MovieChat Forums > Yes (2005) Discussion > Can someone explain...

Can someone explain...


I don't understand how anyone could regard this film as not being terrible. I don't see how the script being in iambic pentameter is useful or meaningful - it seems to consist of clunky phrasing and embarrassing rhymes. While Joan Allen is usually brilliant, here I felt she brought neither sympathy nor understanding to her role. This may not be her fault as the characterisation was horriffic - she's a scientist, so she has worries about the ethics of her work; she's of irish descent, so she feels she understands about life among terrorism and wars caused by religion; she's american, so she can be used in the script as a participant in the Iraq war - everything that this character could have issues about, she does. Which I guess is the point - the character has been carefully designed so that Sally Potter can fit as many issues into her film as possible. Agh the whole thing was so heavy handed! How often does it need to be emphasised to use that She is white and He is black? Do we really need ethnic style music playing whenever He comes on screen? What was the point of the restaurant orgasm? The argument between them in the carpark existed entirely on cliches! How on earth does the ending make sense? Is it supposed to be that she found God and so gets her reward? And why does he come to her? I thought he was angry because she didn't respect him, so how does it help if he goes following her around like a lap dog? Oh dear God and the cleaners - is that supposed to be a base for the film, is she saying that it's a film of the lowly ones? Nice though the idea of the cleaners being all knowing is, what relevence does it have to any of the points I thought the film was trying to make? Why was there that stupid montage scene near the end, just before He comes to Cuba? Why was Cuba portrayed as paradise? Whhhhhy did the dying aunty take so long? Sam Neill air guitarring - wasn't that cliched and irritating rubbish; middled aged guy, feels a bit depressed, must be playing air guitar endlessly - how does it help to advance our understanding of the character or what's going on in the film. Why did Shirly Henderson keep reappearing after the credits began to roll?

On the offchance anyone has read all the way through that, I apologise for the spelling mistakes and any rubbish I may have said. I would honestly like some help explaining how the film isn't terrible.

reply

Taste is subjective. Therefore it would be pointless to try to objectively explain why I loved this movie. You did not care for it. Others did. That's the way it is with all art.
That said, here goes a couple little tidbits.
The point of the restaurant shenanigens (sp) is that it's erotic. I like that scene for it's eroticism. For me personally it doesn't need to further the story.
Sam Neill playing air guitar made me laugh.
Marianne

reply

I agree with everything you said. This was a difficult film to endure. And yes, the dying aunt scene in particular was painfully long and unbearable.

reply

You explained it correctly!

The film is about all the pain and suffering in life that is caused by middle-aged heterosexual American white men. How everything that is wrong with the world can be attributed to one particular species.

Sally Potter hates middle-aged heterosexual American white men. A result of a real life relationship gone sour.

I hope she finds some happiness. I just hope it doesn't involve methaphetamines.

The film is not only terrible, it's a repeat.
It's "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner MCMLXIII".

There are endless possibilities and concepts that could be used to make a movie. Perhaps anyone of them would make a better movie.


cc: Betty

reply

Can t agree you more.The film was ended with a big nothing while it tried to include everything.

reply

i too felt the film was lacking something while trying to be more serious than it turned out to be. i hated the stylized camera shots (forget what they're called) the aunty death scene took too long but the monologue was brilliant. sam neil's character was pretty much non-existent. the iambic pentameter was annoying. and in the end nothing was really resolved.

however, i did find some of the dialogue to be refreshing (if i ignored the rhymes). i appreciated that they had actual conversation instead of just filling the air with noise. that's what stays with me about this film. not the story but the dialogue (again, minus the rhyming).

reply

you missed the point. This movie was brilliant and beautiful and wonderful and I'll see it 20 more times. You wrote:

"How on earth does the ending make sense? Is it supposed to be that she found God and so gets her reward? And why does he come to her? I thought he was angry because she didn't respect him, so how does it help if he goes following her around like a lap dog?"

She asks "can you forgive me for not believing in you?" and He shows up despite the odds. You have to read it in your own way, the way one would a painting. Maybe she was praying to god, but as a love story, she is talking to Him, and he comes to her. If you believe or want to believe that true love exists, then here is your gorgeous ending. I loved it. Too bad it wasn't to your taste.

reply

[deleted]

Really enjoyed reading all your posts, pro and con. am watching this film now, and went online to find out the foreign actor who plays "He" (Simon Abkarian: an excellent actor--you never catch him "acting.") Sam Neil, as always, is wonderful. i especially liked his 'moves' when he dances by himself alone in the house.) Joan is well, Joan; one of the best.

when i saw that "Yes" was written/directed by Sally Porter, i thought (oh) No. For those of you who didn't like "Yes," don't bother with her "Tango," you wont be able to get through Potter's very pretentious film, starring herself (unless you're a masochist.) Potter may be a writer, director, but she's not a very good actress. She was (unrealistic) narcissistic and over-confident to think she could pull off the leading role in Tango. Convinced probably by all the prosaic, mediocre men whom she slept with who told her she was beautiful and sexy. Poor Sal, she doesn't know that very grateful men tell all women that...

Anyway, 'Yes' is a'two stars,'(saved from unbearable by Joan, Sam, and Simon A.) when compared to 'Tango.' i bet her benef*ctors/patrons produced "Yes,' and her other self-indulgent films. (Another independent woman, like Anais Nin, who depended on men to finance their "Art") i noticed the several producers in the credits (usually there's 1 or 2) were all men! ;)

reply

You know, you are perhaps over-analyzing what should be considered art. Art just IS, and cannot be explained in any truly rational way.

Sometimes (probably due to the huge financial stakes of American film-making) people forget that film is another form of art. I was immediately gratified when I realized that the dialogue was in iambic pentameter, and knew instantaneously that about three other friends would love it. Something to life about being an INFP...

Your questions are thoughtful, but your premise that a film should make sense is flawed. I very much enjoyed it.

reply