Since you asked for it, you will indeed receive my opinion on your post, addressing each point by quote, not a thing I'm fond of, so forgive my being crass.
I guess this would be the type of movie that makes the everyday audience feel like they're watching something with a bit of culture in it?
If you want people to listen to you, or in this case read your words, you don't begin with some snide,insulting remark aimed at 95%+ of your audience. Inside of that large group of fellow users you so easily speak down upon are an innumerable amount of people that are sure to match or outclass yourself in terms of culture.
Who knows, maybe the film will be fun and trashy. But it certainly can't be taken seriously.
I seriously doubt there was any intention for the film being trashy, expecting that out of this film or the genre in general is a fruitless effort from my perspective. Also the film was actually very serious to a point(I won't get into those specifics of it) keeping this as spoiler free as possible.
1) no one could have such an "in demand" career while suffering from debilitating stage fright. being on stage is a requirement of a career as a soloist. so right off the bat, this is a bit of a non-starter.
It's explained in the film why he is in the position he is in and it's not so much "stage fright", he missed a key playing an "unplayable" piece(at least in the film he's the only one who could play it, some grey area certainly, but not even within the suspense of disbelief area. The details are explained.
2) why does he have his sheet music during a concert? NO "great" professional soloist would play in concert without having memorized their score. This is particularly true of pianists.
Again if you saw the film, you would see him playing complicated pieces while corresponding with the antagonist, the sheet music is merely a McGuffin in its purest form.
3) From the trailer, he actually got up and left the stage DURING the performance (as it says in the trailer "during the rest")? Again, this simply would not happen. The conductor would stop the orchestra.
This would possibly be the only thing you can fault this for, it doesn't go unnoticed by both the orchestra and the audience. He(Wood) has a past with the conductor and he seems to have a good relationship with him, as for how this would potentially unfold in real life, some may not mind others may have to suspend your disbelief a little. It's a good suspense driven thriller, not a masterpiece by any means, it's one of a very few select Indie thrillers that I would recommend out of the past year.
Now if you took the 78 minutes(cutting credits) to actually watch the film, none of this would be any sort of an issue. I watch several films a day instead of talking about seeing one film for several days, not that I have anything against that, just sayin/
reply
share
capcanuk
10 years ago
It's explained in the film why he is in the position he is in and it's not so much "stage fright", he missed a key playing an "unplayable" piece(at least in the film he's the only one who could play it, some grey area certainly, but not even within the suspense of disbelief area. The details are explained.
Pure horsepucky.
This is pure fantasy. A piece that only one pianist could ever play? And he's traumatized because he missed a note? That's simply the stupidest plot point anyone could ever bring up. performers regularly miss notes in performance. most audiences won't hear them at all. even incredibly well-educated audiences.
Again if you saw the film, you would see him playing complicated pieces while corresponding with the antagonist, the sheet music is merely a McGuffin in its purest form.
Exactly. It's a mcguffin. It makes absolutely no sense and does not need to be there because it completely breaks from reality. NO pianist would play a piece in concert with the score. Regardless of how "difficult" it is. As a matter of fact, the harder the piece is, the less you need the score because you have to memorize the hardest parts completely.
So basically, my argument about this particular plot point is spot on and you've simply demonstrated it.
As for the walking off stage thing, well, it wouldn't happen.
It doesn't matter how friendly the conductor and pianist are, it simply wouldn't happen.
So basically this film has a bunch of plot points that are unrealistic, but there simply because the writers needed to justify certain events happening.
In other words, absolutely nothing I've criticized the trailer for showing can be refuted. At least, not by you so far.
reply
share
capcanuk
10 years ago
Now if you took the 78 minutes(cutting credits) to actually watch the film, none of this would be any sort of an issue. I watch several films a day instead of talking about seeing one film for several days, not that I have anything against that, just sayin
I don't watch that many films.
I actually spend hours at the piano preparing works for my busy concert schedule.
So, yeah, I know what I'm talking about.
All the points I made in my initial post would remain issues for anyone with the slightest familiarity with the concert world.
reply
share
Thrill_KillZ
10 years ago
I assumed you were pianist because you have such a different viewpoint. If I were you I would fragment every last bit of a film that's presenting an area of my expertise, it's only natural, we watched this film from two completely different angles and I can recognize your disagreement, though from a film critic standpoint it held it's own quite well.
I wouldn't doubt the writer/director was just as unfamiliar as I concerning the specifics, techniques and even the general formalities of a concert hall.
reply
share
capcanuk
10 years ago
That's the issue with many films that tackle highly specialized types of jobs.
I DO understand that for the average movie-goer most of this isn't an issue. It's like watching a TV show or movie with lawyers and a courtroom scene. Most of what's said and done is pure artifice. It's simply not how courtrooms function (I have a sister in law who's a trial lawyer). But for the sake of the story, the writers let it all slip right by, and the average audience isn't the wiser for it.
But couldn't someone write a story about a pianist, or some other performer, and actually get help from people in the industry to make the story as authentic as possible?
Just imagine how much more incredible this film would have been if it were actually based on intimate knowledge of exactly what happens behind the scenes - and on the stage itself - of a classical concert!
I simply get very frustrated when characters in films act, or pose gestures, that are only there to help the writers get past a plot point. The heroine turns her back to the long corridor and stares at the wall while talking on her cell phone, allowing the serial killer to get close; the protagonist, knowing full well that the monster prefers deep shadow and dark places, enters the room without turning on the lights; etc... There are so many examples of characters doing things that would be illogical, only as a means to bypass the writers' "how can we get X action to happen?" problem.
I'm glad you enjoyed the film. I might rent it some time when I'm feeling particularly forgiving. But I know that it will be very difficult for me to let slide the countless implausibilities in the story.
reply
share
Thrill_KillZ
10 years ago
I agree, the filmmakers should have taken the time, which would have been but a few hours, to get the environment as close to perfection as possible so that the full audience can get into the film properly, instead they ended up leaving a section of the audience distracted at it's inconsistencies.
Sometimes, and this depends on circumstances and influences that even I can barely identify until I actually get into watching a film, I will subconsciously grant the writer/director certain permissions to commit some of the faults you mentioned above. This just happened to be one of them. Don't get me wrong, this happening is an anomaly and it rarely ever occurs, nine out of ten times I deconstruct the film and it's faults brutally, without any of those "permissions" granted. I get extremely frustrated when a film has great potential, but ends up a mere "eh it was ok" instead, mainly due to reasons or faults that I could immediately identify and round up together after the film. Things that are usually all things that could have been easily fixed without any added cost, things, that if changed would have made all the difference and made it a "great film".
You'll rarely see me pushing or defending a film, like I said it's almost always the other way around.
As to why this film appealed to me, well mainly because of Elijah Wood and his previous groundbreaking step into playing a character I thought would have been a laughable disaster, imo he was completely a type cast kind of actor until that breakout performance in Maniac, one of my very top horror favorites of the year 2013. So an ounce of bias may have been present, again a rare thing.
reply
share