MovieChat Forums > My Winnipeg (2008) Discussion > YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO READ THIS

YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO READ THIS

posted 15 years ago by trobert1
44 replies | jump to latest

I hate this style of movies that directors have adapted. Just becuase a movie is confusing, annoying and has an unorthadox style of filming doesn't make it good. I mean what do you get from watching this movie? All this movie consists of is annoying repetition, an extreme overusage of metaphors, and continuous personification. All of which I guess are trying to send some underlyling message that never really presents itself at all. I don't care enough about this guy to watch an entire movie about his life and the city he grew up in, and some weird form in order to be different.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

Not at all I've just never been heavy into drugs as you and madden seam to be.

[–] joemomma337 15 years ago

That just proves how juvenile your argument is. Okay, you didn't like the movie. And now you're insulting people that do. Good job.

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

and I'm, curious what exactly classifies this as art?

[–] no_wars_no_cars 15 years ago

didnt your mother teach you, "if you dont have anything good to say dont say it at all"?

this isnt a message "you're going to want to read"

please label your subject and comments more appropriately so innocent people who actually like the films youre complaining about dont have to waste their time, thanks

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

No my mother taught me to speak my mind. And the reason that is the title is so I can get people like you to comment back so I can discuss how awful this movie is.

[–] no_wars_no_cars 15 years ago

i feel sorry for you. get a hobby, life is too short

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

I have plenty of hobbies pal, people like you are so naive. Nice name by the way I'm actually a conservative republican so if you want to discuss that I'd be more than willing to.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

Ok? Actually the conservative republican comment wasn't aimed at you so get over it. And when did I applaud Micheal Bay during the conversation at all. And actually I'm taking a world cinema course in college and saw this film. But why don't you answer the question from earlier, what classifies this as art? " After all you belive in the things you do?" what are you talking about? And I can tell you're just an ignorant liberal concerned more about legalizing weed than real issues.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

Ya well the only feeling that I took from this film was annoyance and a waste of my time. And judging by everyone who left the theater with me they felt the same way.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

I'd rather not be in a depressed state to see a movie

[–] vanityfair_713 15 years ago

And you shouldn't have to be.

Some people like certain movies.
Some people don't.

That's all there is-- My Winnipeg isn't any different.

The end.

Personally, I think I have too much bloom. Maybe that's the trouble with me.

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

Ok? If you're not going to talk about the movie why say anything?

[–] vanityfair_713 15 years ago

By all means--discuss the movie. That's what this is here for. But don't (and I'm not saying you were) insult someone just because they dislike/like something. I like what you were trying to do...ask why they felt it was art, etc. That's cool.

Personally, I think I have too much bloom. Maybe that's the trouble with me.

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

Ya alright

[–] Seanfitz101 15 years ago

This was a little disappointing. Especially considering the title. But whatever. I just watched this movie, it's good. Certainly if you're Canadian, you will understand this more, simply by historiography and ethnography, than an American would. I mean no disrespect, it's just a matter of what we all learn in high school. It's topical.

In any case, I think this film is brilliant. It has amazing Lynchian aesthetics, irreverent humour, and an undeniably original outlook. If Guy Maddin and The Weakerthans were to write anything together, I would be in Heaven.

This is not a piece of Canadiana by any means. But this ambivalent little docu-fantasy expresses how we, as citizens, feel about our citites. Through its specificity, we receive something national.

There is your meaning. If you would like to hear it. This is not something that will be well-liked by everyone. But it is NOT a waste of time. It is insulting that someone would dismiss the movie so readily.

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

Alright I could care less if it's insulting to you, it's my opinion. I personally think it's a waste of time. And I don't think by any stretch that it's brilliant. And just because it has Lynchian aesthetics doesn't make it amazing. I assume by lynchian you are refering to David Lynch? Simply because the film is somewhat similar to twin peaks doesn't make it amazing either.

[–] Seanfitz101 15 years ago

I don't understand why you wanted to have a "discussion" when you are plugging your ears and shouting all the way through it. Congratulations, you are officially the king of the "seen one movie, seen them all" mentality. Plus, you did nothing to refute my point, you just gave your opinion, which is based on barely any evidence. Did you google David Lynch to find Twin Peaks? And you clearly have no idea what aesthetics are either. So here we are, square one, where your first post and all subsequent posts started. You must be a treat for your friends. I can't believe your title suckered me into this so-called "debate".

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

Actually no I didn't "google" lynchian, if you were paying attention I'm in a film class at school. And aesthetics is such a broadly used term that there isn't one true definition of the word. And all you did was describe the movie. "Expresses how we as citizens, feel about our cities". No *beep* it expresses how Madden feels about his city, the whole *beep* movie consistently contradicted how he felt about Winnipeg, in an annoying repatitous fashion that made me want to jump off a bridge. You didn't provide any evidence except for the fact that it resembles "Lynchian aesthetics". In the end my discussion is based upon my opinion, because you can only rationalize you opinion to a certain extent based on the material of the film.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

I'm not the one who compared this film to "lynchian aesthetics" I simply pointed out what he was getting at.

[–] sixgunstrawberry 15 years ago

Wow. You seem really, really angry. I don't really understand why, though. I've hated plenty of movies, but that doesn't mean I had a personal vendetta against the people who like them. Stop kicking and screaming through your little temper tantrum and make your argument against My Winnipeg at the very least sensible.

Anyway, I loved it. I thought the narration was beautiful. And NO, just because a movie is all artsy fartsy doesn't make it good. It's JUST a style through which a story is told. That being said, I didn't like Winnipeg solely for the way it looked. I enjoyed the content and the themes of nostalgia. But plenty of people I know whose tastes I respect didn't like it for valid reasons (none of which I've seen in this entire dialogue of yours). Though I don't agree, I can see why someone would not like this movie.

See? It's called discussion. That wasn't so hard, was it? Didn't hurt a bit! Now you get candy!
OH and, by the way, if you can please grace us with your definition of ART, O Holy One, please let us know because you surely must know better than anyone in this world, right?

[–] trobert1 15 years ago

"Art" is an impossibly thing to define, instead of such art as the "Davids" or the Mona Lisa, today people consider a blank canvas to be equivilent. The movie had far too much going on throughout not giving the audience time to digest what was going on. The scenes such as the beginning about fifteen minutes of him on the train were just dragged on and didn't give any sort of foundation to the film in my opinion. It just frustrated me having to watch so much repetition throughout the film. And the way it was shot was so annoying that no matter how good the dialogue or acting was, you didn't want to pay attention regardless.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hindinwood 15 years ago

Repetition has a purpose in art, and in this case I would say that it's purpose is to establish a motif that the director can return to again and again. This especially has a place in more abstract work, as it ties together the various strands which may seem disconnected otherwise.

In regards to the scenes on the train, I felt Madden was trying to establish the dreamy sleepwalker mentality that he speaks of when describing the town. I thought it worked well, as I almost fell asleep!

The visuals were gorgeous, and I'm not really sure about what you mean by "the way it was shot was annoying". How so? This is a very visually driven film, and if you are watching primarily for acting and dialogue, or if you're expecting conventional production, I can tell you right now that Madden is not the director for you!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Krustallos 15 years ago

actually I'm taking a world cinema course in college and saw this film.

Ha! My comment was going to be "Let me guess - film class?" Source of 95% of the crasser negative comments on IMDB.

This film isn't for people like you, mate. Forget about it. Or alternatively, wait until you've finished the course, at which point you might, possibly, have learned something useful about world cinema.

"My Winnipeg" is really funny, incidentally, the main reason I liked it. If you don't get the jokes, you haven't understood the film, as a simple rule of thumb.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] krispy_m 15 years ago

I'm going to have to agree with the original poster. This movie was an oppulent piece of incoherrent crap. And the question of how does this movie qualify as art was never answered...

[–] jimfordcoppola 15 years ago

The film deals with themes such as personal identity, personal/family history, civic history/pride, nostalgia, memory, and fear (among others) in a very interesting, and dare I say artful, way. Your opinion of the film is your own, and the success of the film is up to you to decide. You don't need to enjoy it, but clearly the film is an ambitious and creative attempt by the director to convey some of his thoughts and feelings on these themes, through the lens of his hometown. Is that not art?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] herzogvon 15 years ago

So the guy didn't like the movie? Big deal! It's hardly worth a giant punch-up.

I didn't care for Maddin's "Cowards Bend at the Knee", but this one had a sort of wistful charm that pulled me into it. There is a poetry to his language that appeals to even this normally poetry resistant curmudgeon. Strange things can happen when you open yourself up.

[–] GeneticSugarKane 15 years ago

Yeah so, I totally wish I hadn't read "this."

[–] alphadog01 15 years ago

I wish I hadn't read "this" too.

Here is something else I'll probably regret...justifying a Guy Maddin film to a brain dead imbecile.

1) It's well made. The film is filled with haunting, imaginative and original images. Like all of Maddin's films it is exceptionally well edited. The juxtaposition of images to convey thoughts, feelings and memories is first rate (see the girl's school or hockey sequences). The animated sequences like the horses stampeding are also quite good. This level of technical ingenuity constitutes ART.

2) It is in a sense a documentary (even if some of the incidents are made up). Like any documentary it works by delivering unexpected and intriguing information. Maddin's reasons for why the hockey stadium and department store should not have been destroyed and the implications those acts have on society that destroyed them are a great case for historic preservation. He gives a perspective on why buildings like this should not be destroyed. The section with the dead horses in the river is twisted, surreal and FUNNY. A lot of Guy Maddin is funny. The film is filled with lots of these little, odd moments of imagination. IMAGINATION (seeing things in a unique and creative way)=ART.

3) There are personal issues he delves into. His mother trying to repress his sister, the homo erotic activity at the swimming pool, etc. He examines how these things effected his views on sex and in a broader sense all of our views. Exploring subjects with insight and sensitivity=ART.

I could go on but my head is starting to hurt. No wonder you dislike thinking so much.

[–] jorgddh 15 years ago

Gentlemen, this is internet. Nowadays, everybody thinks that their opinions are strongly relevant. Let's be humble for once in a while.

And yes, somebody said it before, but if you have nothing good to say, say nothing. I'm tired of reading posts of people who seemed angry because a movie didn't work for them. "Waste of time". It's funny because I read that phrase the most when people talks about movies, like if they could have discovered a vaccine against cancer during their leisure time.

If you didn't like a movie, fine. It's an opinion, and considering the kind of films Maddin makes, it could be even a general opinion. But don't you think, dear OP, that starting a thread trying to incite other people to tell you the reasons on why this film didn't worked FOR YOU, is a bigger waste of time (and an impossible matter)?

[–] charlielpd 14 years ago

Man, I didn't want to read this at all.

[–] Pythe 14 years ago

Hey, turns out disliking something does not, in fact, make you interesting.

Thanks for clearing that up.

---------------------------------
"It was night. I could tell because it was getting dark."

[–] jstatser 8 years ago

I didn't want to read that at all. I hate this style of message that posters have developed. Just because a person has an opinion they thing the entire world wants to read it. I mean what do you get from reading this message? All this message consists of is annoying repetition and continuous personal opinion. Which stripped of an extreme overusage of verbiage, boils down to the underlying message, " I don't like this style of film making." I don't care enough about this guy to read an entire message about his personal tastes and the movies he dislikes, and some weird form in order to appear intelligently discerning. Especially after being told that I am GOING TO WANT TO READ THIS.

"Pardon me while I have a strange interlude"- Marx

[–] zoso8_thegreat 8 years ago

A classic knee-jerk reaction from someone assessing a film superficially.

Not every film should be easily interpretable on the surface. However, time and time again, viewers/philistines like the above take out their frustrations with not being able to take the challenge and think about something. They choose the same, unchanging lazy stance of labelling something 'bad' rather than spend a few minutes in pondering the meaning of something, or even taking it 1 step further and doing some research about the subject matter or reading others' observations.

Of course, if you're not from Winnipeg, it may not mean as much to you as it would to someone actually from there. I, myself, am not. But like experiencing any art, I experience it and think what it means to me, and what it means as a film. This can occur from a variety of angles.

A true fan of art will always look into the subjectivity, will take greater pleasure into thinking and digesting a challenging work, rather than walking away from a film that is cookie-cutter, unsubtle, and superficial: to use an easy example--a blockbuster-type movie.

Is anybody else tired of arrogant people espousing their narrow, uneducated opinions?