MovieChat Forums > Red Riding: The Year of Our Lord 1974 (2009) Discussion > Why so polarizing?

Why so polarizing?

posted 14 years ago by FZ-FX
13 replies | jump to latest

This trilogy has been on my radar since early in the year when I read about the theatrical release. I'm a fan of neo-noir and the concept reminds me of Zodiac (one of my favorite American films of the past decade) so it seemed like something I would love. Now that the (North American) DVD release is fast approaching I've been reading up on the films and I'm struck by just how polarizing they are. Some people seem to be claiming that these films are the greatest things to come out of British film since Hitchcock, but for every person lauding the trilogy there are three calling it mediocre and overblown. They're in the 7's so most people obviously think they're pretty good, but the few gushing reviews are very strange as I recall one being from one of the big English papers (the Guardian maybe?) Anyways, can anyone give an insight as to why these films are so polarizing? Are they "You get it or you don't" kind of movies? Are the people calling them works of enlightened genius just full of it?

[–] Chops-4 14 years ago

I enjoyed the entire trilogy, but I preferred each part to varying degrees. I found the first part to be the most interesting and effective. Each part diminished somewhat in progression. I think it would've been preferable to have the director of the first episode do all three segments.

[–] DMInfinity 14 years ago

I went into it thinking it was going to be more like a mini-series (same characters, same plot, fleshed out over three films) so I was a bit disappointed that they are actually three fairly separate films (from what I can tell. I've only watched the first one).

What really disappointed me (and what cause a complete lack of interest in the next two) was that the story wasn't even really about the Ripper. It was about some journalist, who is apparently a walking pheromone for every woman in the UK that is handed every clue he needs to solve a case of corruption. I was expecting a riveting psychological thriller about a serial killer, and I got a more straight-forward cop (well journalist) drama.

A decent film, anyways. 6/10. Worth watching, but not enough to compel me to see the following 2.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

What really disappointed me (and what cause a complete lack of interest in the next two) was that the story wasn't even really about the Ripper.

I was initially disappointed with that, too, but tried to adjust my expectations and liked it well enough overall--I gave it an 8/10.

As to why it's so polarizing, there are probably many factors, including some cultural attitudes in the UK (maybe even including things about television content) that I wouldn't be familiar with, but one of the factors is likely also the brutality the protagonist experiences and the ubiquity of the corruption shown by the film.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] Screen-7 13 years ago

>> JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies (Mon Sep 20 2010 03:41:06)
>> As to why it's so polarizing, there are probably many factors, including some cultural attitudes in the UK (maybe even including things about television content) that I wouldn't be familiar with, but one of the factors is likely also the brutality the protagonist experiences and the ubiquity of the corruption shown by the film.

I think you are right about British attitudes being different than American, in regard to religion.

I've know lots of British people and even the devoutly religious ones often have a high skeptical view of the Anglican church. Others are just cynical about religion in general.

I got a clue about this when I visited Westminster Abby. The lines between war, monarchy, class and religion are completely blurred.

[–] ObstinateAnnette 13 years ago

I went into it thinking it was going to be more like a mini-series (same characters, same plot, fleshed out over three films) so I was a bit disappointed that they are actually three fairly separate films (from what I can tell. I've only watched the first one).

I disagree with you, but I've seen all three films. It is like a mini-series, and you can't understand the story if you haven't seen all three. None of the movies stands on its own, IMO. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion after you've seen the other two.

I need my 1987 DG20 Casio electric guitar set to mandolin, yeah...

[–] honeyforu 13 years ago

What really disappointed me (and what cause a complete lack of interest in the next two) was that the story wasn't even really about the Ripper.

I think you're mixing the first and the second? The Yorkshire Ripper is an element of the second, while Andrew Garfield as the reporter Eddie Dunford is in the first. More to the point, it was not about the Ripper so I understand why you would be disappointed. I'm not saying it's not important but The Ripper provides the backdrop. As far as I am concerned, the focus of the movie is the corruption in the WYC.

It's like there's a party in my mouth and everyone's throwing up.

[–] Xcalat3 12 years ago

. I was expecting a riveting psychological thriller about a serial killer, and I got a more straight-forward cop (well journalist) drama.

A decent film, anyways. 6/10. Worth watching, but not enough to compel me to see the following 2.

I agree with this, but I will be checking out the next 2 parts when they are on TV later this month

6/10

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

[–] Screen-7 14 years ago

People tend to love or hate noir. And this is pretty hard core noir, so people are going to react strongly one way or the other.

As for me, I think this is some of the best TV I've ever. The writing, acting, casting, filming, editing, etc, are all fantastic but the "noir" is so heavy, you can't really get past that.

[–] fred-889 13 years ago

Yes, it's rather like the reaction that's been given to Th Shadow Line, which is the latest neo-noir series on telly now. With its intense acting, self-consciously theatrical dialogue and chiaroscuro photography, people tend to fall into two camps: 'GOODLORDIT'SAMAZING!', or 'this is the most pretentious, plodding rubbish ever made'.

I'm closer to the AMAZING camp, I don't demand realism from a drama, I like the strangeness and theatrical nature of noir. Things don't have to be realistically made, as long as it's gripping, with interesting characters, exaggerations and the odd cliché don't matter to me.

[–] decroissance 13 years ago

I just saw this and I loved it. I don't normally like noir.

When you say it's not realistic, do you mean that it's not common for journalists to be murdered and beaten up? Or that the corruption was unrealistically widespread? Or what?

One of the reasons I liked it was that it WAS realistic about the above things. I doubt that journalists are in as much danger in the U.K. or the United States as this guy was, but in other countries, Russia and Latin America, for example, journalism is an extremely dangerous profession. Journalists are murdered there all the time. Along with judges and cops. So I liked that this movie made me think about that reality.

I thought it was realistic also because it wasn't a "solve the case and get some justice for the victim" type of drama. Also, it wasn't about a journalist uncovering corruption and vanquishing the bad guys in the end. It wasn't about packaging an uplifting story to let people feel better about all the crap in the world.

It depressed me but I liked it because it was honest and I want to see stories that face things the way they are so we're not lying to ourselves.

[–] fred-889 13 years ago

Oh, when I wrote about realism, I didn't mean the events, which are definitely rooted in the truth of corruption, but I meant the acting and dialogue. It's very theatrical, and consciously dramatic; with both eerie silences between actors and theatrical flourishes. I find that a particularly gripping part of noir. So, I was talking mainly about how the drama was created, rather than what it was actually about.

[–] decroissance 13 years ago

Okay, I see. (Actually your post was quite clear, I was tired..)

Yes, the style is as you describe. I hadn't really even registered that as being not how people actually behave, hmmm. I was in a very bleak/noir mood myself when I watched it.

You're right. I guess that the few noir films I've seen are even more stylized, or maybe I've only seen American noir so I'm more apt to notice the exaggerations. (being an american.)

[–] honeyforu 13 years ago

but for every person lauding the trilogy there are three calling it mediocre and overblown.

1 to 3, seems wrong. If that was the case, the ratings - general populace and critics - wouldn't be 7 or over O_o;

Personally I loved all three, in the order 2 > 1 > 3. Although in themselves, individual movies are good but you really have to see all three to connect the dots and appreciate the overall story.

It's like there's a party in my mouth and everyone's throwing up.