uh, who cares if it's uncomfortable to watch a film with friends and family. most people are used to seeing cinema from hollywood's point of view, a medium purely for entertainment. so yeah, it'd be wierd watching an art film with a group of people that know nothing about cinema (in that they only know it as a medium for entertainment). why were those scenes put there? because sexual satisfication is just another aspect of real life and Reygadas obviously doesn't care if it's "inappropriate" or not.
you were talking about war films, i'm sure you like them realistic, in that you want realistic violence right? so what's wrong with making the other aspects of life realistic? why are they not as important? and once again, something doesn't need to move a story along believe it or not. something could just be there to create a certain feeling. that's what great art films are all about. making you feel, not telling you some fantastic story. by great art films, of course it's just my opinion.
"How subjective of you to say that film is just a visual medium. And how can you classify film if you're preaching for us not to let our tastes be ruled by what is established. If your idea of film is to nag to hollywood because they didn't give you a chance or "challenge" the viewer (which this film does not do so, but it sells itself as a challenging movie)... well... you're pretty much limiting yourself, being angered at other types of film."
ok, i'll admit that i forgot an "imo" there cause i don't think everyone should think of film how i do. but obviously Japon did challenge you cause you have many gripes with it. the challenging part isn't why i like it btw. i like plenty of accessible films and i don't limit myself too much. you obviously limit yourself though, you seem to pass any film that portrays the world in a realistic or artistic manner off as crap, along with any film that doesn't have your precious story or entertainment factor.
"But whatever... you like it, keep it for yourself, you're obviously a friend of the director or the director himself. Or maybe you want to be like him, not taking more than two weeks filming random images and making up the story as you go along, hahahahahhaa, real professional. "
no, i don't know Reygadas... and i think a professional in the "film" industry would be someone who knows how to "film", not someone who can write a good story. so what, maybe Reygadas fails as a screenwriter (i don't think so) but cinema doesn't have to revolve around a script complete with a story.
______________________________________
http://www.shompy.com/sean/l35639.html
reply
share
ReelAlityBytes
16 years ago
Okay, I am determined to devote a couple of hours or so to view this whole film. I have tried on several occasions to get thru it in the past but found the whole thing so incredibly boring to the point of filmviewing frustration.
The cinematograpy did offer some promise so I will give it another go and try to see why it deserves its accolades.
reply
share
William_Hunt
13 years ago
I think it's sad that people fail to see that art is something highly personal and that it can have a different effect on people. What's even more sad is that people start to insult each other or insult the director claiming that their taste or their opinion is superior to someone else's taste.
Personally I really adored this movie from start to end and I loved the way the 16mm Cinemascope format was used. For me this is one of the best movies of the past decade and it's more than just a movie: it's Art. And the final shot (on the railway) of this movie is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, end-of-movie shots that I've ever seen: so powerful and yet so intensely beautiful, that shot will stay forever with me, it's haunting.
As a huge Tarkovsky fan I understand why people compare this to Tarkovsky's movies. I would even go as far that this movie and also Son & Mother by Sokurov is the closest thing that I've seen to a Tarkovsky movie. In fact: if Tarkovsky had visited Mexico and shot a movie there, this could have been the result. But hey: that's just my opinion and a very personal one.
And to Fanhorn Vlad: your ignorant posts are a disgrace and you're a liar as well: I don't believe one wordt that you are a director yourself; no director would talk about a colleague the way you do.
And stop accusing people who like the movie that they know the director personally. Do you really believe that all the judges of those festivals around the world are personal friends of the director? And for your information: I don't know the director or anyone associated with the movie either and I love this movie.
Fanhorn Vlad seems to me a person who doesn't allow other people to have a different opinion from him.
reply
share
jimmy_miller
13 years ago
To the original poster I'm sure someone actually did agree with your initial post, however I've grown so tired of reading posts and threads like yours that are so uptight and negative that I can't believe I even bother to post back. It seems like every film that tries to expand the medium and test its limits always gets a dozen posts like this and the more I read them it's always the same problem - somekind of need for the ABC storyline and a happy ending (which translates to being somekind of a pay-off for the viewer or something that is comprehended at once so you don't have to think about the two hours ever again), or somekind of spelled out character development which you can find in almost every single movie on the IMDb top 250 list. I can't even begin to grasp how on earth people who write these crying posts end up watching stuff like this.
I have my quarrels with this one in particular because I just saw it and am kind of undecided about it, but it just reeks of somekind of childlike outburst to come here and complain about it being boring or making no sense at all. What the hell was the point the one dude made about watching the film with your parents and living in a society, Jesus H Christ. What the hell was that?
reply
share