1. "Every single British film or TV series that I see portraying dramatic or disturbing situations ends with one or many main characters redeeming acts and general behavior that would be deemed totally inexpiable in real life"
Hyperbole - clearly not true. Also real life is much weirder than any fiction, and you clearly have no experience of 'real life' if you think this never happens.
I don't think that was Considine's intention -- to portray weirder-than-fictiom scenarios. He's not so complicated and the film rings true up until the end.
2. "As well as happy endings that seem totally out of keeping with the general tone of the film itself. "
This film didnt have a happy ending. It just had an ending. She killed someone and went to prison. Whats happy about it? What should have happened in the end?
Him breaking ties with her for good now that things asked for a bit more compromise from him. Or else him covering up for her and starting a sick, abusive relationship since, in his own words, he really hadn't mended his ways.
3. "Why do we have to feel sympathy for a guy who starts the film kicking his own dog to death "
I didnt feel sympathy for him. Why would I?
Well if this is a film that declares itself, from the very beginning, to be a few days in the life of a scumbag, why add "dimensions" to said scumbag?
4. "and admits he beat his wife to a pulp repeatedly when she was alive"
No. He says he never beat her. But he was abusive to her, calling her Tyranasaur etc. Did you even understand the film?
Point 1:12:30 in my copy: "
"So full of forgiveness and love. And I stomped the love out of her. I'm not proud of it. "
Maybe he "stomped" her figuratively speaking, even if I'm wrong on that he was still an abusive husband and at point 1:12:58 he admits "I'd still treat her like a dog". Who cares if the abuse wasn't strictly physical, it was abuse nonetheless. Erase the "beat his wife to a pulp" I wrote previously and replace it by "treated her like a dog". There I fixed it.
5. "but is totally unable to vent this rage on that equally abusive husband or the scared dog-toting drunken yob next door?"
Thats humans for you, not everything is a hollywood version of life. This was realistic. He did go to confront the husband, but too late. He did confront the yob via his dog, but again it was too late.
That's not humans, that's cowards. Not everybody is a coward. This film took great pains to convey the naturalistic portrait of a classical everyday coward, up until the end. We have grittiness and bad blood and depressing everyday sleaze and unhappy, cowardly, sometimes even evil characters and at the end it turns out the sleazeball wasn't that much of a sleazeball. Well I don't know if you have notions of Physics but it looks to me like a very dissipative system. Lots of energy wasted for nothing. Lots of unpleasantness for a final message which, to the very least, transmits a tautology (namely, that there are no absolutes in anything) and applies it to the wrong character. The right character to apply this to without making the script look stupid was precisely the woman, who did have multiple layers in her.
That is the core message of my previous messages. If you can't understand it at this point there's nothing else I can do.
reply
share
MarwoodWalks
11 years ago
Arthur,
1. "to portray weirder-than-fictiom scenarios." - This isnt what i said. I was pointing out that real life can be stranger than fiction. You are saying that people NEVER redeem themselves in real life. I am telling you thats NOT TRUE in real life so why can't it happen in a film?
2. You think the endings you suggest are more realistic than him calling the police and her going to prison, and them then becoming friends? What happened was 2 people making friends out of a bad situation. Those sort of situations can create the best friends...in real life...i know this for fact.
3. Why add dimensions to a character in a film? Seriously? You just want him to be a simple character that acts in one way only? Real life isnt like that, people act in all sorts of contradictory ways.
4. Fine you fixed it.
5. I think he is a coward. Drunks are usually cowards, running from life, responsibilities etc. Why should he not be a coward? Cowards can also do courageous things when they make their mind up to do so. Cowards can be violent and/or nice, again, i dont think you get the complexities of humans.
What did he do at the end that used courage? He made a friend, he visited her in prison. He had other friends, its not like he was unable to make friends.
"We have grittiness and bad blood and depressing everyday sleaze and unhappy, cowardly, sometimes even evil characters and at the end it turns out the sleazeball wasn't that much of a sleazeball. "
He wasn't a nice guy and he was a drunk. After he kicked his dog to death he decided to change his ways. Throughout the film he is struggling with this change. But he meets this woman and she helps him to change, mainly i think when she hugs him and he feels some worth as a human. By the end of the film they are friends. I think he sees someone somehow in a worse place than him, and he feels compassion. He doesnt have to be a sleazeball all the way through the film when the film goes to great lengths to show what changes them.
You find this hard to accept? You think a character must be portrayed in the same way throughout the film and even when we see what is causing them to change, you are surprised when they do change? You are wrong. If you cant understand this point then there is nothing anyone can do for you.
'You are receiving this broadcast as a dream.'
reply
share
Arthur_Desmond
11 years ago
The story doesn't ring true to me. In a nutshell.
Maybe it's that I, unlike you and probably Mr. Considine, do not believe in redemption.
Maybe it's that I don't know what morale to extract from the story after its very implausible final act and I'm left with the option of either despising the characters or feeling sorry and superior to them. That latter option being frequently available in British working-class "social realist" cinema which is as patronising and condescending as they come these days.
Be that as it may, I don't like going through this gritty display of faux-naturalism only to arrive to a sellout final plot twist as if the screenwriter were too afraid to pull all stops till the end. I don't care about your personal experience and luckily mine doesn't relate to any of this, but I've lived and used my brain long enough to know Peter Mullan's final choices are inconsistent with the rest of the character and I'm not masochistic enough to go through such a depressing experience only to find out there's a white rabbit pulled out of a hat in the end. Say whatever you wish, it looked like a white rabbit to me.
Maybe I was taking the film, same as all the Mike Leigh/Michael Winterbottom drivel we get these days, too seriously. No worries. Won't make that mistake again with Considine's next film. Or Meadows' for that matter.
reply
share
MarwoodWalks
11 years ago
Arthur,
You dont believe redemption exists? Why do we even have a word for it then?
Some other films off the top of my head that have redemption in them...i guess you dont like or even understand these films seeing as how you don't believe redemption exists:
Return of the Jedi
Leon
Pulp Fiction
Trainspotting
Its a wonderful life
A christmas Carol
A story doesnt have to have a moral, i am not sure what the moral of this story is either, and it doesnt matter.
Plot twist? What plot twist...the plot went exactly where it should have gone...there were no twists.
"but I've lived and used my brain long enough to know Peter Mullan's final choices are inconsistent with the rest of the character "
No they aren't. You dont believe in redemption (whatever that means) but you cant deny that sometimes an alcoholic depressive type can get better...can overcome their problems. They may then make some choices that they wouldnt have done previously. Or do you deny anyone has ever overcome something?
The white rabbit is a new friendship, not exactly mind blowing stuff, and something that happens a lot in life...or maybe you never made friends with anyone.
"Won't make that mistake again with Considine's next film. Or Meadows' for that matter. "
LOL, your loss.
'You are receiving this broadcast as a dream.'
reply
share
Arthur_Desmond
11 years ago
Oh dear, I bet I accidentally made you proud of your psychological insight and ability to read people like an open book. I'm glad I made your afternoon happier.
Aside from the rest of your stupidities written above, which pretty much comment themselves without the need for external assessment, there is one I'd like to devote a further minute of my attention to. The list of films you've given.
You're right, the topic of "redemption" you seem so attached to was present in all of them. But then, all six were ostensibly works of fiction and none of them, not even Trainspotting, expected to be a believable portrayal of everyday life. Same way I don't believe De Niro's character would've come back to Vietnam to look for Christopher Walken's in the second half of "The deer hunter", yet I can relate to their story and I can even take it as a beautiful allegory or ode to friendship, which is what it was intended to be. See, films that accept their own fictional status can sometimes be powerful ways of bringing forth a message. I think even the Lumière brothers were aware of this but it somehow escapes you.
Considine, however, did display a naturalistic streak: the film's attachment to reality at its ugliest was its leitmotiv, based on strong actors' work and a screenplay he had obviously thought about for quite a long time. That was the premise that drove me, or any other healthy person for that matter into giving this film its 2 hrs worth of a chance. I know it was because, see, the film had no other redeeming quality to it (not even a hip soundtrack like Trainspotting did).
You dont believe redemption exists? Why do we even have a word for it then?
Not sharing our beliefs wasn't enough of a reason to shut down written interaction. You being an idiot definitely was.
reply
share
MarwoodWalks
11 years ago
arthur,
oh dear, you have started to insult me...i believe this constitutes an acceptance of my points, but you dont have the wit to express yourself.
Seriously, although you are clearly very wrong about the film, i havent insulted you, why did you feel the need to insult me?
"You're right, the topic of "redemption" you seem so attached to was present in all of them"
I SEEM ATTACHED TO???? YOU brought it up as the reason you didnt accept the main character. You are really deluded.
Redemption is a theme in hundreds and hundreds of films, to have it in this film is not a failure. Its harder to believe that Darth Vader can be redeemed, than an alcoholic can make a new friend.
Trainspotting is a hyper real portrayal of very real events. Just because its not filmed like a documentary doesnt mean it isnt realistic.
This film is realistic, but it does have fantastical elements that show its just fiction after all. Mullen sitting calmly stroking a dogs dismembered head would be one of them.
Its not the films failing that you cant accept its a fictional story. You must be simple if you think its at fault for being too realistic, so that you couldnt believe the unrealistic elements...cant you see how you contradict yourself?
Anyway, you feel secure in the knowledge that only you can see a failing in an award winning film that got almost universal acclaim. Aren't you special. Needs.
You have nothing more to give this conversation as you decided to derail it with insults, Ignored.
'You are receiving this broadcast as a dream.'
reply
share