A small step back from the fray

ah, how nice to have someone talking and not shouting.

I cringed at a couple of places, being called a promoter and being lumped with "you & your people".

So let me clarify, I'm not a principal, I'm not from LA, I am simply a person who put some money in to the movie on a bit of a whim and because I liked the concept. Some on this board would say I am an investor who has not yet figured out that he is being swindled. I can't say for certain if they would be right or wrong.

In that position I get to hear a tiny bit of the inside workings and got to go to a couple of events. But I am certainly not inside and have zero influence over making or promoting the film.

Now it has become a bit of a hobby and a bit of a curiousity for me. I'd like it if it were a more profitable hobby.

When I wrote about greed and revenge I was acknowledging that those appear to be strong motivations for some posters here. While I can not completely separate myself from the fact that I have a financial stake in this movie I do not think I've lied to anyone here.

I will say it was an interesting experience to sit in a movie theater and watch a movie for the first time that was not simply there for entertainment alone. Since I do not have a baseline for comparison I can not say exactly how that affected me but it was quite odd at the time. At this point I think I have more come to balance with it.

I've given my thoughts previously on some of the particular points you have made.

I don't know the thinking behind making the "play" into a movie. But I don't think the concept is fundamentally flawed. Was it financial? Of course it had to be a factor in the thinking. Mars is a movie director, I suppose, so that is a logical medium for him to gravitate to. If he felt he had a viable script it certainly also has the desirability of reaching a wider audience (a bit ironic since they now seem to be having a hard time getting it to audiences).

I do think the play format leads to a focus on words and a more dramatic style of acting and some people will not adapt to that. Some people do not enjoy plays. I appreciated them less when I was younger. It does not have the type of action that appeals to many people, as you say, to men in general (and the dance scene lacks enough skin also!). When I first heard of the dance scene I was puzzled by it and did not find it appropriate. While I do not exactly like the way it is filmed I thought it was an interesting way to represent the mental shutdown that can occur in the minds of men when they see an attractive woman- much, less five at once.

The time spent on dialogue with the men is a bigger part than for the women, it is true. I guess this is likely because the script originated in a man's mind. On the other hand I have heard that this movie plays well with women and that part of the reason is because they get to hear the side they do not normally get to hear. (My girl friend seems to like the movie more than me.)

As far as the answers or the demonstrations of 'love'. The movie characters do have a lot of intensity. The acting style of a play tends to accentuate this. The writing style of the screenplay also plays out in three main acts with the first two building most of the tension and separation and the third having more resolution.

I think the pace and intensity tends to wear the viewer out a bit by the third act where I think the answers are then more subtle. Whether by design or not I think that the result is that the answers are understated and especially so on a first viewing.

Readers- I'm about to go into a little detail so if you have not seen the movie and don't want details you might want to stop reading here.

Partly also the answers to what love is are complex as we all know. The answers for each of us have to come from inside, not a movie. Those ideas can only be a catalyst for our own thinking. But I think there are examples and fodder for thought there: Sal showing his piece to caution a friend's lover. The lover quietly acknowledging the act and the friendship without hostility, Debbie's reassuring words to Tom. Ken's independence from, and closeness to, his wife and her tolerance and affection for him when some of the build up would have indicated something different. Ken's caring for people he would never meet in cautioning the black girl about the consequences of her 'games'. More obviously George and Amy and of course Amy's words to Tom. In a bit of a cliched way Tom "setting Sara free" and Tom even taking back his own life and love for himself in the act of doing that.

I liked the fact that all of this did not sink in easily in the course of 90 minutes. As I have written before, we went away afterwards and talked and talked. And I had my own private reflections as well. There are answers there. But in the end we do each have to find our own answers and our own meaning.

Ok, that got kind of long. Maybe I am a promoter after all. ;-)

You are right, the board has become a battlefield that I find offensive. But you see I am not one of "them". I do not like the heavy handedness and the disgusting name calling from both sides. I hate that people bash the artists and the movie because they are mad at the production company. I dislike that there seems like pretty solid evidence that SOME posts are "fake". I think it is sad that each "side" has fallen into accusations they can not prove, lies they can not defend and namecalling that can not be excused.

The final irony, I suppose, is that instead of discussions of what love is, the posters here largely have instead taken the board to the low road that makes those frustrated tormented characters in the movie seem positively centered by comparison.

Well, that's my opinion anyway and thank you for yours.

[deleted]