The storyline of the film? I mean, I watched it and liked it but there isn't a translation for the English in the film and therefore I didn't understand what it was all about with Shane and all the doctors. I couldn't understand what they were talking about and I couldn't understand the connections.
I know it might sound stupid for some people, but it really ruined me the film, so I'll be glad if anyone will be able to explain it to me.
[deleted]
I know this was five years ago, but I'll reply anyway :)
Shane and Coré (Beatrice Dalle's character) were in an experiment years ago (if I remember correctly they didn't really say what they actually did to them). Somehow it made them have these cannibalistic desires. Shane tries to control his urges, because he loves his wife and knows that if they'd get intimate, he'd probably kill her. The real reason they go to Paris is because Shane wants to visit the doctor who participated in the experiment. Coré is locked up because she doesn't want to control herself like Shane and she's dangerous. Or maybe she wants to, but she was more influenced by the experiment.
That's it in a nutshell.
Could you answer some questions I have?
1. Why is the editing so jarring? There aren't any smooth transitions at all. Scenes will just change abruptly with no closure from the last.
2. How is the 90 lb. vampire chick able to kill men who are bigger than her? When she's biting the lip off that one dude, I was saying, "Dude, punch her. Push her off you. Strangle her. Something. What are you doing there just letting her bite your face?" In reality, a woman starts biting you and you fight back. But in the movie the guy starts groaning and moaning and lays there while she kills him. Perhaps this is something French men do. They surrender without putting up a fight. But in every other country men would fight back if a woman started biting their lips.
3. Why all the unimportant shots of buildings?
4. Why is there no back story on all the random people, such as the people in the research clinic and the woman who meets Gallo's wife?
5. Why are the sex scenes so anti-erotic? 1 minute shot of a navel in a 2 minute sex scene? Close-ups of elbows, knuckles, kneecaps, shoulder blades, and fingers but no shots of genitals or buttocks?
6. Do women in France really let creeps like Vinnie Gallo stand behind them on the subway and sniff their hair for 5 or more minutes?
7. Why is the dialogue so minimal? You could fit all the dialogue onto 5 pages at most.
8. Why all the extreme close-ups of peoples' faces?
9. How come the doctor didn't have a clue how to keep his wife from eating men?
10. Was there a point to this movie?
Why are you asking me? :) I explained the storyline to raspberry_flavour, I didn't critique the film. I don't really remember the details (and I don't want to watch it again), but I'll try to answer your questions.
A lot of your questions (1, 3, 5, 7, 8) are about the editing and such, that's just the style of the film. You didn't like it.
5. Other people find different things erotic :) Are genitals and butts the only thing you find erotic? You don't have to respond, that's personal.
6. Did she actually realise he was standing there? I don't remember.
9. Well he kept her locked up in a house. It didn't really work.
2, 4. Yeah, those are stupid.
10. Maybe there wasn't. Does everything have to have a point?
So there you go, that's what I could contribute.
I was asking you because you actually knew what the story was about. And I thought, perhaps, you were even part of the film crew (maybe even the director). Did you work on Trouble Every Day? If yes, what is it like to work on a movie that only a few thousand film snobs like? If no, what compelled you to watch this movie? I was compelled to watch this movie because I thought it was going to be a French take on the vampire genre and all the talk of gore. Instead it was just some boring arthouse film. I'm not sure why European filmmakers are addicted to making arthouse films. But I think the fact that the majority of European films are arthouse is the reason for the European film industry's failure to sustain itself without gov't subsidies.
By the way, if you are the filmmaker Claire Denis, have you ever thought about making a film that isn't arthouse? Have you ever thought about making a film that isn't tailored to only a few thousand film snobs and making a film for the general public?
No, I didn't work on the film. I don't have to be a crew member to understand the storyline.
I was compelled to watch this film because I'm interested in cannibalism for some reason.
I don't know why European directors do what they do :) Maybe their motivation is not pleasing the crowd. Why are American directors addicted to making superhero movies and sequels of sequels of sequels?
No, I didn't work on the film. I don't have to be a crew member to understand the storyline.
I was compelled to watch this film because I'm interested in cannibalism for some reason.
I don't know why European directors do what they do :) Maybe their motivation is not pleasing the crowd. Why are American directors addicted to making superhero movies and sequels of sequels of sequels?
It isn't American directors who are addicted to superhero films and sequels. It is American producers and their financial backers who are addicted to making a film product with the least risk for failure and the most rewards for profit. Thus, they produce a lot of superhero flicks and sequels.
both foreign and domestic, by and large are complete and total garbage.
1. Calvaire
2. Any movies in the "mumblecore" genre
3. A Summer in Genoa
4. Haute Tension
5. Eden Log
6. Any of those Dogma 95 films
7. Any films by Harmony Korine
8. Jim Jarumusch films
9. Life Just Is
10. Hal Hartley movies
11. the Brown Bunny
12. When Will I Be Loved
13. The Deep Blue Sea
14. Wendigo
15. Hypothermia
16. Most of those horror films but out by Echo Home Bridge Entertainment
17. Perkins 14
18. The Broken
19. A Field in England
20. Hammer of the Gods
21. Anything by Michael Hanke
22. Neds
23. The Robber
24. Breathing
25. We Need to Talk About Kevin
26. Making Plans for Lena
Those are more than 2 dozen awful indie films I've seen within the last year or two. It's like I said before. The vast majority of indie films are total garbage because the directors don't care about making a film that is pleasing to the audience. That's why these films are indie. We all know major Hollywood produces junk. But at least they care about making a movie that is pleasing to the audience.
It's true you can find good indie and cult films over the decades. But per year most indie films are total garbage. If you were to list all the indie films made in America and Europe in 2013, less than 10% of those films would be worth watching; maybe even less than 5%. You didn't hate Trouble Every Day. But you obviously have no desire to watch it again. And I'm pretty sure if you could go back in time, you'd do something else instead of watching this movie.
Why stick up for indie films? You know they are garbage.
Would you please stop repeating what you already said? It's like you're copy-pasting.
And I'm pretty sure if you could go back in time, you'd do something else instead of watching this movie.
I never said indie movies are all garbage. Perhaps I should repeat what I already said because you seem to have not read what I said :) I said "by and large" and "the vast majority" of indie movies are garbage. In my last sentence I said, "Why stick up for indie films? You know they are garbage." But I thought you already knew I was saying most of them are garbage, rather than all of them are garbage.
Also, I wasn't whining about independent films. I was ranting. And I underscored my rant by explaining why indie movies fail. It's difficult for me to know what an indie movie is because sometimes they are distributed a major corporation. The American with George Clooney was produced by an independent company but distributed by Focus Features, a subsidiary of a major corporation. The same thing goes for hundreds of other indie flicks such as Only God Forgives. I saw the trailers for the American and Only God Forgives, thinking, "Oh, this movie has a major Hollywood star and is labelled an action flick. So it must be a Hollywood movie." I watched these movies only to find out that these are actually indie arthouse flicks and not Hollywood action movies like they made themselves out to be.
So it's difficult to avoid indie movies when so many of them aren't actually marketed the right way. Trouble Every Day was not a horror movie. It completely lacks suspense, thrills, chills, mystery, and a sense of dread. Two random killings does not make this a horror movie. It has all the elements of a typical Euro arthouse movie: people constantly walking around with sad, brooding expressions; no back story on the characters, including the main characters; minimal dialogue; boring, stilted conversations; shots held on nothing important for far too long; terrible editing; an inconclusive and abrupt ending; bleak atmosphere; etc.
Maybe I am whining. But the people advertise the movie as a horror movie when it's actually an arthouse movie. Why do you criticize me for being mad at being mislead?
In my last sentence I said, "Why stick up for indie films? You know they are garbage." But I thought you already knew I was saying most of them are garbage, rather than all of them are garbage.
The American wasn't marketed well at all. When you see the U.S. trailer you see George Clooney with guns, talking about assassinations and killings while thrilling music plays, and scenes of motorcycle crashes. The trailer didn't lead me to believe this was a Die Hard style action film with CGI. It lead me to believe this was a Hollywood action-thriller similar to Se7en, Heat, Cop Land, or the Score. When you watch the movie you get some European arthouse flick starring George Clooney who says less than 100 words and spends most of his time staring off into the distance.
In any case, the Internet Movie Database and Amazon.com are the only places where regular people could vent their frustrations against a movie they hated. Before the internet, people didn't have a way to let filmmakers know that they hated their movie. The most they could hope for was that their movie would be skewered on MST3k. I had to laugh when I read the review of the pissed off director of Soultaker blasting MST3k for "butchering" his crappy movie.
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0993316/comments?ref_=tt_urv
Since I don't have a T.V. show, I have to use the internet to vent my anger. I am happy about the fact that filmmakers are seeing the negative reviews for their crappy movies and feeling ashamed of themselves. Call it whining, ranting, bitching, or whatever, but if you make a stupid movie I'm going to trash it on this website. It has been known to happen where negative reviews on the internet can kill careers. Hopefully, the French will see all the negative reviews for her movies, wake up, and realize they are throwing money down the drain. Then they'll realize it would be better to give her money to open a taco stand at the bottom of the Eiffel Tower instead of letting her make another film.
By the way, I hated this movie so much I am going to give all her other movies a negative rating, even though this is the only one of her movies I've seen.
I'll take a crack at it:
1. Shrug, who can say. I didn't find the scene transitions jarring myself.
2. Ten minutes ago my answer would have been that the scenes have symbolic value, and being unrealistic is part of the way it lets you know that...but I just saw on another thread that someone was theorizing that this disease alters them enough that they might be stunning their victims with something in their bites—that's how it works for a lot of insects. (That weird-looking semen in the movie might be deliberate and not just bad special effects, to let us know there's something really different going on with their bodies.)
3. I think this is actually the answer to #1, ha ha.
4. Eh, why must there be? The people in the lab, Gallo doesn't know—he's there just to track down that one guy he DOES know. The details with the woman who meets his wife, I'm afraid I don't quite remember...I know who you mean but I forget exactly what role she plays.
5. Well, these sex scenes are the ones where people get eaten alive halfway through, so I'm not sure how erotic you were expecting them to be. Personally I think that long closeup of barely-identifiable skin would be erotic, in a different context...but considering whose point of view that shot is, it's pretty horrifying.
6. Sure, if they don't notice.
7. Why not?
8. Why not?
9. That's kind of the entire plot; if there was a handy cure there wouldn't be anything for the movie to be about.
10. Sure. What with the not-fighting-back victims and fruitless search for a cure, it would be pretty easy to read this as an allegory for AIDS or another sexually transmitted disease, just depicted in a way where we can't ignore the deadly business that's happening every time the characters have sex. Or it could be more general statement about human nature, with Gallo and Dalle trying to force their better, more decent natures control their base, ugly instincts, and failing.
Hi kryloman,
Interesting responses. Mind if I give my views to them?
As far as the erotic part goes, there were two sex scenes. One with Gallo and his chick; the other with the French guy and the wife. Both of them had close-ups of knuckles, navels, shoulder blades, knee caps, but no genitals. Like I said, anti-erotic. What's the point of showing a sex scene if there isn't going to be any eroticism? It's pointless. It's just as pointless as a movie with a sex scene with no nudity at all.
You ask, "Why must there be?" when I ask why no backstory on the people. My response: if the characters are going to play a significant role, the audience should know who they are and why their role is significant. The woman in the apt. Gallo's wife meets plays a significant role as a person who sheds light on Gallo's past his wife didn't know. We should know who she is why she knows this. The same thing goes for the lab assistant, who knows the scientist's wife. Why does she know them? Why should the audience care that she's concerned about whether or not it was a good idea to give info on them to Gallo?
You asked, "Why not?" when I asked about the extreme closeups. My response: because it is disgusting when the camera is so close to a person's face you can see their eye crust and spittle on the side of their lips.
You asked, "Why not?" when I asked why was the dialogue so minimal. My response: because the movie had plenty of time to explain the backstory on the characters and the disease. Dialogue would have also helped the audience emphasize with the characters and their situations. Dialogue helps make the characters more human, more understandable. And it will enhance the story.
Also, you give the theory that the wife and Gallo were able to stun their victims because they possible secreted toxin. But there's nothing in the movie to support this. So the theory is useless. I can give the theories that the plant virus in M. Night's 2008 movie "The Happening" was caused by terrorists; or by corporations dumping chemical waste and affecting the environment; or by space aliens; or by God; or the entire thing was just a dream in Mark Wahlberg's character's head. But there is nothing in the movie to support any of these theories. So the theories are pointless.
Lastly, you said, "What with the not-fighting-back victims and fruitless search for a cure, it would be pretty easy to read this as an allegory for AIDS or another sexually transmitted disease, just depicted in a way where we can't ignore the deadly business that's happening every time the characters have sex. Or it could be more general statement about human nature, with Gallo and Dalle trying to force their better, more decent natures control their base, ugly instincts, and failing."
I can say that the Happening was an allegory to show that the modern world has displaced human society from nature. And that while trying to figure out the complexities of their normal lives, humans have neglected the essence of the Earth around them. But does that make the Happening a good movie? Nope. Having an allegory doesn't stop the Happening from being a stupid movie. The same thing goes for this stupid movie "Trouble Every Day".
Hey! Sorry for the wait, I knew I was going to be seeing this soon so I figured better to have it fresh in my mind.
"...What's the point of showing a sex scene if there isn't going to be any eroticism? It's pointless."
I couldn't disagree more; sex scenes can easily have a purpose other than turning you on. Since it's not porn we're talking about, the fact that two particular characters have sex has a context in a story...we may find it to be a good thing or a bad thing, funny, disappointing, whatever. Unless the film is just shoveling it in gratuitously, a scene where someone has sex with their spouse, then has sex with someone in an affair, should play differently. In this case a sex scene is going to be bad news, for obvious reasons, so having sex scenes that really tried to turn you on would be pretty tasteless I'd say. What we're watching is someone about to be killed, and the closeups are of the flesh that the characters are lusting to bite.
That said I don't think they're entirely unerotic anyway. That's kind of what makes them more horrifying, these are details we'd look at in another person even if we WEREN'T crazy cannibalistic murderers. (I mean, most of us, I guess only genitals do it for you.) The buildup is sort of sexy, even though we know it's leading to something horrible, which makes it seem more horrible. Kind of like the Uncanny Valley effect...it's worse the closer it gets to starting off like a scene that would turn us on, and I think the way Claire Denis films the body does kind of do that. (This isn't the only movie where she films closeups like this, from what I hear, it's just usually not a leadup to murder.) That's how it plays to me anyway.
"The woman in the apt. Gallo's wife meets plays a significant role as a person who sheds light on Gallo's past his wife didn't know. We should know who she is why she knows this."
Well, what we know is why the wife got in touch with her: her husband's disappearing, he's making phone calls where he arranges meetings, he won't have sex with her, so she thinks he's having an affair. So she goes to his address book and looks for a woman living in Paris, and this is who she finds. When she meets her it just turns out to be a random person who knew him from years earlier, not someone he's cheating with or even talking to now; a dead end. But since the woman did know him earlier--apparently as a colleague, from what she says and the photos she has--she's got some keepsakes and whatnot to share. I don't think how she knew him had to be spelled out all that explicitly; it's not like she's important to him now.
"The same thing goes for the lab assistant, who knows the scientist's wife. Why does she know them?"
She was working on that disastrous experiment years earlier--we see a flashback showing that. That's why he goes there, because these are the people who used to work with the scientist. The man is hostile and wants nothing to do with it (which we also see in that flashback), but the woman feels differently about it, which is why she sneaks out to help.
"Why should the audience care that she's concerned about whether or not it was a good idea to give info on them to Gallo?"
Well, I don't think we're supposed to be concerned, like, wondering whether she herself ever decides whether or not it was a good idea. The story isn't about her. It would be stranger for her to have no reaction at all, so it just shows one consistent with a person trying to help: she wonders if she really did. WE find out whether she was being helpful or not (I'd say the answer is "maybe if it was earlier, but too late now"), but it's not incredibly important to the story whether she ever figures it out.
"You asked, 'Why not?' when I asked about the extreme closeups. My response: because it is disgusting when the camera is so close to a person's face you can see their eye crust and spittle on the side of their lips."
Shrug. Not everyone agrees that it's disgusting enough to be a distraction from the purpose of such closeups. I dunno, you seem to be kind of hung up on things looking flattering or sexy as opposed to having a dramatic purpose. The two aren't always the same.
"...the movie had plenty of time to explain the backstory on the characters and the disease. Dialogue would have also helped the audience emphasize with the characters and their situations. Dialogue helps make the characters more human, more understandable. And it will enhance the story."
Dialogue CAN do all of those things, but it's not the only way to do them. And it can also be a really lazy way to tell those things instead of showing them...I mean, in real life people rarely rehash the past to each other when they both already know what happened, or explain what they're feeling instead of just feeling it, but if the writing's bad enough they're saying stuff like that out loud all the time, because there's an audience watching that has to keep up. So some filmmakers prefer to keep it more natural and try to get the story across anyway by making it seem like we're watching people who aren't playing to an audience at all, and just trying to show us the right moments for us to understand what they're doing and thinking.
I think this is one of the really tragic things about the story, though. The one scene where people WOULD be explaining and comparing notes and describing the disease would be the one where the two scientists meet and try to find a cure together...and that scene, of course, never happens, even though most of the movie seems to be building up to it. He comes to Paris hoping for just that kind of story, so to speak, and ends up finding that it's hopeless--that the scientist's wife is even worse than he is, that the scientist therefore has no answers and that there's nothing to talk about. Sometimes you just can't find the answers, not even in a movie. It's very sad.
"you give the theory that the wife and Gallo were able to stun their victims because they possible secreted toxin. But there's nothing in the movie to support this. So the theory is useless."
Well, the behavior of their victims supports it--they're in shock and pain, but put up less actual resistance than makes much sense. (That's actually where the theory comes from, there has to be some explanation for that.) And supporting that is their behavior before being attacked, like that neighbor boy. He doesn't seem very smart anyway, but you'd have to be insane to see that there's somebody locked away in the house next door, battering against shades, and not only think "sex" but actually break in AND keep on going after you see the lab in the basement and the woman barricaded inside the room upstairs. I think the only plausible explanation for that is something chemical: overcranked sex pheromones or something along those lines.
That and the weird appearance of the semen we see, the fact that the maid at the end is acting pained and scared before being bitten but after (apparently) sex begins, and the fact that we're looking at something that seems to have been related to a drug trial involving rare jungle plants. It would make more sense for this to be a real physiological change than just something that drove people crazy.
"Having an allegory doesn't stop the Happening from being a stupid movie."
Couldn't agree more, but I wasn't saying having an allegory magically made this a good movie; that's a separate issue. It's certainly better than having no dramatic purpose at all, but 'The Happening' is a great example of why that alone isn't enough. You didn't ask if having a point made it a good movie, you asked if it had a point. That's what I was answering.
---
So it seems like it's not enough for you not to like a movie, you have to prove why the movie is impossible to like so that you're "right" not to like it or something. You don't really need to though. If other people like it and you don't, it's not because you're failing a test or something. And you can acknowledge that something works for other people while still explaining why it didn't work for you; it doesn't require trying to negate the entire film's existence. You know?
You said, "...sex scenes can easily have a purpose other than turning you on...In this case a sex scene is going to be bad news, for obvious reasons, so having sex scenes that really tried to turn you on would be pretty tasteless I'd say. What we're watching is someone about to be killed, and the closeups are of the flesh that the characters are lusting to bite."
So having a sex scene that isn't a turn-on and has close-ups of navels and hairy nipples is tasteless? And that explains why we have a 1-minute shot of a navel in a 2 minute sex scene? She never bit the navel though. She bit his lips. And the same thing goes for the Gallo sex scene with his wife. Why the closeup on his face and his hands? Is he going to bite his own hands?
You said, "That said I don't think they're entirely unerotic anyway. That's kind of what makes them more horrifying, these are details we'd look at in another person even if we WEREN'T crazy cannibalistic murderers. (I mean, most of us, I guess only genitals do it for you.)The buildup is sort of sexy, even though we know it's leading to something horrible, which makes it seem more horrible."
So most people get turned on by kneecaps, shoulder blades, hairy nipples, and hands. But I'm a weirdo for getting turned on by genitals? Is that what you're saying?
By the way, you've explained the lab assistant, the woman in the apt., and others better. I must have missed that part. Still, I didn't care for them. Also, you said, "Shrug. Not everyone agrees that it's disgusting enough to be a distraction from the purpose of such closeups. I dunno, you seem to be kind of hung up on things looking flattering or sexy as opposed to having a dramatic purpose. The two aren't always the same." Please tell me what the dramatic purpose was for all the closeups. Example, all the closeups shots where you can see up a person's nose. I'd like to hear this.
You said, "Dialogue CAN do all of those things, but it's not the only way to do them. And it can also be a really lazy way to tell those things instead of showing them...I mean, in real life people rarely rehash the past to each other when they both already know what happened, or explain what they're feeling instead of just feeling it, but if the writing's bad enough they're saying stuff like that out loud all the time, because there's an audience watching that has to keep up. So some filmmakers prefer to keep it more natural and try to get the story across anyway by making it seem like we're watching people who aren't playing to an audience at all, and just trying to show us the right moments for us to understand what they're doing and thinking."
But this movie isn't any more natural than a sitcom with constantly snappy dialogue. Having been to Paris, I understand Parisians are cold and distant compared to other Frenchmen (in southern France, for example). But the conversations aren't as dead or as lifeless as that. The awkward pauses, stilted dialogue, constant staring off into the distance silently, and close lovers being unable to talk to each other isn't natural. They try to tell the audience it is more natural as a way to explain the sluggish pace. But, aside from a few thousand art snobs, the audience isn't convinced.
You said, "I think the only plausible explanation for that is something chemical: overcranked sex pheromones or something along those lines." I think the reason for all the things in M. Night's "The Happening" occurring is because Mark Walhberg's character was dreaming it all, or it was due to terrorists, or because corporations dumped chemicals into the ocean. Those 3 things seem like the only plausible explanations...or something along those lines.
The problem is there's nothing to support what I think. If I can't find compelling evidence to support it in the movie, I am merely grasping at straws. And the same thing goes for you and your theory.
You said, "So it seems like it's not enough for you not to like a movie, you have to prove why the movie is impossible to like so that you're "right" not to like it or something. You don't really need to though. If other people like it and you don't, it's not because you're failing a test or something. And you can acknowledge that something works for other people while still explaining why it didn't work for you; it doesn't require trying to negate the entire film's existence. You know?"
I don't know where this part came from. You're over-analyzing my dislike for this movie too much.
"So having a sex scene that isn't a turn-on and has close-ups of navels and hairy nipples is tasteless?"
No, having a sex scene that IS intended to be a turn-on, even if we know full well it's going to end in a hideous death, is what I would find pretty tasteless. Like, to use that same example I did before, if there was a movie about a man cheating on his wife, and the movie showed sex scenes with both, but treated both as equally "erotic" without having any other point of view about it, that would be pretty tacky. It wouldn't care about the story and characters as much as it did about the sex scenes being sexy.
"She never bit the navel though. She bit his lips."
That shot wasn't just of his navel, it traveled all over his body.
"the same thing goes for the Gallo sex scene with his wife. Why the closeup on his face and his hands? Is he going to bite his own hands?"
His face seems obvious: we need to know what he's thinking and feeling. For his hands I would say because (a) his experience in feeling her skin is also important to the story, and (b) the entire time, we're waiting for the moment when he starts holding her down and things turn ugly, and showing his hands feeling her generates suspense about that.
"So most people get turned on by kneecaps, shoulder blades, hairy nipples, and hands. But I'm a weirdo for getting turned on by genitals? Is that what you're saying?"
No, I'm saying if genitals are the ONLY thing about the human body you find attractive when shown on camera, that probably puts you in a smaller group. About whether that makes you a weirdo I have no opinion; who am I to tell you what you're supposed to find attractive? Unless it's actually harmful to someone else or something, I wouldn't presume to.
That's kind of what you seem to be doing here though, is my point. It's not exactly the way you'd film it for maximum sexiness to your own tastes, therefore they did it wrong.
"you've explained the lab assistant, the woman in the apt., and others better. I must have missed that part. Still, I didn't care for them."
Sure, it makes sense to prefer things to be laid out more clearly. Some people like that better, some like this "fly on the wall" approach better where the characters don't go out of their way to make things clear to an audience and we have to pick up the clues. I don't think either approach is better or worse by nature, it just matters how well it's done. Worked for me in this case, for the most part.
(The only part where I thought it really suffered was in Gallo's character--he's great at looking miserable, but bad at looking like someone who could fool others into thinking he wasn't miserable. Without further explanation (like, he only really started coming apart on this trip), or a different actor who could do a better job of putting on a fake happy face, I found it hard to swallow that he'd managed to woo and marry this woman and that she'd only just now be wondering if something was wrong.)
"Please tell me what the dramatic purpose was for all the closeups. Example, all the closeups shots where you can see up a person's nose. I'd like to hear this."
Without going down an itemized list, the general answer is to see what the characters are feeling and thinking, by examining their facial expressions. It's as much a storytelling device as any other, clearly not one you're fond of though. I like it, and to be honest, I was focusing on what the closeups were trying to tell us and don't even know which ones you're talking about where you say all the ones where you can see up their noses. Incidental details like that simply weren't as distracting to me as they were to you, what can I tell you.
"The awkward pauses, stilted dialogue, constant staring off into the distance silently, and close lovers being unable to talk to each other isn't natural."
I'd say that's a fair criticism for sure--that this seems as mannered an approach as having people constantly explain the plot to each other out loud. Between the two I find this closer to what I'd call "naturalism," at least enough to use that as the name for this approach. To each his own I suppose.
"They try to tell the audience it is more natural as a way to explain the sluggish pace. But, aside from a few thousand art snobs, the audience isn't convinced."
I really don't get this thing where, if the story wasn't told the exact way you'd prefer it to be told, it's a case of the filmmakers actually lying or tying to put one over on you, like they have a "sluggish pace" problem and are coming up with a phony explanation for it. You don't like this way to tell a story because it seems too sluggish to you. Others like it better. Viva la difference.
"The problem is there's nothing to support what I think. If I can't find compelling evidence to support it in the movie, I am merely grasping at straws. And the same thing goes for you and your theory."
Well, I listed the things I think do support it, so maybe if you explained how they don't, or could easily be explained by something else? Just saying this over and over isn't making a real argument.
"I don't know where this part came from. You're over-analyzing my dislike for this movie too much."
Well, just to help I pointed out where I think you were doing this again in your latest comment ("they try to tell the audience it is more natural as a way to explain the sluggish pace"). Sharing your opinion about whether you think a film worked artistically or dramatically, and debating with someone who felt differently, is one thing, but you seem to want to demonstrate why it's an absolute fact that this movie did it wrong and anyone it worked better for is also wrong, empirically. But it's a movie, that simply isn't how it works.
You said, "No, having a sex scene that IS intended to be a turn-on, even if we know full well it's going to end in a hideous death, is what I would find pretty tasteless."
Who are the "we" you are referring to? The audience or the filmmaker? The audience certainly doesn't know it's going to end in a hideous death. By the way, I just remembered the scene where Gallo kills the maid. That was a turn-on when she should get bush. Doesn't that debunk your theory?
You said, "That shot wasn't just of his navel, it traveled all over his body." No, I was responding this part: "What we're watching is someone about to be killed, and the closeups are of the flesh that the characters are lusting to bite." But we never saw her bite the navel. Shouldn't they have the closeups of his lips since that's the part she eventually did bite?
You said, "His face seems obvious: we need to know what he's thinking and feeling. For his hands I would say because (a) his experience in feeling her skin is also important to the story, and (b) the entire time, we're waiting for the moment when he starts holding her down and things turn ugly, and showing his hands feeling her generates suspense about that."
There were a lot of closeups of his shoulder blades, kneecaps, his hairy nipple, and the back of his head too. Did they show his shoulder blades because it conveyed how he thought and felt? Is showing kneecaps a good way to generate suspense?
You said, "No, I'm saying if genitals are the ONLY thing about the human body you find attractive when shown on camera, that probably puts you in a smaller group...That's kind of what you seem to be doing here though, is my point. It's not exactly the way you'd film it for maximum sexiness to your own tastes, therefore they did it wrong."
I don't recall saying I only find genitals on camera attractive. But, if I had a choice I find:
1) a sex scene with only genitals
...to be sexy instead of...
2) a sex scene with only navels, hairy nipples, shoulder blades, kneecaps, and the back of peoples' heads.
Apparently, you find #2 sexy. Don't take this the wrong way but I think you're in the distinct minority.
You said, "Without going down an itemized list, the general answer is to see what the characters are feeling and thinking, by examining their facial expressions..." SCREECH! *rips needle off phonograph* Let me stop you right there. There were no facial expressions. Sure, the women smiled once and a while, and Gallo did once too. Aside from that, we only got the typical European arthouse crap: people with washed-out faces staring off into the distance with brooding expressions.
How exactly are you able to examine facial expressions when, in the miniscule dialogue provided, you are unable to find any inflections during speech? How can you understand body language and posture with the extreme closeups? How do you understand what people feel when people just stare at each other with a brooding expression in silence for long periods of time? There aren't any physical gestures to convey changes of emotions or convey passion.
With the young man, he tries so hard to meet her by constantly trying to break in. When he finally does break in and meets her in his room, all they do for a long time is stare at each other and touch each others' hands. Please. After breaking and entering and demolishing property to meet her, he's not just going to stand outside her room and stare at her for 5 or 10 minutes.
With the scientist, he comes home to see his wife dead and his house in flames. Although his face is obscured by the CGI flames, you can see he has the same brooding expression he has throughout the entire movie. Yeah right. You're house is burning, your wife is a flaming corpse, and you're just standing around staring like "Uh...what's going here?"
You said, "I'd say that's a fair criticism for sure--that this seems as mannered an approach as having people constantly explain the plot to each other out loud. Between the two I find this closer to what I'd call "naturalism," at least enough to use that as the name for this approach. To each his own I suppose."
I don't find this any more natural. I've known many people who are genuinely witty and great conversationalists. I've known many people who were introverted and it was hard to get them to talk. But whether introverted or extroverted, they express themselves more than the people in this movie. If a chick's fiance hasn't consummated their relationship and they have to go to Paris to do it, she's going to be more talkative. She's not going to silently and expressionlessly watch him push her away in the middle of sex to go jerk off in the bathroom. Nor is she going to expressionlessly and silently let him leave the hotel room without saying a word. Nor is she going to meet an acquaintance of his for the first time, say very little about their relationship, and randomly fall asleep. None of that is natural or realistic.
You said, "I really don't get this thing where, if the story wasn't told the exact way you'd prefer it to be told, it's a case of the filmmakers actually lying or tying to put one over on you, like they have a "sluggish pace" problem and are coming up with a phony explanation for it. You don't like this way to tell a story because it seems too sluggish to you. Others like it better. Viva la difference."
Okay, then I'm going to use this same reasoning to blast you for not liking M. Night's "The Happening". Since M. Night didn't make a movie in the way you prefer, you're mistaken to believe he's lying or trying to put one over on you, like his movie has a "sluggish pace" problem and are coming up with up with a phony explanation for it. You don't like the Happening's way to tell a story because it seems too sluggish to you. Others like it better. Viva la difference!
You said, "Well, I listed the things I think do support it, so maybe if you explained how they don't, or could easily be explained by something else? Just saying this over and over isn't making a real argument."
You are insisting that Gallo and the wife have been injected with a chemical compound that are "overcranked sex pheromones or something along those lines." But nothing in this movie states or implies that they were given a chemical compound. By the same token, I could say the reason why Walhberg's character in The Happening wasn't affected by the disease is because he was given a chemical compound that makes him immune even though there's nothing in the movie that states or implies this.
You said, "Well, just to help I pointed out where I think you were doing this again in your latest comment ("they try to tell the audience it is more natural as a way to explain the sluggish pace"). Sharing your opinion about whether you think a film worked artistically or dramatically, and debating with someone who felt differently, is one thing, but you seem to want to demonstrate why it's an absolute fact that this movie did it wrong and anyone it worked better for is also wrong, empirically. But it's a movie, that simply isn't how it works."
But previously, you have made this quote:
Me too, if only because everyone who likes this movie seems to be so insufferably smug about it, spending about 10% of their energy describing the movie and the other 90% on armchair-psychoanalyzing everyone who thought it was terrible, because surely something must be wrong with them.
If I may pull the same BS analysis tactic, I've been trying to figure out why that is and I think I've got it. First, 'The Happening' is so genuinely odd in its framing, editing, dialogue, acting, etc. that some people will simply be unable to accept that it's plain old ineptitude. It's a movie from a name writer/director who's made good movies before and presumably knows what he's doing, so there must be a purpose behind filming it so strangely, and it must be a good one.
Of course, that usually evaporates once you give up trying to figure out what that reason is, but Shyamalan seems to be different. To be honest (and insulting—sorry), there seems to be something in his enormous ego that attracts people who want to have something to be enormously egotistical about. Lord knows Shyamalan's not bashful about telling us what an amazing imagination he has, and most of what I've seen of people defending this movie sounds remarkably like an interview with Shyamalan himself; lots of generalities about how brilliant his work is, some head-shaking over the people who just don't get it, and little specific analysis of the film itself. Sometimes you just want to feel smarter and refer to people who disagree with you as "the masses" and whatnot, and here's a guy inviting you to join him in doing it. And, since there's so little in 'The Happening' to actually support that there's something special to get about it (besides a lesson in bad film grammar), you've got to spend most of your time telling people who don't get it that they're the problem, and less on an actual, specific defense of the film.
"Who are the 'we' you are referring to? The audience or the filmmaker? The audience certainly doesn't know it's going to end in a hideous death."
I meant the audience, and yes, by the time any actual sex scenes arrive we certainly DO know that. The first one with Beatrice Dalle is at least halfway through the movie, and we know how it's going to end because we've seen the aftermath of her other encounters.
"By the way, I just remembered the scene where Gallo kills the maid. That was a turn-on when she should get bush. Doesn't that debunk your theory? "
Sorry, what does "when she should get bush" mean?
"But we never saw her bite the navel. Shouldn't they have the closeups of his lips since that's the part she eventually did bite?"
They should have closeups of him, because he's the one she was lusting after in that scene. And so, they did. Why do you think they should only have shown the particular parts she bites later?
"There were a lot of closeups of his shoulder blades, kneecaps, his hairy nipple, and the back of his head too. Did they show his shoulder blades because it conveyed how he thought and felt? Is showing kneecaps a good way to generate suspense? "
It's a sex scene, these things happen. What we see in those shots is him in motion--the scene happening--not just static closeups of him posing to show the camera his shoulder blades or something.
"There were no facial expressions."
I'd disagree. And so would you I guess, since you describe "brooding expressions" later in the same paragraph.
"How exactly are you able to examine facial expressions when, in the miniscule dialogue provided, you are unable to find any inflections during speech?"
(1) Why would you need speech inflections to read a facial expression? (2) To be unable to find any inflections everyone would have to speak in a monotone; they didn't.
"How can you understand body language and posture with the extreme closeups?"
You can't.
"How do you understand what people feel when people just stare at each other with a brooding expression in silence for long periods of time?"
You interpret their expression in the context of who they are and what's happening. The Kuleshov Effect, in other words.
"When he finally does break in and meets her in his room, all they do for a long time is stare at each other and touch each others' hands. Please. After breaking and entering and demolishing property to meet her, he's not just going to stand outside her room and stare at her for 5 or 10 minutes."
I think your memory is stretching that moment out longer than it really was. We're talking 10-20 seconds, tops.
"You're house is burning, your wife is a flaming corpse, and you're just standing around staring like 'Uh...what's going here?'"
Sorry it didn't work for you. I thought he looked sad, but not surprised (why would he, at that point), which seemed to fit. What would you have preferred by way of reaction?
"I don't find this any more natural."
Like I said, fair criticism.
"Since M. Night didn't make a movie in the way you prefer, you're mistaken to believe he's lying or trying to put one over on you, like his movie has a 'sluggish pace' problem and are coming up with up with a phony explanation for it."
But I don't think Shyamalan is putting one over on us, not in the sense of covering slow emptiness as "art." I just think he made a movie very badly.
"You don't like the Happening's way to tell a story because it seems too sluggish to you. Others like it better. Viva la difference!"
Pretty much (did you think I'd disagree?), except that "too sluggish" wasn't my problem with that movie.
"You are insisting that Gallo and the wife have been injected with a chemical compound that are 'overcranked sex pheromones or something along those lines.' But nothing in this movie states or implies that they were given a chemical compound."
The movie's unclear about exactly what happened, but it was medical research that changed them physically, so it's one of a few options. I don't remember insisting that they were "injected with a chemical compound" in particular, though. That bit you quoted was me talking about them EMITTING pheromones.
"Huh...when you do exactly that and act even worse regarding the Happening, you don't have a problem with it. But when I do it, you call me out on it. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?"
Could be. I criticize that very thing to start (and to be clear, what I'm criticizing there is what other people have written, not my assumptions about what they're thinking just based on the fact that they liked the movie. Check out the posts on that board from admirers of the movie, the ones where they theorize about how dumb everyone who dislikes the movie must be). Then I call such armchair psychoanalysis a "BS tactic" even as I do it myself, and try to keep it to what things "seem" like and otherwise make it clear I'm theorizing and know I'm theorizing. You be the judge as to whether that's hypocritical.