It's OK if you don't 'get it'

I agree with what you are saying in general, but I don't think it applies to Redbelt. To me this was like crappy abstract art, where some guy pukes onto a cancas and tells us it's beautiful art.

Rebelt is confusing, not because it is deep, or creative; It's purposely confusing to try to make it seem "artful" or creative. Once everything is explained in the end, you realize the whole thing is a B movie joke.

If you have any martial arts experience, it just makes the movie worse.

wat u been smoking?

Well said.

Mamet takes a lot of heat every time he makes a film. A lot of people "don't get it."

The genius of David Mamet is that he is a modern surrealist. The hyper-real dialogue and mannerisms of his characters float through what is supposedly the harsh "real-world." The balance of surreal characters in a natural world confuses a lot of people, but it's what makes Mamet such a special writer.

I'm confused. Not from the movie , but of the people that find this movie confusing.



I didn't know people died in alphabetical order.

Two issues here:

1) If any of you are unfamiliar with radical postmodernism theory, I encourage you to read up on it. In the meantime, let me give you the gist of it, as it relates here: the idea is that all texts (film, book, speech, poem, photograph, painting, etc.) have no inherent meaning, even if the author tried to instill one. Rather, each text's meaning is dependent on the reader/viewer/consumer. Thus, a text may have a million meanings, each different, and no inherent meaning. You can either agree or disagree with this:
- If you agree with this idea, then there's no point in arguing if the movie was good or bad, or what Mamet intended to do. If you think it sucked, then great, to you it sucked. If you think it was amazing and want to have Mamet's babies because of it, then it was a great film.
-If you disagree with postmodernist theory, and this film does have an inherent meaning, then none of you are "right," and everything each one of you says is meaningless, because the meaning in the film comes from Mamet. If you want to discuss the film's meaning, you'll need to cite interviews with Mamet. You're obviously free to guess, or come up with theories, but you're not authoritative, and so can't prove whether you're right or wrong, unless you can cite Mamet.

(2) Regarding "art" and film and all of that stuff; of course films are art. Some films, however, try to be more than art - they try to be business. Redbelt is one of them. If a film wants to make money, it needs to appeal to audiences. To appeal to audiences, it needs to make sense. The original poster even conceded that "most people" don't understand it. Well, a film can't be very profitable if "most" people don't like it, unless the minority (its fans) are willing to see it ten times a piece.

If Mamet wants to make "art house" films, with plots that don't really add up, theatre-esque dialogue, and over the top symbolism, I personally say "more power to him." Good luck finding a studio that is willing to shell out the dough for it in this economy. The sad thing is that movies like "Knowing" or "Armageddon" or "Jurassic Park" put butts in seats and make big bucks.

"Don't get me wrong. There are heaps of bad movies out there with contrived plots and shallow intentions."


LOL, this movies plot is totally contrived. None of it is realistic. You stick to watching crap like this, I'll find some decent movies to enjoy.

A movie can be just that...a movie. A series of carefully constructed images. Just as a poem can be a series of carefully strung together words. It's what you bring to it that turns it into a dream. It's what you bring away from it that turns it into something that doesn't ever have to be defined. If it doesn't make any sense to you at the time, accept the fact that perhaps you haven't had that particular life experience that would allow you to connect with it. Look forward to uncovering more truths and gathering more empirical knowledge that might allow you to empathize with the filmmaker’s vision. Then, if it still doesn't ring true, move on. There are so many other dreams out there. More than any of us can imagine. Don't slight someone for trying to connect.



That's the best thing I've read in a long time. Have you written this yourself?




Alex

See, that's the problem. I "got it" and I STILL thought it was terrible. I was seriously looking forward to this movie when I saw it, I thought it would be a great story of integrity and honor. Instead it was a poor man's Star Wars, where the lead character discovers his "Destiny." The whole scene at the end where "he knows the escape" cause there's "always an escape" was so predictable and contrived. The whole part with the wife was so pathetic, and as someone said earlier "very B-movie."

But this movie had a LOT of potential. What killed it was the terrible acting and the nonsensical ending. He wins the belt AND the red belt? Why? Who told the whole crowd why he did it? It made NO sense whatsoever. Were the Japanese honor bound since they didn't defeat THEIR opponent? Or did it have something to do with the fact that Mirasaki (sp) only spoke 2 key things in English during his interview (which was so melodramatically overblown, it bordered on assuming the audience wouldn't understand the ending in the first place).

But the acting was so pathetic. The scene where the window gets broken, it felt so forced, and so off beat. It made no sense.

You may say this movie is a poetic and abstract piece of art. That isn't an excuse for ignoring basic story elements or poor acting. It's no excuse for jumping form one idea to another.

It's pretty obvious what Mamet was trying to imply. I mean what were the basic points of the story (ignoring the personal character arcs)?

1. A Brazilian family, where Ju Jitsu has been studied since the '30s or '40s. Not to mention that Bazilian family was accused of being "royalty" (like when they refered to their sister as a Brazilian Princess marrying a soldier).

2. THEN you have a Japanese "tradition" taught by the "man," the only one with the red belt. He must be important. For example, when Silva asked Terry what he knew about the Professor. Implying Terry doesn't understand him, cause only Silva could truly understand him. Again, must be important.

3. Silva and Mirasaki have a "grudge" match. Why? Because there is some grudge between them, which has a deeper metaphorical meaning.

Maybe you see honor vs. greed. But what I saw, was David Mamet's attempt to give the finger to the Brazilians for using ju jitsu to profit. Which makes Mamet's choice to have Ed O'Neil make a cameo (since ol' Al Bundy himself has studied ju jitsu for 14 years) hypocritical. The biggest error in the movie is that if the Japanese fighters respected Terry for defending their art, why did they agree to the fight in the first place?

Your poem is nothing more than an egotistical opinion of a Hollywoodite.

But, on top of all that, the movie still just sucked.

Worst of all, Brazilian Ju jitsu and Japanese Ju jitsu aren't even the same thing anymore. Brazilian is rooted in Japanese Ju jitsu, but it's focus is SO different. It's like Kung fu and karate. Same purpose, TOTALLY different methods and principles.