MovieChat Forums > 16 Years of Alcohol (2004) Discussion > The sheer audacity

The sheer audacity

posted 18 years ago by Minstrelo
10 replies | jump to latest

That scene in the art gallery still has me reeling.

I mean, the nerve the director must have, to create such a sloppy, pretentious piece of colorful garbage, and then contain a scene sending up a couple of half-witted modern art connoisseurs, who praise works with no discernible worth in ambiguous and meaningless phrases (I'm sure you know the type I mean).

Admittedly, the scene itself was quite amusingly done, with the couple in the foreground looking past the camera at some exhibit, and Kevin McKidd standing behind them, following them through the exhibit and questioning their every comment till the guy snaps "will you just fu*k off", but that's not the point, and that doesn't excuse such rank hypocrisy.

Awful, awful film. Truly, I hope nobody is put off small art-house Scottish films on the basis of this, as we really have produced a lot better in the past few years.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CameHeavy 18 years ago

"and that doesn't excuse such rank hypocrisy."

Minstrel: Are you taking the director to task, the actors' portrayals, or the theme of the film?

Violence is an addicting vice, similar to the rush of any other thrill-seeking, adrenaline-charged activity, and a sense of power is added into the mix. The rush is further enhanced by drugs or alcohol, which deaden any feelings of conscience or remorse. A person who indulges in violence, assuming they are not a full-blown sociopath, needs to have these feelings within them pushed down, just to be able to feel as though they are a useful member of society.

I assume from your post that you're a Scotsman who feels like things weren't portrayed realistically or that the director was trying to rationalize his own life experiences and maybe justify them?

I'm just a Texas redneck trying to figure out what was "hypocritical".
Help me understand your viewpoint.

[–] Minstrelo 18 years ago

Minstrel: Are you taking the director to task, the actors' portrayals, or the theme of the film?

I was taking the director to task for picking such an easy target, as funny as it was, whilst creating a film conveying nothing of any real interest, offering no new insight, and not presenting it any kind of an interesting way. I basically thought the film was plodding, pretentious and dull; another cliched take on self-destruction whose idea of artfulness was a picture-postcard look at the life of an alcoholic, where the ideas are drummed home, and accompanied with an elliptical, slow voiceover offering nothing at all but purple sentiments and banalities. The film is also littered with the requisite defining moments, a few nods to A Clockwork Orange, one through a musical dance sequence featuring McKidd and his "droogs", with no real rhyme or reason.

But anyway, my general point was that the film was hollow, but very much considered itself as a staggering work of art, or at least that's how it came across, through its lofty tone and pace. Some of the scenes were presented with such a pace as if we are to be walking through an art gallery, slowly admiring every beautiful panoramic.

I've gone on too long. I can understand the themes approached, but to me, they are nothing new, which can be fine as long as you don't presume that those ideas are new and in themselves will offer something fresh to the viewer. Perhaps I have just seen too many films like this to be enamoured, but I really think that's why this film was so poorly received. Maybe if it has been more visceral, realistic I would've been taken with the truth behind the ideas presented.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Minstrelo 18 years ago

There are a lot of good films about, or just heavily featuring, Scottish losers. And there's still room for more.

As one of said Scottish losers, it pains me to see this film being exported to the IFC on American TV as an example of contemporary Scottish cinema, as we really have a lot better to offer.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Minstrelo 18 years ago

Yeah I was just kidding anyway.

Personally, I liked the films you mentioned, and Rab C Nesbitt was good for its time. Chewing the Fat was pretty weak, but they didn't just feature schemies. Let's face it though, they do exist, and I like that Scottish filmmakers are more inclined to deal with the grimier side of life in Scotland, even if we generally do pretty well. River City is a pile of crap, obviously, and that shellsuit Bob character needs to be disposed of in as unsympathetic manner they can think of.

I agree the comedy side of it is getting tired, but people seem to like it.

There's always Monarch of the Glen.

[–] kathquay 17 years ago

These kind of art house films are gritty and real.This was compulsive viewing for me from start to finish.The violence, the alchoholism and the music all had a profound impact upon me.

Recently saw the Island with Ewan McGregor, another talented Scots lad. A super glitzy money thrown at it sort of film that bored me in parts. I though it was a reworking of Soylent Green. Cannot be compared to Sixteen Years of Alchohol. Nowhere near as good in spite of all the money, unless of course you are 15 years old.

[–] phorcysX 17 years ago

I watched the movie with the director's commentary and it helped me enjoy the film even more. If you didn't like it much, the explanations hight help you understand why the director/writer made the choices he did.