately, these exchanges moved a bit too fast for me to record in my mind verbatim what the lines and exchanges were that I truly loved. And the film did leave the indelible impression in our minds of Julia Roberts getting it in the face from Jude Law. But still, this whole thing was just very contrived, and tried too hard, from the opening sequence. "Hello, stranger?" After you've been hit by a car? Okay. These people can't make up their minds, and Jane at the end there, just decides she doesn't love Law's character because he wants to hear the truth from her. Again. Okay.
I guess the whole tone the movie tried to project on to me bounced off and made me regurgitate any profundities I may have otherwise absorbed. Come to think of it, I have yet to see a great relationship movie, a great adult drama, that is purely about relationships, leaving me to believe that if a movie is only about one thing, and it tackles the subject in an overt manner, it will fail, because there is nothing else there to anchor the story.
I'm curious about the "final shot" that everyone is saying is so brilliant? The passport? The stone in the wall with Alice's name on it? Jane walking down the street in that white tank top in slow motion, her breasts bouncing up and down and guys turning around to stare at her? I didn't see the brilliance in any of those things.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that I remembered one of the things that turned me off to this movie so much. It was the questions. "Was it good? Did you come? Better than with me? Blah, blah, blah, orgasm-cakes." These are the questions that immature, insecure high school students just experimenting and learning about sex might ask. 'Cause we're all that inadequate, inexperienced, and ill-advised when it comes to the subject, right? And that's what makes this so "real." (My tongue is firmly in cheek, my eyes almost falling out of their sockets from rolling around so much.) Maybe I'm just a little more mature than these people and that's why I didn't like this flick. Because these people are stupid. They care so much about how their "other"s have fucked another person, and they care so much about the quality of these fucks, when if they really loved their "other," it wouldn't be an issue. And that's what killed Dan's and Alice/Jane's relationship.
out of curiosity, how old are you?
24. How about you? And what does that have to do with anything (out of curiosity -- haha)?
I loved this movie. I expected to at least half like it, but I loved it.
Quote from: wantautopia?Closer is an empty shell of a movie. Nothing is explained
Is it empty because you don't understand it? If things were shamelessly spelled out, would you consider it less empty? And if you truly do believe it's an empty shell of a movie, why would you have this desire for things to be explained?
EXTREME SPOILERSQuote from: wantautopia?emotions and motives can be turned on and off with the ease and speed of the flick of a switch.
You're simplifying it because you don't want to believe there's anything to understand. Of course they're not machines. The movie is about lying (or truth)... lying to others and lying to one's self. These emotional flips you speak of are simply epiphanies, when the characters realize they've been lying to themselves. It's just a little emotionally complex, but nothing that we should be struggling with.
Quote from: wantautopia?But in this case, it's just the men, which is where the comparison to LaBute comes in.
Of course it's not just the men. Remember the scene in the hotel room when Alice suddenly realizes she doesn't love Dan? I assume those are the moments you're talking about.
Quote from: wantautopia?(except the characters are all slime)
Not really. Clive Owen's character is slime-ish, sure, but he's honest (the only character who's honest, I think). Dan isn't really slime, he's just stupid. And how is Alice slime? She's like the herione! (If anyone is blameless, it's Alice.) Even Julia Roberts' character came out likeable and relatively unslimy (or at least sympathetic).
Quote from: wantautopia?But in this case, it's just the men, which is where the comparison to LaBute comes in.
Of course it's not just the men. Remember when Alice suddenly realizes she doesn't love Dan? I assume these are the kinds of scenes you're talking about.
Quote from: wantautopia?In the end, everyone has fucked everyone, and everyone is left empty as a result.
Actually I think Dan is the only truly empty one in the end (especially with the scene where he realizes "Alice" was a fake name). Alice stops being dependent. Clive Owen's character gets everything he wants. Julia Roberts is on a guilt trip, sure, but at least she's not going back and forth (though we probably know the least about her ending).
Quote from: wantautopia?While most of the dialogue was really quite unrealistic and unfocused, there were a few memorable, well-played/written/directed exchanges.
Yeah, how about Clive Owen's dialogue? Everything he said blew me away.
Quote from: wantautopia?And the film did leave the indelible impression in our minds of Julia Roberts getting it in the face from Jude Law.
That was Natalie Portman. (But for the record, I think the "slap" should have been louder.)
Quote from: wantautopia?But still, this whole thing was just very contrived, and tried too hard, from the opening sequence. "Hello, stranger?" After you've been hit by a car? Okay.
What is it with you and realism? This is a movie.
Quote from: wantautopia?EDIT: Just wanted to add that I remembered one of the things that turned me off to this movie so much. It was the questions. "Was it good? Did you come? Better than with me? Blah, blah, blah, orgasm-cakes." These are the questions that immature, insecure high school students just experimenting and learning about sex might ask.
We're talking about Clive Owen's character here. He was a pervert. It's that simple.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanIs it empty because you don't understand it? If things were shamelessly spelled out, would you consider it less empty? And if you truly do believe it's an empty shell of a movie, why would you have this desire for things to be explained?
No, 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.
QuoteYou're simplifying it because you don't want to believe there's anything to understand.
No I'm not. There's nothing enlightening or intelligent or profound in this film. No insights. Just a bunch of emotionally immature fools whinging about who fucked who and why.
QuoteNot really. Clive Owen's character is slime-ish, sure, but he's honest (the only character who's honest, I think). Dan isn't really slime, he's just stupid. And how is Alice slime? She's like the herione! (If anyone is blameless, it's Alice.) Even Julia Roberts' character came out likeable and relatively unslimy (or at least sympathetic).
Alice didn't do anything to reject Law's character.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: wantautopia?And the film did leave the indelible impression in our minds of Julia Roberts getting it in the face from Jude Law.
That was Natalie Portman. (But for the record, I think the "slap" should have been louder.)
No, it was Julia Roberts -- I was referring to something much more obscene than a "slap."
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: wantautopia?But still, this whole thing was just very contrived, and tried too hard, from the opening sequence. "Hello, stranger?" After you've been hit by a car? Okay.
What is it with you and realism? This is a movie.
A movie that is supposed to portray real relationships should be real. This movie, like the characters in it, was total bullshit.
I take a great interest in surrealism. I think its use can be powerful in the right hands. But the movie has to be overtly surrealistic or at least choose its moments to utilize these techniques effectively. Closer doesn't even try to be surrealistic. So that moment was unbelievable and stuck out like a sore thumb.
MORE SPOILERSQuote from: wantautopia?There's nothing enlightening or intelligent or profound in this film. No insights. Just a bunch of emotionally immature fools whinging about who fucked who and why.
First you simplify, now you trivialize. You just didn't get into the story.
Quote from: wantautopia?Alice didn't do anything to reject Law's character.
Of course she did, eventually. But she was dependent for most of the movie, even when she knew better. Doesn't that make her sympathetic? Come on Ono, you heartless old man!
Quote from: wantautopia?No, it was Julia Roberts -- I was referring to something much more obscene than a "slap."
Oh... oh. Right.
Quote from: wantautopia?A movie that is supposed to portray real relationships should be real. This movie, like the characters in it, was total bullshit . . . I take a great interest in surrealism. I think its use can be powerful in the right hands. But the movie has to be overtly surrealistic or at least choose its moments to utilize these techniques effectively.
I didn't know you were
that much of a black and white realist. It has to be entirely surrealistic/fantastical or entirely realistic? What about incongruence? What about impurity? What about the grey area? I love the grey area. I'd live in the grey area.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanFirst you simplify, now you trivialize. You just didn't get into the story.
You're right. 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.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: wantautopia?Alice didn't do anything to reject Law's character.
Of course she did, eventually. But she was dependent for most of the movie, even when she knew better. Doesn't that make her sympathetic? Come on Ono, you heartless old man!
Haha.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: wantautopia?A movie that is supposed to portray real relationships should be real. This movie, like the characters in it, was total bullshit . . . I take a great interest in surrealism. I think its use can be powerful in the right hands. But the movie has to be overtly surrealistic or at least choose its moments to utilize these techniques effectively.
I didn't know you were that much of a black and white realist. It has to be entirely surrealistic/fantastical or entirely realistic? What about incongruence? What about impurity? What about the grey area? I love the grey area. I'd live in the grey area.
I'm not that much of a black-and-white realist. Take Buffalo '66. One of the best, most pure moments ever in a film, the tap dancing scene. A moment of surreal beauty in the midst of chaos. But it needs context. I guess if you're looking for it, you could find reason to give "hello, stranger" a pass in the same light. It's just a minor nitpick, and the thing that makes it stick out is he didn't continue with that surreal tone. I think it would've added a more cinematic quality to the film if he did (as it did play like a play most of the time).
Oh, JB, you search out a disagreeing review and call out a war and you overlook me? C'mon, Ono and I almost had mirror reviews. Why not throw down the gauntlet with me? I almost feel rejected I wasn't involved in this one....
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetOh, JB, you search out a disagreeing review and call out a war and you overlook me? C'mon, Ono and I almost had mirror reviews. Why not throw down the gauntlet with me? I almost feel rejected I wasn't involved in this one....
Okay, I'll give it a shot.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThis film is the skeleton of another film.
And which film is that?
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetevery relationship is viewed only at their beginning and ends. Its focuses just on the surface revelations and the initial flirtations.
So you want the big uneventful middle? What makes you think something crucial happened when the camera wasn't looking? I really didn't feel like I was missing anthing.
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?
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAt 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?
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI still don't understand why you and Ono think this is a vacuous movie. Were you not paying attention?
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.
We've explained why we felt the film was vacuous. For me it has to do with my thoughts on relationships. cowboy seems to think that because I didn't like the film means I haven't been in love. Untrue. You've seen profundities in the analyses of relationships here that I don't see. Because in my experience with relationships, I see things differently. Things in this film are all seedy, and the characters are pretty despicable, without redeeming qualities (unlike Sideways -- and no, I don't simply hate films with unlikable characters, let's get that out of the way).
Quote from: wantautopia?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.
Quote from: wantautopia?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%.
I'm failing to see how that's a bad thing.
Quote from: wantautopia?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.
One other thing I want to respond to...
SPOILERSQuote from: wantautopia?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.")
:yabbse-thumbup:
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.
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.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman[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.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: The Gold TrumpetAt 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.
i agree. Great film.
Quote from: Dtm115300i 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.)
Quote from: Thrindle(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?
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.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers4%2Fcloserdvd.jpg&hash=ec8bfbd11a2dd366ef2fdb4063b109e08206a319)
Quote from: MacGuffinCloser (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.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers4%2Fcloserdvd.jpg&hash=ec8bfbd11a2dd366ef2fdb4063b109e08206a319)
That's one expensive coaster.
How do you say that in Gaelic?
sin tá aon costasach teasc
Quote from: flagpolespecialany dates??
3/29
I smell a double-dip coming.
Saw this last night. it was awesome, and true. Women do use their bodies to get whatever they want. it's the reason I hit it and quit it. Clive Owen was the man, he was vulnerable in the beginning and came off as a pervert, and rather sad, but then he orchestrates everything and in the end gets everything he wanted and more. He was the best. It kind of gave off the vibe that if you treat women like shit then they will always come back. Clive Owen says and does some of the most despicable stuff but he always seemed to have the ball in his court. While Jude Law played everything really cool and sweet and ended up getting his ass handed to him. It was one of those movies that has you thinking for awhile after the initial viewing. And that to me is the sign of a fantastic film.
Quote from: flagpolespecial(not sure of the theatrical release in the states came out jan 29 here)
just assume if sumthing comes out on dvd in america while it's just opened theatrically here, it probably came out the year before.
i just watched CLOSER. i really enjoyed the film. i read almost everything everyone said about it (good and bad). i do disagree with most of the bad comments but i can see where they're coming from. i really liked the conversations in the film. it did make it feel like a play. i really liked the opening and closing shots of the film. but i think my favorite part about CLOSER is simply the structure. i loved the way the film was written and edited together. i read a lot of comments on xixax how it leaves nothing to the imagination. i really beg to differ. i really puts the viewer in a position to come along on the journey. to be active while viewing rather than passive. it makes the viewer fill in the gaps with their own story and moments. it gives you the structure and let's you play around with story. i loved that the most! it's very smart and heart felt. dare i say honest. all in all, i loved it and i was very glad i bought for 22.99$ at borders. (i had a gift card)
I saw it at Borders today for the same price as well. But I went to Wal-Mart and got it for $15.99 instead and saved my gift card.
its bare as hell so i'll either A. wait for them to announce an edition with extras in like 3 months or B. wait 3 months to get it used 3 for 25$ or 2 for 20$ at a video store. you've got to play it cautious with these bastards now.
i finally put down the ps2 controller and bought this yesterday. i fucking loved it but i am about to ask a stupid question. reminded me of a feminist 'in the company of men'
[SPOILERS}]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
my question is whats the significance of jude law seeing the gravestone with portmans faKe name on it?
sorry, its a dumb question ..........please soemnone answer it
:oops:
END of spoilerssssssssss
Quote from: NEON MERCURY
[SPOILERS}]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
my question is whats the significance of jude law seeing the gravestone with portmans faKe name on it?
sorry, its a dumb question ..........please soemnone answer it
I guess it comes down to what love actually means.
At the end of the movie, when Natalie Portman says, "Where is this love? You speak of this love, but I can't feel it, I can't see it", Jude Law has no real answer to give her. He never did. Love to him was such a fleeting and surface based emotion.
He was capable of infatuation.
When they first met and were talking on the bus, Alice was coquettish and made a point of unnerving him. You will notice that she fixed his collar and entered his personal space, to assert her own. Her ability to look him in the eye and make him squirm, was what he found so attractive. He told her she was "disarming" and immediately she said, "That's not a euphemism". She was right, it wasn't. Their was nothing good about her ability to disarm him. Rather, she was asserting a woman's age old ability to disguise her own secrets with sexual innuendo, and possiblity of lustful consummation. (Perhaps that's what Stefen means when he says women use sex to get what they want). Alice was ashamed of herself, otherwise she would have lived as Jane. And so she drew a picture for Jude Law, of a woman who was sexually in control, a person who held her own fate - even though it would seem she was dealt a shitty hand.
When Jude Law sees that he wasn't in love with "Alice Ayres", it becomes clear that Alice was an enigma. She was who he wanted her to be. She was who
she wanted to be. As Alice, she was capable of being loved and protected, and WORTHY of these things... despite who she ACTUALLY was. But in reality, Jane was hidden beneath a thick exterior, and felt incapable of being loved at all.
simpler version: she moves to london and decides to re-invent herself where no one will know what the 'real her' is really like. when jude asks her name she reads Alice off the gravestone and tells him that is her name as part of her 'new life' as this character.
I'll just get you to play editor next time. :kiss:
Don't forget it's a plot device to form the intimacy between Owen and Portman during the lap dance scene. Where there seemingly is no real intimacy...it was the most intimate and honest part of the film. Just where you wouldn't expect it to be.
Quotejust out of curiousity has anyone had the line 'no one will ever love you like i do' said to them?
Sure, it's textbook passive/aggressive mental abuse.
Quotejust out of curiousity has anyone had the line 'no one will ever love you like i do' said to them?
That's how we all end up at Xixax.
Quote from: metroshaneQuotejust out of curiousity has anyone had the line 'no one will ever love you like i do' said to them?
Sure, it's textbook passive/aggressive mental abuse.
I was going to say something like that. I dated a guy for two years that would remind me that he was the
only person who could
ever love me, like he did. Turns out he was right. Only abusive shithead I'll ever date again. :-D
But in the movie, I think Natalie Portman actually thinks that no one could ever be more in love with him, than she is. And in a not-so-abusive way.
shes a stripper, shes abusing him everynight. obviously the only thing Jude Law liked about Portman was her body, as he didn't see much to her outside a physical sense, hence the reason he went after Julia Roberts. He could get more from her, physically and mentally. So when Natalie was out giving up the milk for free (plus tips) every night, she was giving away the only thing Jude Law liked her for, it was only a matter of time before it all ended. Never date a stripper man, never.
She was a waitress first. She gave up that life for a new one. He fucked around on her, she needed to make ends meet. Men like to watch naked women, women get rich off of it. Jude Law came back, HELL YEAH she wouldn't switch professions for that snivelling bitch.
Quote from: flagpolespecialjust out of curiousity has anyone had the line 'no one will ever love you like i do' said to them?
yes, and i have also said it. it is as meaningless and irrelevant as all related affectionate infinitives.
thrindle and mod,
thanks for the insight. sorry for the late reply-been busy. :doh:
finally saw this. has anyone mentioned how fucking hilarious it is too? i mean, obviously it is an intense romantic tragedy, but there is some wonderfully dark comic bits. And I love the look on jude law's face when he tries to figure out if he's pleased or upset about another man wanting to fuck him. clive "now fuck off and die, you fucked up slag" owen ruled, especially his parting words to jude. not enough can be said about natalie portman. julia roberts was probably the least effecitve but she did well. just not on par with the others.
Just saw this masterpiece for a fourth time. I wonder if Rep. Mark Foley has ever used "London Sex Anon."
I was just browsing and, i think that this film is one of the most honest, and truthful films, I've ever been able to watch...i really can't even put it into words, we always want what we can't have, and Patrick Marber has an amazing outlook on love...that is my thought jumble for now.