But I didn't. My friend and I were excited to see this film and we were bitterly disappointed. We both fell asleep! I couldn't believe. It sparked some conversation for us, so that was something I guess.
If you loved this film, please fill me in.
cheers.
i didn't love this film, but i liked it a lot as a representation of life for two marginalised aboriginal teens today. They have been raised in an unkind and impoverished limbo between their tribes, and what we call civilised society in australia. i think this movie's point was to draw attention to the way that so many aboriginal children fall through the cracks of society simply because there is noone and nothing that cares about them. there is no system put in place for these children, and they are the ones that suffer because of it. they are civilised, and have lost the knowledge and history and land of their tribes, but there is no way for them to make a life for themselves in a normal city. i'm not sure if there is any solution to this problem, because the government just doesn't deem this an important issue and so there is not enough funding allocated to these tiny communities that need it severely.
i think it's a really important issue that isn't often handled, but the hauntingly accurate representation of the community and their daily lives was so well written and acted, and gave a compelling watch.
Thanks for the reply jaymeglynn - I am a Social Worker and have worked in varying capacities with the Aboriginal community(ies). Am aware of the all the issues faced by a large majority of Aboriginal Australians, I just think this film fell short is all.
I think if a film is wanting to address the issues you outline, it needs to be engaging and it didn't do that at all for me. I found it tedious and boring. Therefore I don't think it will be as far-reaching and impacting, especially on an uneducated audience.
cheers.
I think that the repetivity that the film projected, the constant "nothingness" of daily life, the what you call "tedious" and "boring" bits are what made this film so interesting. For me it really drilled in the sense of what it must feel like to live this kind of monotonous life. The fact that Warwick didn't water that down or fast track it gave one the sense of its reality. A reality which must be truth for many indigenous communities in rural Australia.
This truth is then what triggers ideas and questions, its what makes the movie so thought provoking. It is a silent cause to the outcome which Samson and Delilah fall into.
I don't think the purpose of the flim was to protray all the issues faced by indigenous Australians, but it does shine a light on a whole different world that exists in our country, one that the majority of city dwellers don't see and wouldn't understand otherwise. That is a start I think.
Also - maybe its the fact that most of the movies we watch today over stimulate our senses, the fast cars, explosions, steamy scenes and intense music all drive us into overload and we somehow now feel as if they are the normal sensations we must have to appreciate a movie.
And because this film is the complete opposite of that is why it makes it so fragile and beautiful. You feel as if you cant miss any of it to appreciate it, the depth of the movie is ultimately how you percieve it in your own head and what thoughts and feelings you generate from it more than then what is on the screen itself.
Beautifully put, Jade. I found the entire film engrossing; it comes across as very real and true, but so very remote from my experience & existence right here in the same country. I understand though, the story and characters may not have been so captivating if this way of life was really familiar to the viewer.
But for a white city fella who has lived a fairly sheltered life, this film was a real eye-opener. Depressing & shocking, hopeful & funny, horrible, beautiful. I loved it and am so glad it exists.
I'm surprised you found this movie boring and tedious; of course it was a slow moving movie but my experience of it was far from boring.
I think this is an accurate yet sombre portrayal of growing up in a small indigenous community and the hardships they face. I think the lack of dialogue for the most part of the movie contributed to this greatly because it reinforced how isolated these communities are, not just from other Australians but within their own communities also.
I totally agree with your view that this film just failed. I work for Department of Community Services and see plenty of like children day in day out, I hear their stories, I share parts of their lives. I study psychology too and in first year we watched documentaries about the same story this film so horribly failed to tell. What I find funny is that the cheaply-made documentary was so much more engaging than this film!
haha ironically, it gave me and my friend so much ammunition for criticism that I think it was worth the suffering just for the comedic relief at the end.
I'm sorry but I have just seen other films portraying a similar message and doing a much better job.
Did the photography not interest you at all? The music, the use of sound? The settings? Have you thought about the use/lack of dialogue, and it's effectiveness? What about the actors' performances?
I get the feeling that you were after some kind of ripping yarn. To have fallen asleep during any movie is just... ignorant.
---
Instant fail words: overrated, major flaw, plot hole
"Did the photography not interest you at all? The music, the use of sound? The settings? Have you thought about the use/lack of dialogue, and it's effectiveness? What about the actors' performances? "
some people need to find the story engaging and dont settle for artistic crap for 2 hours. you may be able to substitute engaging plot with abstract wank, not everyone else cares.
"To have fallen asleep during any movie is just... ignorant. "
...to yield to normal human biological function is ignorant? wow. what an erm... profound and yet stupid statement. to walk out of a movie shows stupidity and ignorance, to fall asleep during a movie shows you werent entertained, and nothing more.
"Some people need to find the story engaging and don't settle for artistic crap for 2 hours. You may be able to substitute engaging plot with abstract wank."
Yes, and other people need art to compensate for the depressing view held and promoted by some people that art is crap and abstraction is wank.
To each their movie.
i dont disagree that such people would exist, but to assume that if you didnt like the artistic aspects of a film then youre wrong is an invalid argument, thus my point. i was arguing against the "you must like it for this reason" point, not arguing "you shouldnt like it for this reason". surely you can see the difference.
shareJust as (I hope) you can tell the difference between 'you must like it for this reason' and 'you may/might like it for this reason'. You didn't take the latter possibility into account, though.
To each their own (movie).
"To have fallen asleep during any movie is just... ignorant."
kinda suggests that being bored by this movie is not an option. they didnt just leave it at 'these are some reasons you may like it', they finished it off with, the fact that you were bored to sleep makes you wrong. thus, not at all following your interpretation.
O_C,
I don't agree that this was "artistic wank" at all. There is a very clear storyline you can follow from beginning to end. You kind of just have to shut up and watch and quit posing your own expectations on the film. As for someone else's comment that the film won't be far reaching, I'm in the United States and I rented it last night. I've never been to Australia and never met an Aboriginal person. The film did a great job of explaining to me how kids on Aboriginal reservations (as we'd call them in the States) could wind up in Samson & Delilah's situation. It filled me with compassion for a drug addict that I might not have otherwise had and filled me with compassion for the plight of indigenous people all over the world.
Sounds like the person who originated this thread has an agenda they want put on film. Perhaps they should make a film of their own. It also sounds like they're not a very edified film goer if they need things spelled out for them in trite dialogue that bangs them over the head with its message.
er...and who said this was "artistic wank"? i believe i was commenting on specific aspects listed by one individual. why is that so hard for you to follow?
" if they need things spelled out for them in trite dialogue that bangs them over the head with its message. "
hmmm an odd opinion from someone who doesnt understand what i was getting at in my own post. did you not see my follow up? i actually tried the banging them over the head with the message idea...you still didnt get it apparently.
... but I wasn't.
perama-1 on Thu Jun 4 2009 22:35:44 wrote:
But I didn't. My friend and I were excited to see this film and we were bitterly disappointed. We both fell asleep! I couldn't believe. It sparked some conversation for us, so that was something I guess.It comes down to expectations. Just as with people, if you expect them to be perfect, you'll find a fault. If you begin without expectation, you might just find something you'll love.
[deleted]
I liked the film. Mainly for the technical side of it. The way it was made. And the fact that theres very little dialogue and manages to tell the story very well and has some humor in it is a great thing. Hats off to Thornton for it. Tat being said, it depressed me somehow. I felt really down about it for the first 2 thirds of the film. The final third made up for it tough.
HEEEEERES JOHNNY!
I always worry about the "critically acclaimed" type of films. When I read the reviews I expect to be swept off my feet...
Samson and Delilah got universal fantastic reviews from Australian film critics - I think the lowest I read was 4.5/5!
So I just saw it tonight and must admit there are some excellent moments in the film.
But I felt it went too long and there was a moment when it could have ended which would have made it much better - won't spoil it - but it could have been shaved about 20-30 minutes.
Before I saw it, I read that most of the dialogue was in original aboriginal language - so I thought it might get a nod at next years Oscars for Best Foreign Language film.
But really it is a silent film. About 1% is in English, 5% in aboriginal language and the rest is silent.
Nope not a silent film - just that noone really says anything in the film.
I think there were scenes that could have used some dialogue - but Thornton obviously just wanted them to say nothing.
I didn't hate it - did like it - just wish all the critical hype was justified - but for me it wasn't.
All the reviews I read gave it 4.5 or 5 stars. David Stratton claimed it was the greatest Australian film of all time!
When reviews are universally brilliant - one should expect to be blown away.
This is one of those arthouse type films that the arty types and film critics will rave on and on about.
I can understand some people falling asleep during this film - it's basically 2 kids looking at each other for 2 hours - virtually no dialogue is spoken!
In my opinion it is not a great film - but there is plenty to admire about it.
Will it get a lot of AFI (Australian Film Insitute) nominations this year? Guaranteed to scoop the pool - including Best Costume Design!
Does it deserve to be showered as such?
I don't think so.
[deleted]
Not merely mediocre but downright 'bad'? One wonders to what rarefied heights a film must ascend for you to rank it as 'good', let alone a 'great' film!
More importantly, I do wish this "film class" meme would die. Films don't get such a decent box-office response by appealing only to those fabled film class students.
_____
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here.
this is exactly what *beep* me about the film industry. overhyped arthouse films.
ESPECIALLY IN AUSTRALIA. there are many decent australian films, but some of the bigger named movies are just tedious.
I was very disappointed by this. My main problem with it is that initially the film set itself up as taking place in a harsh, realistic world, before it later took a turn toward stylized, self-consciously 'artistic' elements that clashed with the rules of the world that it presented.
Samson and Delilah could have helped each other numerous times if they had spoken up, but they didn't. Yes, it's meant to be a mainly visual, neo-silent film, but Delilah spoke earlier with her grandmother. Her suddenly becoming mute around Samson meant that the film did not have consistent internal rules and logic, and made the director's intentions too transparent. I was sucked out of the story.
The music played by the brother's band was another example of this. They are always playing the exact same few bars in a loop. I get it...'the repetitive, dull music matches the drabness of life in this community'...but it's such a perfunctory way of showing this, and ultimately rather silly. I kept thinking, "they seem fairly proficient, so why don't they at least try to play something else?"
The film also seemed to rely too much on putting Delilah in bad circumstances to force audience empathy and involvement. Very lazy.
I didn't think the film had much that was new or interesting to say.
That said, there was some great photography (as one would hope for in a film directed by a cinematographer), the opening 20 minutes were good, and Delilah watching Samson's dance was a brilliant moment. In the second act, everything began to unravel.
All that said, the film showed a lot of promise and Warrick Thornton is certainly a filmmaker to watch. Hopefully he'll be given more chances to show what he can do in the future, as rarely happens in the Australian film landscape, filed in recent years by films by first time directors.
*** Spoilers ***
"My main problem with it is that initially the film set itself up as taking place in a harsh, realistic world, before it later took a turn toward stylized, self-consciously 'artistic' elements that clashed with the rules of the world that it presented."
I think the shift in style and presentation you noticed, correlates quite obviously to the abrupt environmental shift of the central characters, i.e. Samson & Delilah removing themselves from their normal, well-known small-community environment to the very alien, large-town environment. Not to mention the individual traumas they suffered before taking off, and Delilah's disastrous choice to start sniffing with Samson. All of these things would have a sizeable impact on your sensibilities and perception of reality, and I think Thornton very deliberately changed to a more stylized form as a way to convey this shift to the audience.
"Samson and Delilah could have helped each other numerous times if they had spoken up, but they didn't."
If I recall correctly, the times Delilah should have but didn't speak up were when she was high off petrol fumes. Ditto for Samson (as he was high pretty much non-stop). The rest of the time, their non-verbal relationship made perfect sense to me. For most of the film, the audience wasn't quite sure if Samson's silence was by choice, but I don't think it came as a shock to Delilah that he was barely able to talk. So perhaps Delilah's decision to also be silent was more out of respect for Samson's situation, than due to the stylistic whims of the director.
"The music played by the brother's band ... They are always playing the exact same few bars in a loop."
Personally I loved that little tune the band played over and over. I bought the soundtrack mainly for the sounds of the Desert Mulga Band, and that little reggae ditty always brings a smile to my face. I think part of the point was: they were never going to play much else - either by choice or in fact, not an abundance but a lack of proficiency - and I think it worked well as a plot device. It was sad and funny at the same time - much like other parts of the film.
I think the shift in style and presentation you noticed, correlates quite obviously to the abrupt environmental shift of the central characters
If I recall correctly, the times Delilah should have but didn't speak up were when she was high off petrol fumes. Ditto for Samson (as he was high pretty much non-stop). The rest of the time, their non-verbal relationship made perfect sense to me.
Personally I loved that little tune the band played over and over.
Nonetheless, and it's been a while since I saw it, but wasn't Delilah also silent when she was displaying her art work?
Not a masterpiece but interesting. However, I will not be re-watching it. 6/10.
shareWithout doubt...a terrible film.
I cannot recall being left with such a sense of "What on earth are "they" talking about?". I think someone on here said they fell asleep...I was lucky and watched it at home....so I got up and did the dishes for 15 minutes instead.
I could forgive the film for not having much plot....I've enjoyed plenty that didn't. The lack of dialogue was not an issue. The complete lack of narrative is unforgivable in a professional film.
It looked beautiful (in parts), but as a feature film it's a bona-fide turkey.
Note to self (and others): If Marg and Dave give 5 stars to anything....avoid.
You created an IMDb account just to diss this film? wow. It really did get up your nose.
I didn't get as much out of it the second time as I did the first but I would never call it a turkey. It also seemed to me to have a very traditional structure and narrative so I find your comment that it lacked narrative bewildering. Care to elaborate?
The film didn't get up my nose...the overwrought hyperbole about it did. It is that which has damaged Australian Cinema so much...mediocre stuff pumped up above it's station leaving people shaking their heads and inclined to be more cautious about what they decide to see in future. This had been described by a number of prominenet reviewers as "Masterpiece" and "Greatest Australian film of all time" etc. etc etc.
This was a very ordinary piece of cinema...nicely photographed, though on further reflection can you badly photograph the outback if you have a decent bit of glass and good film stock?
Regarding narrative....the film struck me more as a disconnected series of over long vignettes, acted by amatuers unable to give the scenes any real gravitas. Not their fault as they are amatuers...but detracting from whatever the film had to offer. These vignettes did not have any deducible narrative connection to each other..they each could have been viewed (and maybe should have been) as seperate shorts.
Some have tried to impute an allegorical character to this film....this strikes me as trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. There is no allegory discernable in this...the characters portrayed are too close to reality (Yes I have experienced remote aboriginal communities in real life)to give the writer that out.
In summary for me it was an intersting idea, well filmed but ultimately badly executed...and worse...simply boring. I think others have relied on a state of spiritual inflammation to find something in this work that is not there.
It's true that the look of the film was a factor in the positive reviews, but that's fair enough. Film is a visual medium so it should be judged on how well it succeeds in being visually attractive, and Samson and Delilah is wonderful to look at. I think there's more to cinematography than you say, I've seen too many boring amateur photographs of desert to believe anybody could have achieved the results Thornton did as you suggest.
As I said before, I thought this film has a narrative structure:
First act: Samson and Delilah in the mission, pre-relationship. A life-changing event occurs, propelling them into flight;
Second act: Samson and Delilah run off to the big city (quite a funny description of the Alice, but still) where they encounter divers hazards and don't overcome them. They cement their relationship. Tragedy strikes;
Third Act: deprived of his love, Samson enters a downward spiral. He is rescued and the film is resolved on the traditional note of hope.
This is really a very common and traditional storyline and I'm a little surprised the critics never complained about that but I never once got the feeling that this was the Altmanesque series of vignettes you saw, every scene followed logically from the one before for me. Perhaps the unusual emphasis on body language rather than dialog has misled you. But that is one of the things that makes this film so refreshing.
I do agree that the actors weren't quite as great as some reviewers seemed to think, although they are still a lot better than some Hollywood actors I've seen. I love the scene where Samson dances for Delilah. Some of the reviews of this film are exaggerated - I would not call it the best Aussie film ever either - but it is very, very good.
I suppose on the question of narrative we will have to disagree....you have managed to construct a satisfactory one for yourself so kudos to you. The lack of language did not mislead me. I was not prepared to construct the premises that you did to make it work.
To me the film looked like this:
Boy destroying himself and being a pest to others
Boy destroying himself and being a pest to others in Alice
Boy destroyed and continuing to be a pest to others
With a loose sub-plot of girl minding her own business being pestered by boy destroying him-self. Being dragged to Alice to be pestered by him (and others) there, only to decide to return home and continue to be pestered by completley destroyed buy for rest of life.
So for me it was 97 minutes of the smae thing...so much so that the depiction of individual events ended up meaning nothing...though as I said I went and washed the dishes for 15 minutes so maybe I missed something important....however it looked like much the same stuff when I got back.
I didn't buy the ending as optimistic....what future for a young woman with a brain damaged lout...go figure
For those that don't realise the brain damage caused by petrol sniffing is permanent...so there is no redemptive them involved.
> I was not prepared to construct the premises that you did to make it work.
This sounds rather as if you think I deliberately came up with that narrative afterwards in order not to feel I'd wasted my time. I didn't, it was there as I watched the film. You seem to have focussed on Samson's petrol-sniffing to the exclusion of all else that was going on. So I would say that you didn't miss anything while you were washing the dishes.
We don't know how long Samson has been sniffing and it takes a while to cause permanent brain damage. In the Samson and Delilah FAQ I quoted in another thread Thornton stated that he likes to think Samson's been caught in time. Personally, I am inclined to agree that Delilah could do better for herself but the mystery of love is one of the themes of the film.
I did not mean to infer you made the narrative post -facto which is why I referred to the premise's you adopt...namely that Samson as the main protagonist is capable of reacting in a determinative manner which will sustain a narrative. I don't think that premise is sustainable. I apologise if I did not make that clearer.
Nothing in the portrayal of his character at any stage of the film suggests Samson is able to do anything other than lurch from one ill-conceived action to another. The order of events that happen around him could just as easily be jumbled about in any order for the same effect in the film. Hence why I think it lacks a narrative.
I actually focussed on Samson being a pest ie. a negative influence on those around him. The petrol sniffing was just his leitmotif if you will.Appropriate in a way because this movie was a bit like sniffing cinematic patrol....stupefying. I also saw no love story in the film. At best a resignation of Delilahs part that this might be as good as it can be.
I'm still wondering whether Warwick Thornton was thinking about his next film when he described this as a love story with an optimistic ending, because nothing in this work supports either of those sentiments.
All that said... I have enjoyed our discussion of the film much more than the film itself so thank you for that.
Great Australian film =
Rabbit Proof Fence
10 Canoes
Gallipoli
Kenny
Romper Stomper
Wolf Creek
Two Hands
etc etc.
This show doesn't cut the mustard compared to the best films from Australia. These are some of my favourite shows period let alone Australian films and I was really disappointed in this film.
---------------------------
Him ða Scyld gewatto gescæphwile
felahror feranon frean wære.
Oh, I see. Sorry, I did phrase my post as though I saw Samson as the protagonist. I vaguely noticed that as I was writing it, but didn't go back and rework it. Delilah is the protagonist. But I got the impression we see her through Samson's eyes, especially in the second half of the film, and that influenced my choice of words.
I understand what you mean by lack of narrative now and you have a point, the early scenes are pretty random. I suppose Thornton was establishing the milieu and the utter boredom of living in such a place where it's the same day after day. Samson was a pest. I do feel sorry for Delilah having no other bloke to hook up with; with her nana dead it's not likely the other people in the settlement are going to bestir themselves finding suitors for her. But Samson's not useless, as we see when he finds water and catches the kangaroo. He has potential and is as energetic as any teenager, but has no outlet for it. It's very ambiguous as to whether Delilah is settling for him or whether she is genuinely attracted. The scenes where she listens to latin love songs suggest she's as romantic as any teenage girl so maybe she just wants a boyfriend. Normally, I suspect their relationship would last as long as any teenage romance. But with her nana dead she wants a purpose in life, someone to look after.
Thanks for having the patience to clarify your post. I have to agree with Clarkgriz that I thought Rabbit-Proof Fence was a better film but I do think Samson and Delilah is a good film. The first half is quite good, in that it establishes an extremely convincing milieu. I found the second half melodramatic. Why is poor Delilah the one copping all the blows when she's the only strong and decent character in the film? but I guess that's part of the (very bleak) point Thornton wanted to make.
I accept your comment about a creation of a milieu in the film. However I cannot get away from the feeling that this film should have been savagely edited down to a short which would potentially have had a very profound impact.
In the end this work was presented as a feature film...to me it failed. But clearly many others have enjoyed it greatly, so each to their own.
"It's true that the look of the film was a factor in the positive reviews, but that's fair enough. Film is a visual medium so it should be judged on how well it succeeds in being visually attractive, and Samson and Delilah is wonderful to look at."
film and photography are very different. you wanna see nice visuals sans story, character development, dialogue etc then look at a photo.