hiya i'm surprised no ones really talked about this film as i thought it was good.
Just wondering i might of missed it but is the obvious difference in appearance of these so called identical brothers explained?
I mean do we know why these people think they look so alike when they obviosuly do not.
Thanks
Dave
They looked identical to me. One was white, one was black.
"Yes, it was very sad when the guy stopped drawing the deer!"
Hi, my take on the movie is that the disparity in the way they look is only expressed to the audience. The actors were purposely chosen to NOT look alike and especially to be of different racial backgrounds. This engages the viewer and forces him to deal with his/her preconceived notions of race. When I sat there watching the movie i was made uncomfortable and was disturbed by the fact that they kept saying "it's remarkable how similar we look." It shows that we are unable to remove racial visual traits from fictional settings. When engaging fiction we are often asked to suspend our disbelief in order to accept unordinary events and circumstances. Thus, we are able to accept that a man would be willing to kill his own brother but somehow we cannot accept that they look alike just because they tell us that they look alike. It demonstrates that race is intrinsically trained in our mind to be a truth. The filmmakers were attempting to create discomfort in order to force the viewer to question his unwillingness to suspend disbelief when it comes to racial identity.
Hope that was helpful.
I think the question of racial identity is an intriguing one, but not the focus of Suture. It seems to be a statement on identity as a whole. That the actors looks so dissimilar (mannerism, demeanor, skin pigmentation) helps us disconnect ourselves from the idea that two people who look exactly alike can trade identity in a meaningful way. That both brothers manage to deceive the world is irrelevant to the heart of this story. It merely illustrates how blind the outside world can be, to who we truly are. I feel this is supported by the doctors monologues which surround the movie like the helpful hands of the production team guiding us to a certain conclusion.
Kudos to Dennis Haysebert, who (seemingly) effortlessly and consistently evokes the very best of the human spirit in the characters he portrays.
I am watching the movie now, and I agree with your assessment about our identity. I read the reply to your post and understand the opinion, but have difficulty letting go of my truths. Maybe I won't be manipulated or refuse to challenge the norm. A very good movie.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
I just saw it. Boy this movie is ultra challenging. Uber cool.
About mistaken identity, brainwashed by the environment about who and what you are. And ultimately giving in to external pressures.
I agree strongly with the argument that the world is blind to who we truly are and that the world in a way dictates that too.
Coolest weird movie I've seen since Pi. Both black and white.
Just want to add that it is not only the outside world who is blind to identity, but the individuals themselves as well. They identify themselves from the perspective of the outside society that they feel constitues their identity. Think of the Lacanian transition fromk imaginary ID (i) to symbolic ID (I).
shareI know I saw this film, pals, and not too long ago, but I was watching too many movies at the time and this one got sort of jumbled up with others. I remember being impressed, but I need to see it again.
I was born when she kissed me. I died when she left me. I lived a few weeks while she loved me.
One poster mentioned preconceptions about race. I think that race is irrelevant in this movie. The reason why one character is black and one is white is to call attention to the fact that they are polar opposites. The film makers' intent is to hit us over the head with how obviously dissimilar these two are in appearance. And what better way to accomplish that than to make one black, one white; one muscular, one thin; one tall, one short, etc.?
It seems that the film makers employ this technique to lead us to the grand dramatic irony: We in the audience know that these two guys look nothing alike, yet the characters in the movie (plus the two men themselves) carry on as if they're virtually indistinguishable.
OK, but why? What's the purpose of doing this? Well, I can certainly agree with the ideas expressed by MrConformity and dukeofauge -- to underscore the theme that the outside world is blind to who these men really are, and the men themselves blithely accept the pre-ordained notions that are impressed upon them by others. However, the two of them seem convinced from the very beginning -- before other characters are even introduced -- that they look alike; so I wonder if there is something more at play here. This makes the movie into quite an enigma, which I find fascinating. Now if only I can come up with an equally fascinating theory of what's going on with their physical appearances...
[deleted]
Ijust thought the whole thing with one brother being black and the other white, and that fact being completely ignored by EVERYONE, was STUPID. Race in not a conception or an idea; it is a fact. One brother, shown to us as clearly being black...being mistaken for another very clearly white man? Absurd. Combine that with a very slow-moving movie, and they lost my attention about halfway through.
BIH Michael Jackson. The world is a little safer for kids now.
The FACT that one was black and the other white, was only FACT to us movie watchers. That was NOT FACT within the movie. If you can't suspend disbelief or you need movies to be be 100% realistic, you should not be watching these artsy independent films. Actually, you shouldn't watch science fiction, fantasy, or many action movies either if you demand factual, realistic details.
shareThe most telling FACT was that the movie simply did not hold my attention. Period. And that doesn't mean that I should only watch SpongeBob or other crap like that. I didn't like it. That's my right as a movie-goer. And since this is a board specifically for discussing this movie, that was my 2 cents. If you don't like it, just move on to the next post. Simple.
BIH Michael Jackson. The world is a little safer for kids now.
"DUER IT WAS 2 SL0W"
shareWell put. It's not something that everyone is willing or able to do.
share"BIH (Burn In Hell)Michael Jackson. The world is a little safer for kids now."
What? The man (Michael) was obviously a target for scumbag extortionists - plenty convenient for them to accuse him JUST as he was gearing up for a world tour, right? He had NO CHOICE but to pay up otherwise he'd have run into huge losses right?
Quite amusing seeing the father of Jackspn's primary accuser shooting himself after Jackson passed away - I guess once Jackson was dead the gravy train stopped rolling, eh?
Do you REALLY want to make kids safe whippetchick? Don't have any. At least then your stupidity and judgemental ignorance won't spread.
Oh, yes, anyone can tell MJ was just a victim of a huge conspiracy, just like OJ and those guys who beat the $hit out of Rodney King. Please.
And my daughter, the one with the degree in Psychology, says that she thinks her kids are just fine, despite their stupid/ignorant grandmother. She says she'd rather they were with me than with some idiot who would allow his/her kids to "play" with a freak like MJ.
Moron.
"Level head? I think mine's level, and yours is the one things would roll off of."
I personally thought the "they look so similar" lines were unintentionally funny and incredibly stupid and the whole movie was both completely implausible and utterly pretentious at the same time. I just thought the whole thing was just a really over-the-top social commentary that didn't work at all and trying to make the audience feel uncomfortable by exploiting their pre-determined biases is only a representation of the directors' own projected insecurities about race.
------------------------------------
"To become immortal... and then die."
kevinmakesfilms.com
Here's a way to think about it folks. Suppose you are making a movie. The main characters are brothers who look almost (but not quite) exactly alike. Now there are a couple of cheesy options for casting these two roles.
1) You can try to find twin actors, or two actors that look almost identical... but if you have integrity as a filmmaker, you recognize that the most important factor in your choice of actor is whether they have the right personality to portray the character in question. Limiting yourself to twins or look-alikes would seriously restrict your ability to get the right people for the roles.
2) You can use the same actor in two roles... but there are a few problems with this too. First is the fact that both the characters would look identical when they are not supposed to. Second, and more importantly, this route always ends up being a cheesy gimmick that causes the audience to keep their eye out for moments when the two actors cross paths in the shot or shake hands (to see how the trick was pulled off). Third, if the two characters have significantly different personalities (as they do in Suture), then it is very unlikely that the perfect person to portray each of those characters will turn out to be one and the same person.
There is another option, however. You can recognize that the actor is merely portraying a character, not an appearance. You then have complete freedom to cast whoever you feel is best for the role without worrying about what he or she looks like. Dennis Haysbert is playing a character who happens to look nothing at all like him.
The only catch with this option is that, if the actor and character being played are not radically different in appearance, the audience might not understand. They might think that the filmmaker just couldn't do any better. So choosing an actor who obviously does not fit the physical description of the character he is playing (say, being black rather than white, or clearly failing to have a Greco-Roman nose when the character is described as having one) is a way to communicate to the audience that there was no attempt made to cast an actor who looks like the character he is playing.
For this reason and others, I think that the idea to differ the appearance of the two brothers was a brilliant move by directors McGehee and Siegel.
(of course, as is made apparent from a couple of the posts here, even this bold attempt at communication with the audience wasn't always successful.)