IMDB puts the central character's age at 15!
15!
He carried on like an eight year old throughout the entire film- with his silly diaries, his daft coat and all that nonsense about the ocean being six miles deep.
When I was fifteen I was working a part time job, studying at school and pulling birds; time of my life, you didn't hear me moaning.
Grow up.
king_of_staunton wrote:
He carried on like an eight year old throughout the entire filmJohnnyBlades wrote:
Yes Oliver is TECHNICALLY fifteen years of age, but he is excessively mature and his mind is more akin to that of a forty or fifty year olds (likely the approximate age of the writer, not coincidentally).
Hello ppllkk, thank you for taking such an interest in my post and replying with a well considered answer.
However, I must disagree old bean. Yes, he was emotionally immature, but I think that intellectually, he wasn't all that either. Sure, he ponced about giving some books to that girl in the red coat- but the books he offered her seemed to be rather obvious choices, i.e. he didn't really read them, just picked ones that he had heard were meant to be good. Also, his insensitivity towards the girl and her family with her mother's condition hardly shows nous.
In fact, I was under the impression that the poor boy had special needs throughout the film- one of the reasons I felt uncomfortable during this movie.
The other reason was the notion of under-age people having sex- call me old fashioned, but it is wrong.
[deleted]
king_of_staunton wrote:
Sure, he ponced about giving some books to that girl in the red coat- but the books he offered her seemed to be rather obvious choices, i.e. he didn't really read them, just picked ones that he had heard were meant to be good.Why do you think that Oliver did not read the books?
Also, his insensitivity towards the girl and her family with her mother's condition hardly shows nous.It shows his emotional immaturity. Rationality has nothing to do with it.
The other reason was the notion of under-age people having sex- call me old fashioned, but it is wrong.That is your problem. "Old fashioned" is not one of the terms that comes to mind.
That is your problem. "Old fashioned" is not one of the terms that comes to mind.
king_of_staunton
So you're alright with underage sex?I have no problem with the sex in the movie. It is the cultural norm and has been so for a long time.
I actually thought that the kid's choices were meant as a joke-
as a portrayal of someone who was mentally challenged
with one of the parties being mentally deficient,The kids choices are not a joke; Oliver is not mentally challenged or mentally deficient. You really don't understand the movie at all. It is a coming-of-age story, but of a person who is, clearly, not like you.
Now just hang on a minute, friend. What is with the name calling? Codger!
To be honest, ppllkk, I am not sure that you entirely understand the film- you say "The kids today"- but, in fact, the film is set in 1986. Quite far from today. If you watched closely, none of the children in the film were on 'twitter', none of them were 'trolling' each other, and none were on skateboards.
As for the under-age sex, yes, as I say, I am sure it goes on. I would not go so far as to say that it is the 'cultural norm'; there are laws that protect and enforce the age of consent, which is not 15 in Wales; my point is that I felt uncomfortable witnessing a potential scene of it, especially when at least one of the participants was feeble minded (that duffle coat!).
You seem ok with it all though. Which is....awesome?
king_of_staunton wrote:
What is with the name calling? Codger!I am just trying to make sense out of your original post, and your post fits a stereotype of how old codgers see young people. It does not make any sense otherwise.
you say "The kids today"No. I said that it sounded as if you were saying that followed by your original post.
but, in fact, the film is set in 1986.Not according to the person who wrote and directed the film.
especially when at least one of the participants was feeble minded (that duffle coat!).If you think that Oliver is feebleminded, then you are completely missing what the film is about.
[deleted]
A post so good you sent it twice!
Nah, it is set in 1986- have a look on wikipedia, or even the back of the blu-ray.
I don't think everyone who is different to me is feebleminded; just those who behave in a manner befitting someone who is seven years their junior.
For instance, I don't think that you are feebleminded- even though out opinions regarding this film differ somewhat.
king_of_staunton wrote:
Nah, it is set in 1986- have a look on wikipedia, or even the back of the blu-ray.Well, you can believe what Richard Ayoade has said in interviews -- you can find them using Google -- or you can believe Wikipedia and the blurb, which is usually not written by anyone associated with the film, on the back of the case. It's your choice of intellectual style.
I don't think everyone who is different to me is feebleminded; just those who behave in a manner befitting someone who is seven years their junior.I can only say it again. If you think that Oliver is feebleminded, or something like that, you just completely don't understand what the film is about. He is not intended to be a typical teenager; he is intended to be a teenager with intellectual and creative aspirations.
You may need a new keyboard. Your "?" key is sticking and typing "?" repeatedly.
king_of_staunton wrote:
To me the kid, or 'Oliver' as you insist on calling himYou are complaining that I call him by his name?
Can you explain to me why you think he had intellectual and creative aspirations?If you do not understand that from what he reads, from what movies he likes, and from his biopic, then, no, I can't explain it to.
I accept that you see the film differently, but can you explain why?You regard Oliver as hopelessly weird. Do you at least understand that the person who wrote and directed the film does not see him that way? And neither do I.
every interview I have given a cursory glance over regarding the film refers to the period setting, which they strove hard to recreate. This is also referred to on the commentary.Richard Ayoade has said exactly the opposite. Look for interviews with him. He strove hard to not create a particular period setting. He is very clear about that.
[deleted]
ppllkk- this is your argument:
The boy is intellectual and creative. I don't have to explain why. He just is. HE IS. HE IS!
The period setting is abundent to me; the parents go and see Crocodile Dundee, for crying out loud, come on ppllkk, this is basic stuff. What, they were off to a revival showing or something were they? In Swansea? Perhaps Mr. Ayoade was having a laugh when he said otherwise- he is something of a card, after all!
The fact that you did not identify the blatant eighties milieu leads me to believe that you need to revisit the entire film, old beanie bag.
king_of_staunton wrote:
The boy is intellectual and creative. I don't have to explain why. He just is. HE IS. HE IS!Yes, it is obvious that he has intellectual and creative aspirations. That is what we are shown in the books that he reads, the movies that he admires, and in his making his biopic. If you don't understand from that, I guess you just won't understand.
The period setting is abundent to me; the parents go and see Crocodile Dundee, for crying out loud, come on ppllkk, this is basic stuff. What, they were off to a revival showing or something were they? In Swansea? Perhaps Mr. Ayoade was having a laugh when he said otherwise- he is something of a card, after all!Well, you are wrong, and apparently you don't have the intellectual curiosity to go looking where I suggested.
From an interview he gave with the BBC:It has been well documented that there is evidence for a number of different time periods, not just one. And in fact, it is not any specific time period.
There's a certain innocence seeing Oliver run to the phone box to call Jordana. Yet Ayoade says his film is not set in the 1980s.
"The idea was for it not to be set in any specific era. Because there's no computers or mobile phones I guess that makes it seem like the '80s or early '90s. But it was only in order not to have what we consider the social necessities of now.
To me, all coming of age stories seem to be set slightly in the past. I definitely didn't want to make it all 1980s, with hilarious clothes and music."
bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12730794
That is very interesting, ppllkk. Thank you for pointing it out to me; it isn't that I don't have the 'intellectual curiosity', I just couldn't be bothered (incidentally, what is it with you and being 'intellectual'?!)
I still believe that the film has specifically eighties trappings; this was an assumption on my part, so perhaps Mr Ayoade's design to make the film 'not to be set in any specific era' didn't quite work (I mean, if you have people off to see Crocodile Dundee, an iconic film of the era, then you do run the risk of people drawing conclusions).
I think that you are making a mistake by judging people by the movies they like. I like lots of different movies. Some are from the past, some are from the present, and some are even from the future! (I have a job that allows me every so often to see films a week or so before eveyone else). But I would never consider myself an intellectual because I prefer Punch-Drunk Love to, say, Happy Madison (which I don't, by the way).
I still see Oliver as someone who is comic: he is pretentious, but lacks the intellectual strength to understand his parents, he believes he is romantic, but does not have the emotional strength to support his girlfriend, he also thinks he is special, but is actually a bully and a bit of a git.
You have to think of him as a pint size Basil Fawlty. Or a younger version of Derek (the Ricky Gervais show).
Heking_of_staunton wrote:
I still believe that the film has specifically eighties trappingsCertainly it does, but you can also argue for other periods from specific things in the film.
(I mean, if you have people off to see Crocodile Dundee, an iconic film of the era, then you do run the risk of people drawing conclusions)There will always be people who jump to incorrect conclusions, and it seems that what Richard Ayoade is doing is too sophisticated for many people to understand.
I think that you are making a mistake by judging people by the movies they like.That is a gross distortion of what I said. I do think that you can judge how a teenager sees himself and what he aspires to be by the books that he chooses to read and the movies that he admires. The point is how Oliver sees himself, as a budding intellectual, as a budding director.
But I would never consider myself an intellectual because I prefer Punch-Drunk Love to, say, Happy Madison (which I don't, by the way).You clearly do not consider yourself an intellectual -- you seem to look down on them -- but Oliver does see himself that way. I'm not familiar with either of those films, but I do not associate Adam Sandler with intellectual films.
I still see Oliver as someone who is comic: he is pretentious,Absolutely. Particularly in the prologue.
he also thinks he is special,Absolutely again. Neither of these have anything to do with his being mentally defective.
You have to think of him as a pint size Basil Fawlty.The difference is that you expect him to turn into Basil Fawlty and I believe that Richard Ayoade is describing a teenager who will turn into a successful writer and director.
Paul Thomas Anderson has referred to "Punch-Drunk Love" as "an art house Adam Sandler film."Interesting description. I suspect that we have different ideas about what constitutes an intellectual film.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/punch-drunk-love-2002
Well, the intention of having a film set in an era which is imnpossible to index may be sophisticated (and your quote makes it clear that this was the intention), but in this instance, I don't think the execution was especially successful. Just because an 'artiste' sets out to do something, it does not mean that they always achieve their ambitions. I shouldn't have to read an interview to supplement my enjoyment and understanding of a film.
As for the whole 'look down on intellectual' thing; I don't look down on intellectuals, I don't look up to intellectuals. I suppose that I am reasonably educated, and I certainly have a wide taste in literature and movies, but, lets face it, none of that matters! The concept of being an intellectual entails that the cultural taste or choices confers some sort of superiority upon the individual; they don't. Although I find your argument interesting, I conced that we do have 'different ideas about what constitutes an intellectual film', because I don't think that there is such thing. There are good films and there are bad films (Oscar Wilde said something similar- was he an intellectual?!)- the 'intellectual worth' of either is up to the viewer.
I think Submarine mocks the pomposity of this paradigm: and, I'll tell you what, now I'm thinking of it, this is a theme that is carried through in Ayoade's (love typing that name, Ayoade) other work; Garth Marenghi, in particular (which opens with a gratuitous quote from Shakespeare).
Those are interesting opinions, but I am not interested in discussing them. I tend to confine my discussions on IMDb to questions that are, in my view, very close to facts.
The idea that Oliver is mentally defective or mentally deficient or something like that is just nuts, and I will certainly oppose that idea which has not even have the slightest basis in the film.
I certainly opposed your repeated assertion that the film was set in 1986, even after I told you that the writer and director had said otherwise, because it's just not true.
I will certainly respond to gross distortions or misunderstandings of what I've written.
Beyond that, I really don't care.
On the subject of Oliver, however, I would point out that the conceit of the film as expressed in the prologue is that he made the film. We are told that this creative achievement is Oliver's, and I think that strongly suggests how we should see him.
Lest I be misunderstood, the film is certainly in part mocking Oliver -- he is 15, immature, and self-important -- but in a basically sympathetic way, and ultimately he is shown as successful.
Beyond that, I really don't care
and ultimately he is shown as successful
king_of_staunton wrote:
The kid is a gimp! I was cracking up.As that may be, we're told that Oliver made this film. Those of us who like the film are obviously going to think better of Oliver because of that than those who don't.
Those of us who like the film
king_of_staunton wrote:
I'm not sure I but into this 'Oliver made the film theory' though,In the prologue to the film, Oliver says
The film you are about to see is a biopic of my life. . . .Submarine is an important film. Watch it with respect.I believe Oliver is saying that he is largely responsible for it, and that is consistent with the Oliver that we see in the rest of the film.
First of all, his name is not listed as screenwriter or director on imdb. This is a dead giveaway.Of course Oliver did not actually write or direct the movie, but if I remember correctly, Oliver talks in the body of the film about creating his biopic, and I take it that we're to understand that the movie is the realization of that.
you can't argue with imdb!Any IMDb member can enter data. It is frequently incorrect, and it is easy to change. I have corrected a number of mistakes.
Second of all, if the kid did grow up to make the film then, wait for it, this would almost certainly locate the film in the eighties!It is clear from the style of the prologue that Oliver is at most a couple of years older.
Which you have deftly poo-pooed!I did not. I pointed out that Richard Ayoade disagrees with it.
[deleted]
Just to be sure that you understand my earlier point:
[The kids these days.] When I was fifteen I was working a part time job, studying at school and pulling birds; time of my life, you didn't hear me moaning.That is, at least in America, a common cliché of the sort of things that old geezers say.
Grow up.
Any IMDb member can enter data. It is frequently incorrect, and it is easy to change. I have corrected a number of mistakes.
king_of_staunton
Ok, but you have to admit, the kid acted like an eight year old throughout the film.I answered that in my first reply to you. Let me refresh your memory.
He is emotionally somewhat immature for someone who is 15, and he is intellectually extremely precocious for someone who is 15.To be more specific, Oliver is one sort of teenager who goes on to be a creative intellectual. I understand that it is difficult for you to relate to something completely outside your experience.
Oliver is not an average teenager, and that is one reason that some of us find him interesting. I can understand that an average teenager might well have trouble relating to him.
To be more specific, Oliver is one sort of teenager who goes on to be a creative intellectual.
king_of_staunton wrote:
Thing is, how do you know this?Because I have known people like him who did. You see him as weird and completely outside your experience. I see him as a quite recognizable type.
It can only be a reading on your part, ppllkk.We are shown that Oliver sees himself as an intellectual and as a creative person. I believe that it is implied, and that we are expected to understand, that Oliver is responsible for the biopic. If you want to call that a reading, okay, but there is no question about how Oliver sees himself and what he aspires to. If you want to say that we do not know how successful he is, then I would not argue with that, but it is a film by a creative artist about someone who wants to be a creative artist. It is not a film about a mentally deficient teenager.
There is no definitive flashback ala Stand By Me, wherein we witness an older, wiser Oliver (identifiable by that duffel coat) calling cut as his younger avatar and the actress playing Jordanna wander into the Bristol channel.There are movies that do not feel that they have to make everything explicit. They expect the audience to think about it.
Because I have known people like him who did.
king_of_staunton wrote:
Who do you know who went from pretentious outsider and duffle coat wearer to autuer of well meaning and acclaimed indie rom/coms?I do not care whether you believe me or not. As I have said repeatedly, Oliver -- and people like him -- is so completely outside your experience that you just have no idea what's going on.
SUBMARINE - SYNOPSIS
Meet Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts), a precocious 15-year-old whose worldview is exceedingly clever but largely delusional. He has two big ambitions: to save his parents' marriage and to lose his virginity before his next birthday.
A NOTE FROM OLIVER TATE
I have been waiting too long for the film of my life. My name is Oliver Tate. This film will capture my idiosyncrasies, for example, the way I seduce my classmate Jordana Bevan using only my mind. Also, since my parents' marriage is being threatened by a man who runs courses on Mental and Physical Well-being, the film will probably feature some elaborate set-pieces of me taking him down. There will be helicopter shots. There will be slow-mo, but also transcendent moments, like when I cure my father's depression. Knowing me as I do, I will be surprised if this film runs less than three hours. Note to the press: appropriate adjectives to describe this film include 'breath-taking" and
"irresistible" as well as the phrase: "a monumental achievement".[emphasis added]
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.twcpublicity.com/downloa ds/production/submarine_notes_final_%281%29.pdf
He has two big ambitions: to save his parents' marriage and to lose his virginity before his next birthday.
king_of_staunton wrote:
Oh yeah, massively precocious!I did not write the Submarine Production Notes that I quoted from. So you are making fun of someone closely associated with the film and who reflects how Oliver is seen by the people who made the film. If you want to call that a reading of the film by the people who made it, I will not argue.
You say that this is because the characters are outside of my realm of experienceDo you have a better explanation? Most of us are used to the (unreal) world of action films; you do not seem to have run across anything like the (not completely real, but far from completely unreal) world of this film, and so you systematically misinterpret what's going on.
Point is, you shouldn't have to have had direct experience of something to appreciate a film which details that experience*.There are some gaps in experience that cannot be bridged. (Certainly for me to, especially in foreign films.) It is particularly a problem if the viewer isn't even trying to take the film as it was intended.
Also, the production notes of a film shouldn't be a necessity when trying to understand that film.They are not. Most people do not seem to have any trouble understanding the film.
So, what's your point mate?
I agree with the above, by and large, but it still doesn't explain why the boy behaved in the manner of someone far younger than him. He was still crayoning pictures for the love of Joan of Arc!
king_of_staunton
it still doesn't explain why the boy behaved in the manner of someone far younger than him.You are asking me to explain why someone is emotionally immature? Really?
I just think the film left a lot of questions unanswered in the end. Like, for instance, what happened when the two of them wandered off into the ocean. Did they drown or what?
king_of_staunton wrote:
I just think the film left a lot of questions unanswered in the end.It seems that you prefer films that explain everything. There is, however, a whole world of films, and of fiction in general, that doesn't explain everything.
Ok, thanks for that, really useful.
But what do you think happens in the end?
king_of_staunton wrote:
Did they drown or what?I cannot shake the feeling -- I've had for a while -- that you are pulling my leg. I suggest that you start a new thread and ask that question.
I am a little shocked at that last remark. I take the ouevre of Richard Ayoade very seriously, and (not to get too sentimental) have enjoyed the back and forth with you a great deal as it has enhanced my enjoyment of the film.
Many thanks.
[deleted]
Everyone goes through different things at 15 it's an age where lots of things happen
shareWell, when I was 15 I was still a virgin and did not even have a girlfriend, so that's a big maturity point for him.
Seriously, why make these comparisons? It might make you feel better about yourself but I think that it prevented you from fully understanding what was going on in the movie.