Underrated movie about desire, sexual possessiveness and the will to survive... It's thought provoking on so many levels...
What would you do if the veneer of society was stripped away?
At the end, [spoiler]when Loomis has to decide whether or not to let Caleb fall to his death... What would you have done?[/spoiler]
This was an interesting theme, but the movie was so slow and confusing, really dancing around the point and not very good. To make matters worse it threw in race, black and white, and then never mentioned it - that was cheap and stupid.
I did make me wonder why there is this battle of the sexes, and when you look at society, and media, why there is so much misogyny and women are put into an inferior role or being chattel, or owned.
I can imagine when you look at the way the human race evolved, and then evolved socially and sexually that it makes sense, but now that we are in an age where brute force does not matter so much, and intelligence and education is spread fairly equally, or even in many cases more suited for daughters and women, there are conflicts.
Should the men make an agreement to share the woman? Should the woman agree to it if they do? Should the woman take it upon herself to please both men? Would that even help if one of the men was selfish and wanted her all to himself? Is there a natural or fair way to solve this problem? What is the closed analog in the animal world?
Personally, I hate the complexities of these social competitions in human relationship and have never been good at them ... I think I'd rather just go off alone ... but then, if the other person does not trust you to be out there alone, there is yet another problem.
His is like the situation on The Walking Dead where there are these outposts, and they have to have policies about people leaving, and often decide to kill them. Is that the basis for the rule in Islam against apostasy, ie leaving the religion? Someone leaves with all the secrets of whatever group they are leaving, and can either turn against them, or be caught and tortured for the information.
I've always felt the only solution is a kind of collectivism where society must be inclusive of everyone, but also have an ongoing project like war against other systems so that eventually 1 system wins
I like that they danced around the topics so to speak... I felt it left it open to think about, interprate and discuss rather than making definitive points...
I don't think race is a theme in the movie, sure, there is one comment made by Loomis, but that is more representative of his own insecurity, or rather an excuse he gives himself in order to not go after what he desires... I haven't read the Novel. I don't know where the movie departs from it.
One thing I found interesting is how Loomis in particular doesn't initially realise the pitfalls of relating to Ann the way he would have in the past when society existed and there were many other potential mates in the future... He didn't seize the opportunity and the appearance of Caleb really gets the movie going from a plot point of view, but it is Loomis' attachment to his past ways, which I found fascinating... Why? Did he not recognise the reality of his situation? Was he simply a low sexual drive person? Did he have strong personal beliefs about relationships, sex and choice?
I mean, Ann is pretty hot. You don't need and apocalypse to want her... So what are these ideological or emotional constraints that Loomis has? or is it the lingering constraints of a society that no longer exists?
> they danced around the topics so to speak.
to me when movies do that it is like not doing the work they should
be doing to make a movie. it is rare to me that ambiguity works, and
in this movie it just seemed chickenshit to me. take a stand, make
a statement, don't do this thing where you try to generate controversy
to sell tickets.
what i found interesting is bringing up the question as to why men feel
the need to own or dominate women, and do women like that, accept
that, or just give in to that since men run society and don't give people
much choice.
i think we need to find out what people would like if they were free
and independent without being coerced to serve society, or other people,
be they sexually, materially or politically more powerful.
There is enough in the world where we should all have enough to be
independent and free of domination or exploitation by others, but that
is a remnant of back in time when we were unconscious apes I think.
Why could these two men allow the women to make up her own mind about
what does. Is it insecurity or entitlement.
I wonder if there are real true stories that would enlighten people about that
rather than just someone's fictional fantasy?
I see your point. I like ambiguity, but usually I am more critical of it's use as I think the film has to present the perspectives in a better way... It has to earn the right to go the ambigious way, so to speak... But in this movie, I kind of cut it some slack because it's a small movie and I liked the premise...
You raise a lot of interesting points... But one thing that struck me is that, in his mind, Loomis does initially try to let Ann choose whether to be with him or not... In fact, he doesn't sleep with her because he is uncertain that she has made up her mind... The irony is that by not sleeping with her he is robbing her of the choice she has already made and secondarily, later in the movie he recognises the foolishness of his decision when a sexual competitor arrives... So in his case he rejects her first out of entitlement and then later tries to get her due to insecurity!
It's interesting to me how our behaviour and attitudes are conditioned to our current environement of living in societies... Once this environement changes, how do these behaviours and attitudes serve us? How do they impact others? I couldn't help but ask these two questions about each of the three characters while watching the movie...
> Loomis does initially try to let Ann choose whether to be with him or not
Actually, yeah, that was an interesting twist. One the one hand it goes against everything that I think a normal red blooded male would do, yet on the other I can see Loomis being so quirky that is he doing it out of respect or fear. Fear would explain what he did later.
The odd quirk that I am not sure what purpose it really plays in the movie is the fact that Loomis seems to have killed the woman's brother. I cannot recall whether he figures that out before or after all of these other decisions.
Maybe I have to see this again, though it was fairly slow moving. It is interesting that both men tear down the women's church too.
In a primal situation like that, who can know what to expect from another, and then, if you act out of fear and alienate the other person, what to expect in return.
Caleb was way too mellow. Before they did anything the should have talked out how they were going to relate to each other, honestly. I think a lot of mankinds problems, especially in the modern era come from rushing technology, which usually comes from war and competition. That had to have been what blew up the world, though I cannot remember that specifically, and it comes from people thinking they are better, stronger or more entitled.
It would be interesting to know what fraction of people would want to find other people to get along with, and how many are just criminal minded, does that fraction change, and why.