IDA's miserable Choice (((SPOILER ))) - Ida (2013) Discussion

[–] xoxoamore 9 years ago

I was surprised by the ending but I think it showed just how strong her faith was.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Was her faith really strong or was it all she knew, a fish raised in a small, claustrophobic tank?

She never even dives into the significance of the surprising revelation of her identity as a Jew, never discusses the personal & religious implications. Bizarre. Lost opportunity.

I seriously doubt that the sexy saxophonist would have wanted to settle for a dull, bourgeois life, so that whole bit rang really false to me. They had to make his option really dull to make the convent seem more appealing. Yuck.

reply

[–] imagesbypauls 9 years ago

Not a huge thought here, but I didn't quite think the sax player's response rang false--he's a young guy, cool, artsy, but when pressed by her with the "then what", I think he's just not prepared with a big vision to be so inspiring. In that country, people didn't have much to aspire to--they didn't dream big like in the western countries. (I taught there for a while many years back. I don't know everything but believe me, there's a different spirit about them)

Again, just a little thought.

reply

[–] Priat 9 years ago

I felt the same way as the movie ended and for the rest of that day. After sleeping on it though, I changed my mind. I think from a filmmaking standpoint it was the right road to take instead of having an ending that will be more satisfying for the audience. This is not a romantic comedy, it's a serious film.

I'm an atheist btw so I was thinking that she was insane the entire movie...especially when she chose to go back and waste her life on that crap. This doesn't mean I didn't like the movie. I thought it was great except for the shot framing.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Priat, O, it's intriguing to imagine this through the eyes of an atheist!
And I'd love to hear more re: which shot framing disappointed you.

I often think that the whole rom-com (romantic comedy) genre is a way of trivializing and debasing love relationships, which I believe can definitely be part of a "serious film." The romance here could have allowed Ida to incarnate into something more earthy, messy and human than being an idealized Bride of Christ, which is how nuns see themselves.

Of course they never address why the musician was so taken with her, nor what his religious proclivities were, which was an absurd omission and only works if you want Ida to return to the nunnery.

I must add that I can't see how any woman would want to serve a misogynistic, patriarchal religion. Also that while I was in training as a therapist I did my internship at a residential treatment center for all priests and nuns. Not only did I blow the whistle on the place for being a hideaway for pedophile priests, but I sadly noted that over 80% of the nuns I worked with had run away to the convent after having been incest victims, an ordeal some of them had repressed for as long as they could before inchoate memories began erupting. So, while not an atheist, I've been strongly disillusioned.

reply

[–] Priat 9 years ago

On top of being an atheist, I'm also an anti-theist. I think religion is the scourge of the earth and the sooner the human race gives up silly superstitions, the better off we will be. I do all I can to fight religion though I'm gentle on my immediate family. I just stay in the living room and don't say anything while they go pray before Thanksgiving dinner and stuff like that.

The framing I was referring too is that a lot of the movie takes part in the lower part of the frame. Even cutting off half of Ida's face in one shot. I'm still trying to figure out what they had in mind with this. In trying to get to the bottom of this, I just watched an interview with the director from the bonus material on the blu-ray but it was in French so I didn't understand. I could tell he talked about it because I did pick up some words that relate to how the movie was shot. I guess I should just google it and see what they have to say. I already tried looking in the trivia section and watched the video with the director.

Here's an example: http://i.imgur.com/eXawcZ0.jpg

EDIT: OK. I went ahead and googled for the answer and found the reasoning...

This sky room is part of IDA’s distinctive look, and evokes both isolation below and inspiration from above.

You can read it here on the second page: http://www.theasc.com/asc_blog/thefilmbook/2014/05/13/lighting-scenes- ida-with-lukasz-zal/

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Thank you gain, Priat!

Shall look into your links.

I was about to say that the top-heavy framing for me felt very sky-god oriented: mental vs visceral, abstract vs embodied.

Would love to know how you came to your independent stance in a theistic family!

reply

[–] bbalban 9 years ago

I totally agree that the framing didn't work for me. Felt I missed the bottom half of the picture in almost every scene. Regardless of the reason for doing it, it didn't work on my screen.

reply

[–] vulpix 9 years ago

I think religion is the scourge of the earth and the sooner the human race gives up silly superstitions, the better off we will be.

Let's be friends.

reply

[–] imagesbypauls 9 years ago

I couldn't resist adding a thought here--it's easy to talk of eliminating religion from the whole human race but one just needs to look at the places where religion has been eliminated, or virtually so. Those are places which have been scourged.

reply

[–] imagesbypauls 9 years ago

I couldn't resist adding a thought here--it's easy to talk of eliminating religion from the whole human race but one just needs to look at the places where religion has been eliminated, or virtually so. Those are places which have been scourged.

reply

[–] vulpix 9 years ago

I couldn't resist adding a thought here--it's easy to talk of eliminating religion from the whole human race but one just needs to look at the places where religion has been eliminated, or virtually so. Those are places which have been scourged.

Except that's completely wrong.

Society without God by Phil Zuckerman and What You Don't Know About Religion (but Should) by Ryan Cragun both quantify the relationship between religiosity and societal health in detail with tangible data. You'll have to read both of those books in their entireties to examine all factors in detail, but Zuckerman summarizes the issue succinctly on page 29 of his book:

"In sum, when it comes to overall quality of life, according to The Economist's Quality of Life Index, which measures 111 nations as to which are the 'best' places to live in the world, taking into consideration multiple factors, such as income, health, freedom, unemployment, family life, climate, political stability, life-satisfaction, gender equality, etc., Sweden ranked fifth in the world and Denmark ranked ninth. And of the top 20 nations with the best quality of life, most of them—as you can guess by now—are relatively irreligious societies."

If you seriously want to argue that religion is good for society in general, you're going to have start by convincing us that a place like Somalia is a more attractive destination than any country in largely irreligious Scandanavia--countries that consistently rank at the top of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network's annual World Happiness Report.

reply

[–] imagesbypauls 9 years ago

Yes--there are those countries which are relatively irreligious, and that's a good point. But, places which have decidedly eliminated religion (which was your point I was responding to--eliminating religion from the human race)--wouldn't Albania would be a great example of this? (among others)

reply

[–] vulpix 9 years ago

From pages 20-23 of the aforementioned Society without God:

"But what about China? North Korea? The former Soviet Union? Or the very first officially declared 'atheist' nation on earth, Albania? Surely these irreligious societies can hardly be characterized as exemplars of societal health."

The assertion is often leveled at me when I broach the matter of irreligion being correlated with healthy, prosperous societies. It is a seemingly logical assertion, and therefore one that merits a careful response.

I'll start with Albania.

...

In sum, it may very well be that when nations turn away from God, they suffer the consequences.

Not so fast.

There is something else--something very significant--that all of these supposedly "godless" nations have in common. In each case, religion wasn't abandoned by the people themselves in a natural process over several generations. Rather, the "abandonment" of religion was decreed by vicious dictators who imposed their faithlessness on an unwilling, decidedly un-free citizenry. Just because Enver Hoxha of Albania banned religious faith in favor of atheism, that does not mean that he succeeded in changing what was in Albanian's hearts and minds. In fact, despite decades of "official" atheism in Albania, belief in God was never abandoned by the Albanians themselves; recent surveys indicate that today today over 90 percent of Albanians believe in God. They may have hidden their holy books while Hoxha was in power, and pretended to be atheists to avoid arrest, but their belief in God clearly held fast.

...

In order to find societies where religion is truly, genuinely, and verifiably weak--where it can be observed that the majority of people honestly don't believe much in God, don't go to church much, an don't concern themselves much with religious or theological matters--we must look at free, open, democratic nations where atheism has not been enforced upon an unwilling population by a threatening, powerful regime. In such societies, if people lose faith in God, forget about their Bibles, stop going to church, and stop praying to Jesus, we can safely assume that such secularization is an organic process. That is, the majority of people have stopped being religious of their own volition. Such nations can be more accurately described as societies where religion is truly weak. And it is to such societies that we must look in establishing the fact that relatively irreligious societies are not bastions of depravity, but quite the opposite.

To be clear, I'm certainly not advocating that any faith or lack thereof ought to be imposed by a government or a dictatorship on any society. When disbelief occurs organically at the societal level, as both Zuckerman and Cragun describe in detail in their books, society prospers.

reply

[–] Mart-13 8 years ago

There are differences between eliminating religion, not following organised religion, and being spiritual instead.

Most research and surveys fail to be precise enough to record the latter two notions, and thus their methodologies are all similar and very nearly always skewed to present black/white results that inadvertently (or by intent) support a black/white worldview.

For people in Nordic countries, religion is something very personal. I'd say it's the same in Northern Europe.

For example, Estonia is about the least-religious country in the world, because surveys don't take into account spirituality. It's that among Estonians, organised religion is not followed much, if at all. I have a feeling, that Nordic countries are similar in that regard.

There is, of course, a possibility, that people in Estonia might see religion as something so personal, that they might as well not indicate their affiliation.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flasuss 9 years ago

People fear the unknown and tend to go back to their comfort zones more often than not.

When you kill a man to defend an idea, you're not defending an idea. You're killing a man.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Unfortunately...which is why we so strongly need to restore Initiatory rites to our culture!

reply

[–] chuck-526 9 years ago

... "get thee to a Nunnery" ...

That's how I interpreted the ending the first time I saw it too.

But on closer examination the ending seems more ambiguous. In every other picture of her either leaving or returning to the orphanage/nunnery, we see the building itself. But the building does not appear at all in the ending sequence, nor does the road look like one we've seen before. Nor do we see her actually enter the bus/trolley terminal or get on or ride a bus/trolley.

It seems to me an equally valid interpretation of the ending is she took a long walk past the bus/trolley terminal into a place in the countryside where she couldn't possibly be found (and used the religious garb as a sort of disguise), intending to "hide" until her lover had to leave town.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

O, Chuck ~ BIG smooch and hug to you! ~ You may have *redeemed* the whole tale for me!!!

reply

[–] objviewer 9 years ago

Yes, I think so.

Also, I saw the ending as as much about the world as about her. I mean, OMG, she's out in the world for a few days and sees incredible cruelty, hatred, and evil; discovers her family was ax murdered and buried in the woods like so much garbage. And worse, evidently, this act was, at the time, not even seen as particularly heinous by the local populace. Then there's her aunt, a strong intelligent woman who has since led a life of muted grief and bitter retribution, a life of which she is not proud; who finally succumbs and kills herself.

Against this background, this nice young man offers a dog and kids. But I think the movie is saying that's not enough. Ida needs something larger, more profound. Maybe that's her religious faith, maybe not.

Thought it was a great movie. So glad it won.

reply

[–] bbfrmrp 9 years ago

it was an interesting ending. I wish she had written a note or talked to him. I have to admit I though I hoped they used a condom. It is too bad that all people who want to be priest and nuns should get out and live life before they choose that life.

reply

[–] Mart-13 8 years ago

I don't think they used a condom; it's 1960s in what was a communist and what is still a very catholic Poland. After having had sex with Lis, Ida realises, that she's going to become pregnant, which means, that she can't use the pill (the Catholic chuch proscribes it), nor abort the baby, so it causes her to re-evaluate her life.

As far as I chose to understand it, Ida went to the village to claim her house back. She didn't throw out Lis.

reply

[–] Nightlightknight 9 years ago

In part I agree with you. That said I can't really accuse Ida of cowardice when it makes sense to return to the safety of faith (seen as some as suppression) after exposing herself unwillingly to the big bad world. As for the ramifications of her Jewish ramifications, it would seem that with the demise of her parents, cousin, and latterly, her aunt, one could say that her 'giving life a chance' only yielded personal tragedy, a legacy that is alien to her, having been raised Christian. Perhaps her stoic emotionlessness was her way of coping with the horrors of her filial past, but it also made for a rather disjointed, often jerky character progression, and this left its mark upon the narrative, making her journey of the self less of a journey, and more of a jagged connect the dots.In becoming her Aunt, perhaps she was seeking a connection to her aunt's life choices akin to the connection she evidently felt about devoting herself to God, but not feeling anything, eschewed the prospect of forging her own life in favour of retreating into her shell. Having been raised in a sterile. seemingly emotionless place, I felt she lacked the empathy and compassion that might have saved Wanda, and I was disappointed that she could not see how much her Aunt needed her. Might they have lived 'happily ever after'? I doubt it, but allowing a family connection might have made for a more compelling, relatable conclusion. As it was, her retreat and rejection of a life that introduced nothing but pain and loss does make sense, though it does not really entertain much of a hopeful outlook, more a safe one.

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici
By the power of truth I, while living, have conquered the universe

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

I want to know more about YOU now! Thoughtfully wrought ~~

reply

[–] Nightlightknight 9 years ago

I'm glad you found my musings thoughtful :p For me this film was a rather odd experience since I did not much care for it upon watching it. I found it plodding, extrapolated, and rather obviously executed where I expected and wanted realism and subtlety. Thankfully upon reflection I came to appreciate it more and more, and while it is not one of the best films I have ever seen, much like Under The Skin, it is the sheer difference from much of the rest of the cinematic fare offered that makes it, for me at least, initially a turn off. While I do understand the choices Ida made, part of me wishes she had been more daring, and embraced the potential of a sinful, yet beautiful life. That said, her retreat to convent life is far from a regression.

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici
By the power of truth I, while living, have conquered the universe

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Why do you say "far from a regressions"?

Pls share a few of your favorite film recommendations.

Some of mine would be The Conformist, The Secret in Their Eyes, Once Were Warriors, and Lantana.

reply

[–] Nightlightknight 9 years ago

By her choice not being a regression, I mean that I don't see her choice to return to the life she once led, as a failure or a step backwards on Ida's part. Yes she may have rejected the offer of a life akin to her aunt's, one she could have made meaningful, emotional, filled with love, but opening herself up to knowing the truth about herself, and her family prior to taking her vows only succeeded in introducing her to a legacy of suffering and hardship, one she, as a foundling raised in the convent, did not choose. Rather than retreat into her shell, she had the bravery to explore what, to her limited circumstances, her life had to offer.

I have to admit that films like Ida tend to be exceptions for me rather than a common viewing preference, and my film favourites reflect this given that I would consider The Shawshank Redemption, Hot Fuzz, The Dark Knight, Wall-E, Schindler's List, Sin City, LoTR, and Frankenstein to be highly recommended.

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici
By the power of truth I, while living, have conquered the universe

reply

[–] trisul 9 years ago

Ida's regression to life in a patriarchal religion is sooo depressing, a sick rejection of her possible Initiation.

I think you have failed to understand the character. Ida was deeply committed to a life as nun, she understood that life and liked it, she had a rapport with God in that context. What gnawed at her was doubt, she cried during initiation because she experienced doubts and was no longer sure, but the longing was still there. She is an honest spiritual seeker.

The key question put to her was "how can you renounce something you do not even have". This is a serious spiritual issue. Many poor people are ready to renounce wealth, but this has no meaning. So, she went and experienced it all, although too quickly for it to totally convincing: apartment, smoking, drinking, dancing, sex, ... and projected it into the future, with a loving husband, dog, house etc. And although pleasing, it just did not satisfy her enough, her spiritual call was stronger. That is why she happily renounced it all, got into her nun outfit, and went back ... I assume to the convent, to take her vows, as she is now ready.

Just because you do not have these strong religious feelings does not mean that Ida could not have them and be happy with it. Have you noticed how much more respect Polish society showed Ida the nun than to her formidable aunt, who was bigwig in that society? E.g. the woman asking her to bless the baby etc.

reply

[–] JoeKulik 9 years ago

Dear DeepCinema:

You seem like a person who just can't see the world through anyone else's personal values but your own. You also somehow seem to think that your personal values are superior to those of the people around you.

The film convincingly portrays Ida as a young woman with deep spiritual convictions that she found through her life in the RC Church. That is not a matter of right or wrong for you or me to decide. The personal values of any person is for them to decide for themselves, and not by YOU or ME.

I in no way felt after watching the film that Ida was insincere about her spiritual values, or her choice to go back to convent. In general, I'm very TOLERANT about letting people live their lives the way they choose. Apparently, you are not.

Having been brought up in the RC Church myself, I reject it altogether. However, that doesn't mean that I can't RESPECT other people who choose the RC faith, or who choose to become a priest or a nun.

I see watching a new film as an opportunity to learn something new about myself and about the world around me. You apparently see watching a new film as an opportunity to confirm who you see yourself to be already and then, if the film doesn't do that, then just reject the film.

You really need to get a copy of the old hit song by Sly And The Family Stone and listen to it about a couple of hundred times---
"Different Strokes For Different Folks !!!"

reply