MovieChat Forums > Northfork (2003) Discussion > '1774' on the Town's Founding Date?

'1774' on the Town's Founding Date?

posted 19 years ago by YorkvilleGirl
13 replies | jump to latest

I believe it said 1774 or 1776. Unless the Indians incorporated a town (Um, like, did they do that a lot in the 18th century???) that's pretty lame Hollywood history. I believe it wasn't for another thirty or so years that we had Lewis and Clark's expedition. But nobody asked me. Just another stupid bone to throw into an already confusing film. But, oh, sure...somebody will definitely take me to task for being literal and prosaic and not "getting" the film. All I can say is this: It's not my duty to understand a film. It's the duty of the filmmaker to tell even the most dreamlike story if not lucidly, then at least with a modicum of honesty. Just another thing to piss me off about this so-called "work of art." Puh-leez.

[–] benjaminforstag 18 years ago

Your argument that the onus of responsibility is on the artist to communicate a message clearly is akin to saying that art should accomodate the lowest common denominator. If art must be completely accessable--without any active participation on the part of the viewer--then it would have to be so dummied down to the point where it is merely kitsch.

The whole idea of art is that it should make you think!

[–] marilu-4 18 years ago

I just happened to see Northfork tonight and thought it was beautiful and definitely unique.....:-) promted me to Google it...that doesn't happen often. I hardly ever watch movies or become inspired by them...prefer books (my wild imagination and all) I do love the completely extreme reactions to it however. One of those you either love or hate. I love art and I loved this.

I liked the boy very much and Daryl Hannah's character and what she sais to him in the end before they leave is stunning!It's always the little messages in a movie that get me. It's like in Spiderman 2 when Peter Parker's Aunt talks to him about every boy needing a Hero. Little things to learn from. No point in trying to understand the movie and missing the messages. It's like trying to understand life....???!? Not the destination but the journey that counts.

[–] Oinko 18 years ago

The person who wrote the post above said: " All I can say is this: It's not my duty to understand a film."
Which tells us that she/he does not wish to think, doesn't want to acknowledge this, and is offended when something confronts her with it.

Break it down to something else:
It's not my duty to understand a book.
It's not my duty to understand plain English.
It's not my duty to understand anything.
It must all be obvious.

good luck with that.

I actually wanted to watch the movie more after this comment, recognizing that this reviewer represents the opposite of anything worth striving for.
I did watch it tonight and it was challenging. It wasn't perfect. It was good, it makes me think, it makes me come back here to see what others thought.

[–] YorkvilleGirl 18 years ago

Nasty. Nasty. You make personal aspersions because I feel that a piece of art fails because of the artist not connecting with his or her audience.

Apparently, my low views insult you. Can't imagine why. I merely stated that it is not my responsibility to be "moved" by something I find unmoving. Perhaps I do not consider something orginal and artistic, where you might.

This movie failed to move me. Does this make me a Philistine? Does this mean I must understand everything created by others, whether it is in my view unworthy or not?

I did not insult any of you, yet find your opinions elitist, insensitive and cruel.

[–] frinky99 17 years ago

This movie failed to move me. Does this make me a Philistine?

--Yes. ...sorry about that.

[–] an_english_bob 17 years ago

If you want a movie that you can understand might I suggest an Arnie movie from the '80's or maybe Stallone, Van Damme did a few you could understand too.
Your comments above do not correlate very well with your previous comment, if you read through it you will find you paint a very bad picture of yourself indeed.
I don't believe it is anyones duty to make the film understable and everything obvious, films that make you think can be great fun.

[–] Caitlin1015 17 years ago

The year was 1776 and I am assuming that it is symbollic because that is the year that the U.S. won it's independence in the American Revolution.

[–] pizza-23 17 years ago

The US "declared" its independence in 1776. The fighting went on for at least another few years. ('Til 1781, I think, without checking).

And as to the original point, just because there was no US doesn't mean there couldn't be a town established there at that date. The French and the Spanish were settling that area long before.

[–] danku 17 years ago

No, they weren't. At best a few --a few-- French-Canadian trappers were traipsing through, but no permanent or even semi-permanent European or American settlements were established in the area in question for another fifty to sixty years. So the date in the movie is either a mistake or a bit of symbolism.

[–] zoraca 17 years ago

In response to the 1776 comment, this movie is not exactly a historical account. What I found so interesting about this movie was how the "reveal" worked. There are two stories: the evacuation (which seems grounded in realism) and the dying child (which has some surrealistic elements that appear to be the child's imagination). But then these two worlds finally meet (the "reveal"), and so is it all real or is it all imagination? The inclusion of the date fuels this question/theme for the viewer, as it does not give the viewer any definite answer, while at the same time giving the appearance that it does.

[–] TheSharkThatAteHartCrane 17 years ago

Well, if the town was founded in 1776, the same year the USA was 'founded', then surely Northfork is merely supposed to represent the US. Not even particularly obscure, as symbolism goes ...

We'll do it doggy-style so we can both watch X Files.

[–] stiv-3 17 years ago

That's the only thing that occurred to me.

Also, I don't think the kid is hallucinating. Surely many of you are fimliar with Wings of Desire...

[–] hewstino 17 years ago

I have a feeling they were maybe trying to say that Northfork was a metaphor for America?

I really liked the movie, but I have to agree with you on this. I'm not sure what they were aiming for. Maybe we should just settle with "a metaphor for America", since it's a really durable explanation you can use in any arty film.