Rainbow Rosa
TI Forumite
not gay, just colorful
Posts: 3,604
|
Post by Rainbow Rosa on Dec 28, 2023 15:26:04 GMT -5
Not sure if I should be grateful or resentful of Ms. Goblin's gag gift for me this year. She found a person who ripped onto DVD a VHS of Nukie, a 1987 South African E.T. ripoff with Steve Railsback. I saw it as a kid and it haunted me for years before I was able to put a name to it from this Something Awful article. Will rewatch soon and report back the horror. Wow, sounds like Ms. Goblin really went through quite a bit of effort to get you that childhood film.
I guess you could say, she did it all for the Nukie.
|
|
|
Post by Floyd D Barber on Dec 29, 2023 20:42:43 GMT -5
Life of Brian is a Christmas movie.
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Dec 29, 2023 23:13:48 GMT -5
Jesus CHRIST do not attempt to watch the most popular movie of the year (Barbie) on a Friday night on the worst streaming service (HBO Max). It's like going 15 years into the past to watch a movie streaming on your computer.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jan 2, 2024 13:29:23 GMT -5
I was reading this piece about Bradley Cooper and "Maestro" this morning: www.theringer.com/movies/2023/12/29/24018215/bradley-cooper-maestro-movie-leonard-bernsteinThe subheading of this piece is this: " ‘Maestro’ is a labor of love, and as its director and lead, Cooper has poured himself into it—but at some point all of the effort becomes noticeable, and all of Leonard Bernstein’s magic becomes lost"
The article then uses quotes another piece from Variety: "he’d been passionate about conducting since childhood, pretending to conduct to a recording of Tchaikovsky’s “Opus 35 in D Major” for hours. He’d had “years and years of rehearsal inside of [him],” he said, or at least a burning desire to play such a character for a long time."
Later the writer says this: "Cooper does seem to truly love Bernstein’s work, and his focus on the artist’s conducting makes for some beautiful and impressive moments."
They then cite the earlier Variety piece: "Cooper explained his decision to rerecord all the music that Bernstein conducted or created: “ 'I knew that if I put his music in the movie, then that would do everything that a biopic would ever do anyway—if you want to learn about Martin Scorsese, you just watch all his films, rather than watch an interview.' "
I recently told someone here that I wasn't even interested in seeing this film because what interests me about Lenny is his artistic skill as a conductor and teacher of music, as well as his abilities as a composer. These are what made him famous. This stuff is why anyone knows who he is. I'm not interested in his personal life.
So, it sounds to me like this stuff is also what interested Bradley Cooper. So, how did he get from that to making a movie about Bernstein's marriage and sexual relationships with men?
I've said before that something that frustrates me about musician biopics is that they never seem to be about the music. Why are we making movies about famous people that don't address why they are famous? Is depicting the creation of music on screen too challenging? A fictional movie about a fictional orchestra conductor last year had more in it about music making than what I see in biopics about musicians.
Cooper's quote above really fascinates me. He feels he can't just play Lenny's recorded performances, because then there's no point to the movie. But is that actually true? Is it just that he doesn't understand how to depict that kind of artistic process?
With the glut of biopics that we've seen over the last 10-20 years, it seems increasingly weird to me that these focus on their messy personal lives. I don't read gossip mags/sites now. I don't care about the personal lives of the artists now. Why would I care about that stuff from the past?
Is this coming from the idea that the messy personal life is what inspired the artistic creation? Because I'm not entirely sure that is always true. And certainly, it seems to me that the cause and effect there might be switched in some cases.
I don't know. I just find this strange. It's like filmmakers are becoming paparazzi, wanting to expose the personal lives of artists instead of just appreciating art.
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 2, 2024 17:04:48 GMT -5
I was reading this piece about Bradley Cooper and "Maestro" this morning: www.theringer.com/movies/2023/12/29/24018215/bradley-cooper-maestro-movie-leonard-bernsteinThe subheading of this piece is this: " ‘Maestro’ is a labor of love, and as its director and lead, Cooper has poured himself into it—but at some point all of the effort becomes noticeable, and all of Leonard Bernstein’s magic becomes lost"
The article then uses quotes another piece from Variety: "he’d been passionate about conducting since childhood, pretending to conduct to a recording of Tchaikovsky’s “Opus 35 in D Major” for hours. He’d had “years and years of rehearsal inside of [him],” he said, or at least a burning desire to play such a character for a long time."
Later the writer says this: "Cooper does seem to truly love Bernstein’s work, and his focus on the artist’s conducting makes for some beautiful and impressive moments."
They then cite the earlier Variety piece: "Cooper explained his decision to rerecord all the music that Bernstein conducted or created: “ 'I knew that if I put his music in the movie, then that would do everything that a biopic would ever do anyway—if you want to learn about Martin Scorsese, you just watch all his films, rather than watch an interview.' "
I recently told someone here that I wasn't even interested in seeing this film because what interests me about Lenny is his artistic skill as a conductor and teacher of music, as well as his abilities as a composer. These are what made him famous. This stuff is why anyone knows who he is. I'm not interested in his personal life.
So, it sounds to me like this stuff is also what interested Bradley Cooper. So, how did he get from that to making a movie about Bernstein's marriage and sexual relationships with men?
I've said before that something that frustrates me about musician biopics is that they never seem to be about the music. Why are we making movies about famous people that don't address why they are famous? Is depicting the creation of music on screen too challenging? A fictional movie about a fictional orchestra conductor last year had more in it about music making than what I see in biopics about musicians.
Cooper's quote above really fascinates me. He feels he can't just play Lenny's recorded performances, because then there's no point to the movie. But is that actually true? Is it just that he doesn't understand how to depict that kind of artistic process?
With the glut of biopics that we've seen over the last 10-20 years, it seems increasingly weird to me that these focus on their messy personal lives. I don't read gossip mags/sites now. I don't care about the personal lives of the artists now. Why would I care about that stuff from the past?
Is this coming from the idea that the messy personal life is what inspired the artistic creation? Because I'm not entirely sure that is always true. And certainly, it seems to me that the cause and effect there might be switched in some cases.
I don't know. I just find this strange. It's like filmmakers are becoming paparazzi, wanting to expose the personal lives of artists instead of just appreciating art.
I haven't seen Maestro yet and consequently have no opinion on whether this particular biopic is good or not. That said, I think what you don't like about these music biopics is kind of just not liking what a biopic usually is. Like, a biopic that is just about a musician creating music without including the drama of their personal life kind of just becomes something that can be an impressive technical achievement, but it's really hard for it to rise above the level of like, the LiveAid scene from Bohemian Rhapsody. Like yeah, Malek et. al. sure look like Queen at the LiveAid concert in that scene, but it's hardly good art. And is this trend you're noticing even a recent development in biopics? Were things really so different in the biopics of the 20th Century? Also, I think the claim that filmmakers are just papparazzi is kind of absurd. If a work about an artist should just be about appreciating their art, then why not just forgo the middleman and consume their art directly? I also think that art is most meaningful when it's actually situated in a social context in some form. Andrei Rublev, a film which is in black and white for the first 2.5 hours or so, ends with a color sequence displaying some of Rublev's art, and it's a far more moving experience for being contextualized by the film the viewer has just seen. By contrast, art stripped of all its context loses a lot of its power. The Critical Theory-obsessed writer Mark Fisher observed something similar* in that great scene from Cuaron's dystopian classic Children of Men where Clive Owen visits some high-ranking bureaucratic functionary, who has acquired a number of great works of art, such as Picasso's Guernica, at his office at Battersea Power Station. Fisher writes: Now obviously, a Bernstein biopic that's just about appreciating how great his art was isn't so starkly stripped of its context, but if its just a drama-free celebration of how an artist made really, really good art, or how, like, the creative process is challenging but the genius artist overcomes this challenge in a very impersonal struggle to create really, really good art, doesn't that cheapen what it is that's so great about the art being celebrated and the process that leads to its creation? *He does this at the beginning of Capitalist Realism, and I am hardly original in pinpointing this passage as particularly incisive, I believe I first became acquainted with Fisher's writings through a podcast which loves to refer to this very discussion of Children of Men.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jan 2, 2024 18:57:59 GMT -5
I haven't seen Maestro yet and consequently have no opinion on whether this particular biopic is good or not. That said, I think what you don't like about these music biopics is kind of just not liking what a biopic usually is. And is this trend you're noticing even a recent development in biopics? Were things really so different in the biopics of the 20th Century?
Well, yes, this is correct. I'm not really into biopics in general, but especially not of artists of any kind, because the films aren't about the art, and are instead about their messy personal lives. Which I just simply don't care about, unless there is some compelling case that the messy personal lives contributed to the art in some direct way. And as I said in my post, I don't think this is the case in a lot of the creative process. And in fact, sometimes the messy personal life is the EFFECT of the artistic process and not the cause.
And no, I didn't mean musician biopics were better in the past, just that there have been so many recently.
Yes, I referred to Cooper's quote where he said basically this. That to understand Bernstein, you don't need the movie, you can just listen to his recorded works. So... why are you making a movie? And why is it not about those recorded works, and instead is about his marriage and other assorted sexual relationships? If the DIRECTOR and SCREENWRITER is saying you only need the music to understand him.... what is the point?
Did you read that quote from Cooper in what I posted: "If you want to learn about Martin Scorsese, you just watch all of his films. You don't watch an interview." That's the director of the film saying this. So, if the writer and director of the musician biopic is saying you only need to listen to Lenny's recorded works to understand him... WHY ARE YOU MAKING THE MOVIE? If the MUSIC is the point, why are you making a movie about his marriage and sexual affairs? You can listen to Lenny conducting Mahler, but his sexual relationships are not really the point of that.
And I'd argue that there absolutely *could* be a compelling piece to be made about Queen, not just that Live Aid performance, but how Queen came to write those songs, and what went into pulling off that performance. It isn't like they just showed up that day and performed pre-written songs! That stuff all had to be created and planned. And that is an interesting story! I just don't think "Bohemian Rhapsody" was even trying to be that movie.
Amusingly, I just re-watched "Children of Men" last night, and it was that scene combined with that article on Cooper/"Maestro" that got me thinking about this. It left me feeling like the writers/directors of these musician biopics either don't understand the artistic process or they don't know how to explain it. It seems like they think "Complicated life leads to great music", which is often not entirely true, and also is missing at least one step there. HOW does that translate? And so many of these movies are missing that step. (I did think the Elton John biopic at least attempted this in one or two places.) I feel so many of these films are entirely missing the point!
Cooper in that article is saying he grew up wanting to be a conductor, he wanted to emulate Lenny. It wasn't Lenny's marriage or sexual relationships that inspired that passion. So, what about Bernstein grabbed Cooper's attention? Does he think that won't be interesting to other people? Does he not know how to explain it?
Again, I have to ask what I asked above: Is this coming from the idea that the messy personal life is what inspired the artistic creation? Because that isn't always true. And certainly, it seems to me that the cause and effect there might be switched in some cases.
Edited to add: And just to be clear on this point: Is the context surrounding "Guernica" Picasso's marriage and affair, or how he was affected by war and fascism?
I find it interesting that you think artistic creation alone is inherently drama-free. Or that watching an artist be challenged by this process and overcome it, and achieve really good art somehow cheapens the art? Or the process? Why would that be so?
Why, then, are people interested in behind-the-scenes stories from film/tv/theater/music?
Like, just dealing with Lenny alone, there are a lot of stories about the making of "West Side Story". The musical. Not the movie. Stories about casting, writing, producing, rehearsals, etc. We've heard stuff from Bernstein, Sondheim, Laurents, Robbins. Why would telling these stories "cheapen what is so great" about WSS or the process to make it? THIS STUFF is the context. Not Lenny's marriage.
I guess, after talking this through, that my problem is that I believe these biopics are just focusing on the wrong thing. They aren't about what made these people famous, and seem to not really be able to draw the correct context for what is causing the music creation. I mean, "Bohemian Rhapsody" definitely didn't do this.
I don't mind if the film focuses on the messy personal lives of the musicians if the film can then explain how this contributed to the artistic process. Like, if someone wants to make a biopic of Fleetwood Mac, then feel free to explore the messy personal lives. But, the actual music production stuff still needs to be there. Actually do the work of showing how the breakdown of relationships affected the music producing process.
Anyway, as I said, I don't really feel the need to see "Maestro" because there is plenty of information out there about Bernstein's process as a conductor. There are actual videos where he explains his interpretations of scores! You can find some of them on YouTube right now. I've read probably hundreds and hundreds of pages of behind-the-scenes stuff about "Candide" "Mass" and "WSS". THAT stuff is interesting to me.
So, is "Maestro" making the case that Bernstein's years spent trying to cover up sexual affairs with men is the source of his interpretations of classical scores? Did this go into his desire to create West Side Story? (Which he says was driven by his anti-racism interpretation of "Romeo and Juliet".) That's why this particular case brought up the association with paparazzi for me. The director himself says everything you need to know about this man can be found in his recorded works. But he's making a film about his marriage and sexual affairs. Why?
Edited to add: Perhaps I didn't make this clear, either, that the original piece I linked to over at The Ringer had the writer saying they didn't think Cooper was making a case that this marriage drama was relevant, and they compared it to his previous film "A Star is Born" where the conflict in the relationship is relevant to the story.
Of course, "A Star Is Born" is a remake. And it is fictional.
|
|
Rainbow Rosa
TI Forumite
not gay, just colorful
Posts: 3,604
|
Post by Rainbow Rosa on Jan 2, 2024 21:52:11 GMT -5
Scattered reactions to the above tete-a-tete:
- I think it's funny that Tar (a film about, essentially, a Bernstein cosplayer) came out a year after the Spielberg West Side Story (obvious Oscar bait clearly riding off Lenny's coattails) and a year before Maestro (obvious Oscar bait clearly riding off Lenny's coattails). It was a bit stupid that the big controversy surrounding this film was about Cooper wearing a prosthetic nose and how that was, quote-unquote, "Jewface" (an allegation of antisemitism that dogged the film for a while and then vanished, for some mysterious reason, in October) but I think it's somewhat telling just what pains our boy Brad took to, essentially, wear a Lenny mask and play-act like a conductor. I do think prima facie cynicism towards this film is warranted. - Whether biopics were more or less interested in personal lives of their subjects twenty years ago, I can't say; but I've definitely noted before that music writing in the past decade has really stopped being about music per se - e.g., any given album review on Pitchfork is going to be a biography of the artist who recorded it rather than any serious attempt at musical analysis. Likely because the people getting hired to write about music are English majors who have no meaningful grounding in music theory and only vague grounding in music history. (The slightly overstated trend of "X was created by a bad person ergo X is bad" criticism also comes to mind here.) Note that arguably the most successful documentary of the last five years or so was Peter Jackson's Get Back, which foregrounds the split between John & Paul but is very much about watching the creative process, so there's certainly an appetite for that sort of thing - I think that this isn't a matter of people preferring the TMZ school of biopics to a film that foregrounds how great art gets made, so much as no one working in Hollywood really knowing how to make the latter movie in the era of IP.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jan 2, 2024 22:48:53 GMT -5
Scattered reactions to the above tete-a-tete: - I think it's funny that Tar (a film about, essentially, a Bernstein cosplayer) came out a year after the Spielberg West Side Story (obvious Oscar bait clearly riding off Lenny's coattails) and a year before Maestro (obvious Oscar bait clearly riding off Lenny's coattails). It was a bit stupid that the big controversy surrounding this film was about Cooper wearing a prosthetic nose and how that was, quote-unquote, "Jewface" (an allegation of antisemitism that dogged the film for a while and then vanished, for some mysterious reason, in October) but I think it's somewhat telling just what pains our boy Brad took to, essentially, wear a Lenny mask and play-act like a conductor. I do think prima facie cynicism towards this film is warranted.
Yes, and I think I referenced in my original post that I find it amusing that "Tar" seems to engage at least a little bit with the artistic process of being a conductor, whereas I think movies about real musicians don't really seem to engage with that process.
In my original post I did not say that musician biopics used to be different. I said that the glut of them over the last 10-20 years has increasingly made me think about this. The formulaic nature of them, one after another after another, is just prompting me to ask some questions about how this came to be the format.
I don't really read music reviews anymore because of the trend you mention. I have no patience for the "X was created by a bad person ergo X is bad" criticism, nor do I want to read a bio of the artist. Though, what you say is addressing something else I was wondering about. Namely that it seems odd to me that filmmakers, people who engage in the artistic process for their job, seemingly don't know how to portray or describe this with musicians. Is it that different? It seems to me that it isn't that different.
What you said here about the reviewers being English majors who don't understand music is interesting though. Would this extend to them having no understanding of the artistic process? The review is about the artistic result, which is slightly different. As I said, I don't really read reviews any more. When they are writing about the artist, are they connecting the biographical details to the final results they can hear in the music?
I almost brought this up as an example, in that the segment from this that went viral was the part where you can hear Paul piece together "Get Back".
Hmmmm... above I had said that it seems odd to me that filmmakers wouldn't know how to make a film about making art since it's literally what they do. You think this is a symptom of movie culture? You think a studio wouldn't finance that? How much money did Cooper put into this film, I wonder?
I don't know... I was reading reviews of "Maestro" because I wanted to know if Cooper did anything interesting with it. But the reviewers are saying he doesn't even include the real way his sexuality and heterosexual marriage influenced his career. It also ignores all his left-wing political activism, which most definitely influenced both his career and his music output.
I've seen a couple reviewers say Cooper seems to afraid to put this stuff in the film because it might spark "controversy".
Sigh, I don't know. I think I just need for there to be no more musician biopics coming out in the near future. And it is just disappointing to me that a biopic about Bernstein, who I think is genuinely an incredibly interesting person, is apparently ignoring everything that makes him interesting.
|
|
LazBro
Prolific Poster
Posts: 10,045
|
Post by LazBro on Jan 3, 2024 10:42:18 GMT -5
This is only distantly related.
In his review of the film "Whiplash", a fiction film about a very real world (NYC jazz education and its surrounding scene), YouTuber Adam Neely lamented that the film fails entirely to showcase the joy of creating music. In all its ultra-competitive, hyper-masculine, practice-til-you-bleed sports movie drama, it leaves behind the simple fact that most people go into music, because they love it. They love making music with others. Making music is fun. There's plenty of scenes of the Miles Teller character killing himself to play faster, to be the best, and there are grains of truth to this, but there are no scenes of him hanging out with other students after hours, pounding a few beers, and taking turns pulling up YouTube clips of their favorite jazz musicians. Something, Neely assures us, every jazz student has done.
"Whiplash" is fiction, but this failure to revel in the joy of art and its creation drags down a lot of biopics as well, in my opinion. I admit, I can't think of one that really gets it. Of films in the modern biopic mold, I think "Ray" has the best scenes, on the strength of Foxx's performance and Charles' music, and the first half of its runtime is pretty much flawless. But it too is eventually mired in the "downfall" stretch that craters many a biopic.
Anyway, whether interested in this specific topic or not, Neely's review of "Whiplash" is just good, entertaining YouTube. Well worth a watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFYBVGdB7MU
|
|
|
Post by pantsgoblin on Jan 3, 2024 12:26:17 GMT -5
- Whether biopics were more or less interested in personal lives of their subjects twenty years ago, I can't say; but I've definitely noted before that music writing in the past decade has really stopped being about music per se - e.g., any given album review on Pitchfork is going to be a biography of the artist who recorded it rather than any serious attempt at musical analysis. Likely because the people getting hired to write about music are English majors who have no meaningful grounding in music theory and only vague grounding in music history. (The slightly overstated trend of "X was created by a bad person ergo X is bad" criticism also comes to mind here.) Note that arguably the most successful documentary of the last five years or so was Peter Jackson's Get Back, which foregrounds the split between John & Paul but is very much about watching the creative process, so there's certainly an appetite for that sort of thing - I think that this isn't a matter of people preferring the TMZ school of biopics to a film that foregrounds how great art gets made, so much as no one working in Hollywood really knowing how to make the latter movie in the era of IP. I remember a New Yorker article 20-some years ago about your bete noire Radiohead in which the interviewer was actually well versed in music theory and Thom Yorke was kind of losing his mind about it.
|
|
Rainbow Rosa
TI Forumite
not gay, just colorful
Posts: 3,604
|
Post by Rainbow Rosa on Jan 6, 2024 18:14:39 GMT -5
MGM knew exactly what they were doing having The Beekeeper release on January 6th.
|
|
|
Post by DangOlJimmyITellYouWhat on Jan 6, 2024 23:14:05 GMT -5
Saying “Ay tee at tee” is terrible and you can have “at-at” when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. It’s been “at-at” since 1982 & I don’t know when These Kids Today started up with the “ay tee-ay tee” thing.
And of course I don’t say “at-sssst”, motherfucker, because “st” is not a word by English rules. I say “chicken walker”, like all right-thinking folk.
…….I may have said this before
|
|
|
Post by Pedantic Editor Type on Jan 6, 2024 23:24:11 GMT -5
Saying “Ay tee at tee” is terrible and you can have “at-at” when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. It’s been “at-at” since 1982 & I don’t know when These Kids Today started up with the “ay tee-ay tee” thing. And of course I don’t say “at-sssst”, motherfucker, because “st” is not a word by English rules. I say “chicken walker”, like all right-thinking folk. …….I may have said this before My super nerd husband (born 1983) says ay tee ay tee but he doesn’t like, correct people who say at-at.
|
|
|
Post by DangOlJimmyITellYouWhat on Jan 6, 2024 23:29:55 GMT -5
Saying “Ay tee at tee” is terrible and you can have “at-at” when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. It’s been “at-at” since 1982 & I don’t know when These Kids Today started up with the “ay tee-ay tee” thing. And of course I don’t say “at-sssst”, motherfucker, because “st” is not a word by English rules. I say “chicken walker”, like all right-thinking folk. …….I may have said this before My super nerd husband (born 1983) says ay tee ay tee but he doesn’t like, correct people who say at-at. So what I’m hearing is that he’s the one who started it. (yeah it is more of bitching about people who insist “at-at” is wrong and everyone must change)
|
|
|
Post by Pedantic Editor Type on Jan 6, 2024 23:47:53 GMT -5
My super nerd husband (born 1983) says ay tee ay tee but he doesn’t like, correct people who say at-at. So what I’m hearing is that he’s the one who started it. (yeah it is more of bitching about people who insist “at-at” is wrong and everyone must change) You can blame him if you like but yeah he’s not bitchy about it haha
|
|
|
Post by The Sensational She-Hulk on Jan 8, 2024 16:45:52 GMT -5
My super nerd husband (born 1983) says ay tee ay tee but he doesn’t like, correct people who say at-at. So what I’m hearing is that he’s the one who started it. (yeah it is more of bitching about people who insist “at-at” is wrong and everyone must change) Wait, what, it's not "at-at"? Fuck.
(Obligatory Simpsons "Crandall" reference.)
|
|
|
Post by chalkdevil 😈 on Jan 8, 2024 17:25:45 GMT -5
So what I’m hearing is that he’s the one who started it. (yeah it is more of bitching about people who insist “at-at” is wrong and everyone must change) Wait, what, it's not "at-at"? Fuck.
(Obligatory Simpsons "Crandall" reference.)
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jan 20, 2024 13:13:10 GMT -5
The Big Short was patronizing, but was that a bad choice? It was a major release with plenty of famous actors. It didn't have to quite so insulting, but was there a way to write it that didn't have long asides explaining the financial instruments? The Wolf of Wall Street was able to lean on voice-over, had a much simpler scam to illustrate, and had the luxury of a single focal point learning how to exploit the scam.
|
|
|
Post by Floyd D Barber on Jan 20, 2024 17:18:31 GMT -5
The Big Short was patronizing, but was that a bad choice? It was a major release with plenty of famous actors. It didn't have to quite so insulting, but was there a way to write it that didn't have long asides explaining the financial instruments? The Wolf of Wall Street was able to lean on voice-over, had a much simpler scam to illustrate, and had the luxury of a single focal point learning how to exploit the scam. I think The Big Short is one of the most effective horror stories of the last 20 years. I have no particular insight into how financial systems work, and it made me understand the mechanisms of how the 2008 financial crash came about, and the fact that nobody went to jail for the many crimes and swindles that contributed to it, nothing really changed, and that it could, and likely will happen again. I thought it worked very well at what it set out to do, and I lost more sleep from it than I have from any slasher or monster movie I've ever seen. To me, it ranks up there with Threads or Contagion as effective horror.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jan 21, 2024 2:32:29 GMT -5
I know I asked about this before, but I am getting some conflicting answers from people I know.
For those of you who have seen "Poor Things", how off-putting are the sex scenes? And I mean, how exploitative do they feel? I have a friend who said she deeply disliked the entire film for how it depicted sex as the way a young girl would gain understanding about life. She understood that this was the point, but she felt it was still exploitative, and thought there were too many sex scenes.
I don't have a problem with sex scenes in film in general. I just posted about how much I love "Y Tu Mamá También"! What I have a problem with is sex scenes that feel gratuitous or exploitative. Even if I understand this is the point of the film. Women being used for sex doesn't inherently turn me off in film, if I feel the director is handling it correctly. I think the sex scenes in Ang Lee's "Lust, Caution" are by far the best part of the film, the parts where we actually gain understanding of the characters.
But honestly BECAUSE I am familiar with Lanthimos, I am a little worried about this one. Given what I've posted here, do you think I'd be okay with the sex scenes in "Poor Things"?
|
|
|
Post by MrsLangdonAlger on Jan 21, 2024 10:35:44 GMT -5
I know I asked about this before, but I am getting some conflicting answers from people I know. For those of you who have seen "Poor Things", how off-putting are the sex scenes? And I mean, how exploitative do they feel? I have a friend who said she deeply disliked the entire film for how it depicted sex as the way a young girl would gain understanding about life. She understood that this was the point, but she felt it was still exploitative, and thought there were too many sex scenes. I don't have a problem with sex scenes in film in general. I just posted about how much I love "Y Tu Mamá También"! What I have a problem with is sex scenes that feel gratuitous or exploitative. Even if I understand this is the point of the film. Women being used for sex doesn't inherently turn me off in film, if I feel the director is handling it correctly. I think the sex scenes in Ang Lee's "Lust, Caution" are by far the best part of the film, the parts where we actually gain understanding of the characters. But honestly BECAUSE I am familiar with Lanthimos, I am a little worried about this one. Given what I've posted here, do you think I'd be okay with the sex scenes in "Poor Things"? I loved the movie and still think many of the critiques about the way it approaches sex, especially early on in Bella's development, are correct. Based on what you say here I'd say you'll likely be uncomfortable. It's a brilliant movie but it's definitely written by dudes. Maybe wait for video so you can take breaks. I do think it progresses beyond the ickiness as the movie goes on, which makes sense given the plot.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jan 21, 2024 16:09:07 GMT -5
I loved the movie and still think many of the critiques about the way it approaches sex, especially early on in Bella's development, are correct. Based on what you say here I'd say you'll likely be uncomfortable. It's a brilliant movie but it's definitely written by dudes. Maybe wait for video so you can take breaks. I do think it progresses beyond the ickiness as the movie goes on, which makes sense given the plot.
Thank you, this is helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jan 23, 2024 16:48:13 GMT -5
Oscar nominations are out.
I have seen 4/10 of the Best Picture nominees: Oppenheimer, Barbie, The Holdovers and Past Lives. I liked all of those to varying degrees. Really happy to see Past Lives make the final 10.
Obviously Oppenheimer is winning. I guess that's fine. At least it's a Nolan film I actually like.
Very annoyed that Gerwig was nominated for WRITING Barbie and not for Directing it. I am still baffled as to why Barbie's screenplay is getting nominated. People, dialogue is not the only part of a screenplay! Also rolling my eyes at Margot Robbie not getting nominated, but America Ferrera making it in, though I get it that Lead Actress is a tougher category than Supporting. But still. These nominations are just totally backward.
I've said here that I have no interest in Maestro, and this doesn't change that. I've read a bunch of reviews on The Zone of Interest, both positive and negative. I'm afraid based on those reviews that this won't be my kind of movie.
I probably will check out Poor Things, but based on the above, I may wait until I can see that at home.
I never did get around to watching Killers of the Flower Moon. I meant to, but I just haven't. Maybe I'll try to watch it over the weekend. May have to split it up, though, due to the running time.
American Fiction is playing in the theater near me. And Anatomy of a Fall is available to rent digitally. However, our local theater chain has announced all of the BP nominees will be available for $5 starting Feb 23 and running through March 10th. So, perhaps I'll wait to watch both of these at that time. That $5 ticket price is cheaper than the digital rental price for Anatomy of a Fall.
Has anyone seen those last two? American Fiction and Anatomy of a Fall?
|
|
Rainbow Rosa
TI Forumite
not gay, just colorful
Posts: 3,604
|
Post by Rainbow Rosa on Jan 23, 2024 17:45:08 GMT -5
Oscar nominations are out. [...] American Fiction is playing in the theater near me. And Anatomy of a Fall is available to rent digitally. However, our local theater chain has announced all of the BP nominees will be available for $5 starting Feb 23 and running through March 10th. So, perhaps I'll wait to watch both of these at that time. That $5 ticket price is cheaper than the digital rental price for Anatomy of a Fall. Has anyone seen those last two? American Fiction and Anatomy of a Fall? My local theater has had advertisements for American Fiction up since October, and apparently will never ever ever show it. :/ Everyone I know who saw Anatomy of a Fall loved it, though.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jan 24, 2024 2:56:37 GMT -5
After perusing the entire list of Oscar nominations I saw a Cinematography nomination for a Chilean film called "El Conde". This film is apparently on Netflix. It is directed by Pablo Larraín.
|
|
|
Post by pantsgoblin on Jan 24, 2024 7:24:52 GMT -5
The age of truthiness definitely hasn't left us with both Flamin' Hot and Nyad getting Oscar nominations. Or, as Andy Daly as L. Ron Hubbard would say, I guess that's not true for you.
|
|
|
Post by King Charles’s Butterfly on Jan 24, 2024 14:26:51 GMT -5
Nyad isn’t real.
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jan 24, 2024 16:35:39 GMT -5
The age of truthiness definitely hasn't left us with both Flamin' Hot and Nyad getting Oscar nominations. Or, as Andy Daly as L. Ron Hubbard would say, I guess that's not true for you. It's not like everything in Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon happened the way those films depict them. Let's not just single out films directed by women. They're biopics. Who the hell expects them to be accurate?
|
|
Rainbow Rosa
TI Forumite
not gay, just colorful
Posts: 3,604
|
Post by Rainbow Rosa on Jan 24, 2024 23:21:33 GMT -5
The age of truthiness definitely hasn't left us with both Flamin' Hot and Nyad getting Oscar nominations. Or, as Andy Daly as L. Ron Hubbard would say, I guess that's not true for you. Flamin' Hot wasn't actually nominated for an Oscar; Diane Warren was nominated for an Oscar, because she has wired the Dolby Theater to explode if she is not nominated for Best Original Song in two consecutive years.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jan 26, 2024 8:54:21 GMT -5
There's a remake of Road House coming out soon, with Jake Gyllenhaal and Daniela Melchior, and all I can think is that now Bill Murray is going to have to track down and befriend Daniela Melchior's significant other.
|
|