MovieChat Forums > Nocturnal Animals (2016) Discussion > Just someone explain to me what was so g...

Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

posted 7 years ago by Dreamcatcher9000
114 replies | jump to latest

(First, if you are bored to read this subject/questions again, save yourself some time from your life, and move on. The movie may have opened in the US for 2 months now, but it just opened to mine and others, so if you have discussed it so many times and you are bored with the repetition, why are you here?)

With films like "Mullholand Drive" (which "Nocturnal Animals seems to be inspired by at some points), it's possible that someone won't be excited about it because they won't understand it. Or, a more recent example, "Enemy", with Gyllenhaal again. If you haven't read some psychology and don't know that the spiders are a symbolism for, there's no way you're gonna understand that film. Which, in my opinion is wrong, a film should address to everybody, whether it has to do psychology or math or science. etc.. Because if they do, it's like the director says to our face "you're stupid". But it's a actually the opposite, he's the stupid one who didn't find a way to communicate with the audience.

So anyway, I watched "Nocturnal Animals", and for once more, I was in confusion. But my confusion was why was this film made, and what was so significant that it wanted to say. And then I came to the Internet, to see what the critics said, and literally everybody said it was a masterpiece. I watched 3 reviews on You Tube, and none of those critics said WHY they thought this movie was so good. They just said that the visual style is gorgeous, that Jaynson is creepy, that Shannon is terrific, that the narration style mixing these 3 stories is so cool, and generally they just DESCRIBED the film, they don't explain WHAT makes it a masterpiece.

So, I just want to check here what did I miss. I'm gonna say what I understood.

1) Susan is married with a business guy (because that's what he is in the whole movie, just a business guy, we never learn anything interesting about him). They're not happy, he's cheating on her.
She receives a new novel from her ex husband. She starts reading it.

Ok so far? Very simple, I think.

2)As she reads it, we see that it's a story of a guy (who as we learn later has the same face as her ex-husband) who seeks revenge for the death of his wife and daughter who were raped and killed by some hillbillies, with the help of a sheriff. They find the guys, and they kill them, and then this guy dies in the most stupid way someone could think of (they funny thing is that after he killed Ray, he was stumbling on his way out of the cabin, and I thought "wouldn't it be ridiculous if he stumbled and fell on his gun and shot himself?". And then he did.)

So, ok, we basically saw another movie within the movie, which could have been another typical revenge movie itself (which, again, we have seen 1,000 times before). Because it really felt like it was an 100% separate movie, and nobody can say otherwise. If you take from "Nocturnal Animals" all the scenes of the revenge story in Texas, it makes a completely separate movie.

3) And last, we see flashbacks of Susan's relationship with her ex-husband, Edward, how it started, how she cheated on him with her present husband (who cheats on her), how she had abortion of his child, how they broke up, etc.

And at the end, we see that Edward asks her to meet him for dinner, to talk about the book I suppose, and generally just catch up I guess, and she goes, and he doesn't come. And the movie ends there.

Ok, so, did we see the same movie? Isn't this the movie in a nutshell? Did I miss something? If not, then can someone tell me what was the significance of the story in the book with the relationship of Susan and Edward? People talk about "revenge". So, yeah, ok, she cheated on him and had abortion of his child. He got deeply hurt, and probably never got over it. So, what did he do? He wrote a book with "metaphors" of their relationship? Which were these metaphors? What, the cancer of the dying sheriff was a metaphor to their dying relationship? And what was the metaphor of these hillbillies stopping the car and kidnapping his wife and daughter and killing them? Nothing like that happened in their relationship. She cheated on him and had abortion of his baby. WTF does that chain-smoking sheriff and those hillbillies had to do with the whole story? And why did Tony's wife look like Susan? What did these two characters have in common, besides both being his wife, in real life and in fiction?

So, what I'm saying is that the story in the book had nothing to do with their relationship. It was a completely different story. If he wanted to get revenge from her and hurt her (besides that he stood her up in a fancy restaurant), she could write a story using a character very similar to her, and hurt her in the story. Or just write some things that clearly target against her and her feelings, just make her feel pain for cheating on him and all that.

And ok, even if I wasn't convinced by the whole thing, and even if Susan was really personally hurt from that book, and for him never showing up at the restaurant...does this make this movie a masterpiece? Best case scenario, it makes it an "ok" and/or "meh, ok, interesting..." movie. WTF is with all those critics who rate it with 9/10?

Closing, what it would really make it more interesting, would be if these things really did happen in Edward's life after he broke up with Susan. And he wrote them in a book, and sent it to her for her to feel something about him, or to say "all these happened because of you" or whatever. And of course, you'd have your twist there "oooh, so it wasn't just a book, these things did happen...". Whatever. But the movie as it is, I just don't get what was so dazzling about it. Please someone make me understand what was so significant about it.

p.s.: Can you also tell me what was the "symbolism" of the opening credits? Yes, the obese middle-aged women dancing. What did they have to do with the story. Nothing? Ok. Just another pointless thing to make fuss about.
(Yes, I got that they were part of Susan's exhibition, but was there any reason to be put at the opening credits of the movie, OTHER than to "shock" us?)

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

Bottom line here is people see what they want to see. Everyone has different tastes, different wants from films. Everyone has different past experience with films. So although we're all human we each come to a film from different angles, from different points of view.

Personally I loved the film. You might say there are things in the film that 'we've seen 1000 times before' but as a whole I see something I've never seen. One of the main characters we never actually meet. Everything we learn about him, his name is Edward btw, not Tony, we learn from Susan's point of view. Point of view is how I started my comments. Everything in the film is precise. We don't learn anything more about Hutton because it's not necessary to the story. There's no fluff in this film. Some people will like that and others will not. Point of view. Personally I love films where every single word means something. Everything you see has meaning and in this film, with so much symbolism, a lot of what is said and seen has more than one meaning, such as Tony's death, as an example. It also symbolized Susan's abortion.

So in a nutshell, I found the one story written by Edward being an allegory of his relationship with Susan, telling her exactly how he felt by telling a story, to be an extremely entertaining tool and really puts this film a top of the heap. There are many elements of this film which I could go on about, such as the acting, or the score, or the directing, the raw, gritty nature, there's really so much to relish.

If you didn't enjoy it or thought it was nothing special, so be it. You're entitled.

Which, in my opinion is wrong, a film should address to everybody

One last thing, this quote above from you. Artists can play to whatever audience they want to. When film makers produce animated comedies most are made with a younger audience in mind. I don't see why some films can't be made for intelligent audiences? There's plenty of films made for the mindless. Yes, film makers are allowed to challenge their audience. No one is ever going to make an intelligent movie and advertise it that way. I don't believe the producers would like that. Everyone likes to make money.

The opening scene during the credits? The art exhibition? Well, give it some more thought. How does it reflect on the rest of the film? How does it reflect on Susan and her world?

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

You might say there are things in the film that 'we've seen 1000 times before' but as a whole I see something I've never seen.

That's not THE problem with the film. We've seen everything 1,000 times. The thing is HOW you do it, if you succeed to make people feel something, and have some honesty about it. I just pointed that this movie's two main stories say nothing new. Especially the revenge story, just imagine if it was a separate movie. What would it give you that you haven't seen so many times before? A typical story of the ugly side of America, some hillbillies kidnap and rape and kill the wife and daughter of a guy, he wants revenge, he gets it, he dies at the end. It's a movie that keeps you in tension as you watch it, but you forget about it 5 hours after you've seen it.

One of the main characters we never actually meet.

That would be interesting, but the whole movie was so pointless to me, that made this idea pointless too.

Everything we learn about him, his name is Edward btw, not Tony, we learn from Susan's point of view.

Ok, Edward is the fictional character, and Tony the real one? I guess I mixed them up.

Everything in the film is precise. We don't learn anything more about Hutton because it's not necessary to the story. There's no fluff in this film. Some people will like that and others will not. Point of view. Personally I love films where every single word means something. Everything you see has meaning and in this film, with so much symbolism, a lot of what is said and seen has more than one meaning, such as Tony's death, as an example. It also symbolized Susan's abortion.

Ok, thank you for your kind reply, but...you don't explain why this movie was so important. You just describe what you saw. When you say that a movie is a masterpiece, and someone asks you "why do you say that?", and your answer is "because every word in it had a meaning, everything was precise", etc., is not exactly an enlightening answer.
And so, Tony's death symbolized Susan's abortion? Why? Why Tony's death and not his daughter's or wife's? And whatever, isn't this symbolism a bit flat and simplistic? "So, ok, my wife had an abortion of my child, so I'm gonna kill my character in my novel to make her understand that it hurt me". I don't know man, it doesn't make much sense to me.
And why did Tony die so stupidly anyway? We assume that he had died after Ray stroke him, then next day he wakes up alive, he walks a bit, he falls on his gun, boom, dead.

So in a nutshell, I found the one story written by Edward being an allegory of his relationship with Susan, telling her exactly how he felt by telling a story, to be an extremely entertaining tool and really puts this film a top of the heap.

Again, you don't answer my question. What was so significant about this specific story (in the book he wrote) that made it an allegory to their relationship? Can you just analyze it, bit by bit? In simple words.

There are many elements of this film which I could go on about, such as the acting, or the score, or the directing, the raw, gritty nature, there's really so much to relish.

Of course, everything you said was terrific. Especially the music was superb. And actually, the whole first 5 minutes of the movie (excluding the opening credits) was awesome, it got me excited with how it was showing a mysterious gloomy L.A., like a modern film noir. And then, it all collapsed.

I don't see why some films can't be made for intelligent audiences?

I'll give a recent example. Did you see "The Man Who Knew Infinity"? It's a real story about a mathematic genius from India. I knew nothing about him, I know nothing about math, and actually, I hate math. But I liked the movie. Because the director didn't make it for people who know about and/or like math, but for people, period.
I think you got my point. You have to find a way to make all people (with some sort of intelligence, I'm not talking about a redneck who lives in a swamp in Louisiana and drinks beer and watches wrestling all day) understand what you're talking about. If I have to know about math to understand and appreciate that movie I mentioned, you lost me. Just make a movie with an interesting story and character, and which makes some sense, and we're good.

About 80%, if not 90%, of the people who saw "Enemy", didn't understand it. Because they hadn't read the book by Jose Saramango, and they haven't read Freud. Because they didn't HAVE to. You should transfer to the audience what you got from reading these things, not to be a smart-ass and throw them a spider at the end (spoiler alert...) and tell them to go and figure out what you meant. And make those who have read the book and all that Freudian stuff, feel "superior" that they understood it. MOVIES ARE NOT AN IQ COMPETITION. No matter how complicated your movie is, if you didn't give to the audience all the clues and keys to understand it within the movie, at least from a second viewing, you failed.

The opening scene during the credits? The art exhibition? Well, give it some more thought. How does it reflect on the rest of the film? How does it reflect on Susan and her world?

The obese naked women dancing? I don't know man, maybe you could tell me, I'm all ears.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

Again, you don't answer my question. What was so significant about this specific story (in the book he wrote) that made it an allegory to their relationship? Can you just analyze it, bit by bit? In simple words.

Edward writes a story to describe his feelings about his relationship with Susan to Susan. Instead of standing in front of her and screaming he instead expressed his feelings to her with this story. It helps to show Susan exactly how deep it hurt Edward and it also shows Susan she was wrong about his writing. The story Edward writes might not be any big deal to most people but to Susan it means everything and we find it hits her pretty hard.

When Susan reads the story she places Edward into Tony's role. We see that through her eyes. She does this ASSUMING way too much. She puts Edward in the weak role. While reading the story, after finding out the wife and daughter are killed she is so shaken she calls her own daughter. Why? Well maybe at this point she believes Edward has bad intentions. She aborted his daughter, so maybe he is plotting some type of revenge against Susan involving her daughter. Susan finishes reading the novel and she believes Edward has accomplished what he set out to do. To write a good novel. She contacts Edward and wants to see him. He agrees. She dresses up in a fashion that suggests she has some intentions of her own when she sees Edward again.

What I believe is while Susan is sitting at that table at the restaurant she has some realizations, including that Edward is not going to show up. She has a few hours sitting there and she thinks more about the novel. She had assumed that Edward was Tony, the weak character, but in the end she finally realizes that she is Tony, the weak character. The one who wasn't strong enough to follow her heart. She instead left Edward, aborted his baby and married Hutton. She is now miserable and Edward not showing up will hit her very hard. When we see Tony accidently kill himself at the end of Edward's story it is symbolic of Susan's abortion. Tony shoots himself in the stomach after being blinded in the stomach by Ray. We see the blood on Tony's shirt as he slowly bleeds out and we can hear his last breaths in slow motion, so symbolic of ending a life, like an abortion. Ray may be thought of as Susan's mother who helps to blind Susan. There is much more symbolism in Edward's story, just as there is symbolism in the main story.

I believe the opening credits can be interpreted a few different ways. One way would be show these obese naked women happy in their own skin while Susan, slim and beautiful, totally miserable in hers. Another might be what passes for art these days. The viewer, you and I, don't actually see the real art being displayed at Susan's exhibit, instead we the ugly truth of what some people believe passes as good art. Everyone told Susan her exhibit was a great success, but Susan had problems with it. She didn't believe in what she was doing and in a way we were seeing Susan's disgust in her own work.

I consider Nocturnal Animals a masterpiece for many reasons, some I had stated in my first response, but the use of Edward's story, the way Susan first interprets the story and then realizes her mistake at the end, the moment Susan realizes she was the weak one, the last few seconds of the film, that's what makes this film a masterpiece.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Farshnoshket

Edward writes a story to describe his feelings about his relationship with Susan to Susan. Instead of standing in front of her and screaming he instead expressed his feelings to her with this story. It helps to show Susan exactly how deep it hurt Edward and it also shows Susan she was wrong about his writing. The story Edward writes might not be any big deal to most people but to Susan it means everything and we find it hits her pretty hard.

Ok. We are not Susan, so she knows better than us what Edward wanted to say with this story, since she lived so many years with him. But YOU, as a viewer, didn't you feel like you were watching a completely different movie? Honestly.

While reading the story, after finding out the wife and daughter are killed she is so shaken she calls her own daughter. Why? Well maybe at this point she believes Edward has bad intentions. She aborted his daughter, so maybe he is plotting some type of revenge against Susan involving her daughter.

Oh, brother... Do we ever see Edward in present time? No. We see him just for a few flashbacks scenes. So why would we assume that he would want to hurt her and especially her daughter? Is he a psycho? How do we know? I never sensed that he wanted to hurt her in any physical way. All that you say doesn't exist in the film. We never see him, we don't know what kind of person he has became. All we know is that he wrote this novel, sent it to her, and asked her to meet him at a restaurant when she read it. At a restaurant, not to an isolated place in the wilderness. To me, none of this sounds like he's a psycho. Killing her or her daughter because she cheated on him and had an abortion of his baby after SO many years doesn't make sense. And if this was in Tom Ford's mind (or the guy who wrote the novel the screenplay was based on), then it's poor writing, a plothole.

Ok, I read the rest of your thoughts, and I guess everyone is entitled to have their own interpretation about this or any movie. But in the bottomline, I realized that I don't care about the movie's symbolisms (anymore), because I didn't care about the characters at all. These characters meant nothing to me, they're so poorly written and empty. If we exclude all the parts of the revenge story, which is like 70% of the movie, it could have been a magnificent atmospheric mysterious thriller, if only it had focused in just the main story. Because I loved Amy Adams' look, and the photography, and the music, and all that, it could make an awesome modern film noir. But the revenge movie just spoiled the whole thing. I never cared about the sheriff, I never cared about Ray, these characters meant nothing to me, especially since they didn't even exist!

I believe the opening credits can be interpreted a few different ways. One way would be show these obese naked women happy in their own skin while Susan, slim and beautiful, totally miserable in hers. Another might be what passes for art these days. The viewer, you and I, don't actually see the real art being displayed at Susan's exhibit, instead we the ugly truth of what some people believe passes as good art. Everyone told Susan her exhibit was a great success, but Susan had problems with it. She didn't believe in what she was doing and in a way we were seeing Susan's disgust in her own work.

Ok, these were interesting thoughts. But still, the opening credits felt very out of place with the whole film. You'll say, so what, so many movies have weird opening credits that have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Whatever.

I consider Nocturnal Animals a masterpiece for many reasons, some I had stated in my first response, but the use of Edward's story, the way Susan first interprets the story and then realizes her mistake at the end, the moment Susan realizes she was the weak one, the last few seconds of the film, that's what makes this film a masterpiece.

Just reading the word "masterpiece" in a text about this film kind of "hurts" me. I'm pretty sure you consider "Gone Girl" a masterpiece too. I really can't make a comment on that. I guess I belong to a different species of an audience.

You know what I would call a masterpiece of a film? Something like that:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054632/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Consider this film as "university", and "Nocturnal Animals" as "kindergarten". In nowadays, we call masterpieces some films because they don't make real masterpieces anymore, so we just have to call some movies masterpieces. It's like a sport team of a low category, it may be the best of its league, but its the best of a low league.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

Interesting. You had to go back over 50 years to find your masterpiece to attempt to put down this film.

I believe they still do make masterpieces. I believe Birdman is a masterpiece. The Master is a masterpiece. No Country for Old Men is a masterpiece. Cloud Atlas is a masterpiece.

I do not believe Gone Girl is a masterpiece. Not sure why you would bring that up?

I film does not have to be in black and white to be a masterpiece.

Masterpieces can come in all shapes & sizes and I also believe a film being a masterpiece is a very personal thing. Each film touches each person differently. I might be the only person who feels one particular film is a masterpiece, but that's good enough for me.

As far as Edward being a 'psycho'...At the moment Susan is reading Edward's novel she has no idea of Edward's intent. The story kills off the person who Susan believes is her and her daughter. At that moments she has thoughts and calls her own daughter. Why? Why did she call her right after she finds out those characters are dead?

btw, Edward personally dropped off the novel. He drove from Texas to LA to do so. Did you know that?

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Farshnoshket

Interesting. You had to go back over 50 years to find your masterpiece to attempt to put down this film.

I didn't use that film to "put down" "Nocturnal Animals". I didn't use it as a comparison, they have practically nothing in common, except both being "brainy" films. But I used it as an example of what a real masterpiece is. And you know what's funny? That I didn't even get that film. So, I can't say that I liked it. But in that case, I DO understand that people liked it and consider it a masterpiece. It's a very difficult film to understand, and I guess I'm not smart enough to get it (at least from one viewing). But in a film like "Nocturnal Animals", I can see that it's pointless, very simplistic in its core, but it presents itself as something very intellectual. And that's bollocks.

I'll give you another more recent example of a mysterious brainy masterpiece. "Lost Highway". Or "Mulholland Drive". You can't say that Ford wasn't influenced by Lynch (besides Hitchcock) to make his film. But he's like a little kid next to giants.

I believe Birdman is a masterpiece. The Master is a masterpiece. No Country for Old Men is a masterpiece. Cloud Atlas is a masterpiece.

Man, you and me, we live in a different movie planet... Besides "Birdman" which I kind of appreciated for some elements, I hated all the others you mention. "Cloud Atlas"? Can you name me ONE film that it was a MESS to you? Because if "Cloud Atlas" wasn't, then what was? Or do you find ALL films with complicated mixed-up storylines masterpieces? Just because they're complicated mixed-up storyline movies, and you wanna feel smart for liking every film that presents itself as intelligent? I guess you consider "Interstellar" a masterpiece too? Murph, Murph, Murph, Murph, Murph! Oh, man, that ending with that watch...
By the way, did you like "Enemy"?

I do not believe Gone Girl is a masterpiece. Not sure why you would bring that up?

Because it's another very recent overrated kind of thriller, quite similar to "Nocturnal Animals". Not in the story, but the style and genre and intentions and all that.

The story kills off the person who Susan believes is her and her daughter. At that moments she has thoughts and calls her own daughter. Why? Why did she call her right after she finds out those characters are dead?

Because as a mother, she was affected to read about a teenage girl being killed, so she felt like calling her daughter just to hear her voice. Even if this was just a random book she bought, she would still be affected by what goes on in it. She identified her daughter with that girl because they were both teenagers. And in her mind, she projects the dead body of the girl with the body of her own daughter (you forgot to mention this). But it's like herself could identify with any character in a book she was reading, for whatever reason. For me, it didn't have to do with being afraid that Edward would kill her daughter, a teenage girl he had never met and never harmed him. He would be a psycho if he even thought to do something like that, and from what I saw in the movie, I didn't see anything psychotic about his behavior (from the 5 minutes that we saw him). So WHY would I think that he wanted to harm either of them? It doesn't make any sense. If you think that the movie gave you clues to think something like that, sure, be my guest. You might as well think that Susan is the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Queen Victoria, who am I to say otherwise?

btw, Edward personally dropped off the novel. He drove from Texas to LA to do so. Did you know that?

No, I didn't notice that. But, so what? I guess it makes sense, since he DID want to meet her (like ANY man would want to meet his ex-wife for a cup of coffee after so many years), and tell him what she thought of the book. But no, your guess is that he wanted to slaughter her and drink her blood, right? :p
And as for why he didn't show up at the restaurant eventually, I don't know, and I frankly don't care anymore. Maybe a truck hit and killed him? He got abducted by aliens? He changed his mind? Ηe got cold feet? Maybe he really did want to hurt her, by not showing up? Who the f--k knows... But one thing for sure, he doesn't wait for her outside the restaurant with a chainsaw. Trust me.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

ok, we've got an awful lot here. Soon we'll have our own novel.

So you brought up what others called a masterpiece, but you admit was just too much for you. My thought, as I believe I mentioned earlier, is a masterpiece is a piece of work that touches you in a special way. Now I understand other people will have other definitions for that word, but just like someone giving a film a "10" and another person giving a film a "10" may also have 2 different meanings I believe there's enough room for different interpretations of what a masterpiece means. So for that reasons the films I listed are all masterpieces to me. Cloud Atlas? Cloud Atlas wasn't a mess. Cloud Atlas was a map that needed to be studied. I spend plenty of time studying the film, found it's many connections through time and understood every single second of it. It was, in my humble opinion, one of the very best films every made, a true masterpiece.

Or do you find ALL films with complicated mixed-up storylines masterpieces?

Like I said, once I absorbed the film and studied it everything came together. It's like one of the pictures that you stare it and if you stare long enough you'll find the hidden picture within the picture. After that it's pretty simple to see.

I liked Interstellar and thought it was a great film with a lot to say, but it did not touch me enough to be called a masterpiece. Gone Girl was a fun movie. Any film where we can watch NPH get ripped to shreds is a fun film. I like Pike. I think she's a really good actress, but Affleck with always be Affleck. He will never be his brother. He think he needs to do a few comedies and relax a little. That girl he cheats with in GG, now she was a honey! lol Def not a masterpiece. Far from it.

Ok, you've got the whole daughter thing with me all wrong.

From the film we know Edward did drop off the book. We don't realize that when it happens, but later on we connect 2 and 2 because of the Mercedes in the story. We can think back and see the same Mercedes in Susan's driveway. It was and someone got out. The same someone who dropped off the novel. It was Edward. That's a simple conclusion that can be made.

Why does Susan call her daughter? Well first off, Susan did not know Edward was in LA. She did not know he dropped off the novel, but I guess if she did her homework she might have figured it out. The package the novel was dropped off in had no mail markings. Now Susan hadn't seen Edward in 19 years. She probably didn't think too much about how much she might have hurt Edward, probably. She did say she was going to regret the abortion and knowing Edward knew probably did weigh on her a little, but she was basically a shallow person, so she probably didn't let it bother her. And then she reads his novel. So the question becomes at what point does Susan realize that the story written by Edward was some type allegory for their relationship, and in what way?

Susan gets to the part where the 2 women are found dead. Now you believe she called because she just wanted to check in on her...

I believe this was the part where Susan drops the novel on the floor. Maybe a little much, but it certainly indicates shock on Susan's part. From my perspective that says that Susan has some concerns and might be wondering the intent of the novel she has not yet finished. She does not really know much about Edward's past 19 years and how much of a grudge she holds toward him. There has to be a reason the writer/director decided that Susan should call her daughter. I don't think either of our reasons are unreasonable. The writer made it a point that Susan was calling at a time she usually wouldn't be calling, very early in the morning. She was startled enough to call her at an unusual time. For me that means concern, concern that she's safe. Edward does not have to be a psycho, it's just that Susan thought Edward might have some intension. That doesn't make Edward a serial killer, although that might have been an interesting way to go?

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING

Edward never had any intent on showing up at the restaurant. When someone doesn't show for a 'date' in normal circumstances it can certainly sting a little, depending on how much you know them. I think in this case it cut Susan pretty hard because of what she realizes as she sitting there. As Susan sat there she thought that Edward had forgiven her for her shortcomings and how she left Edward, but as she sat there she realized something much different.

a dish best served cold.

If you didn't or still do not believe he had no intent on showing up then yes indeed, we live in 2 different worlds.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Edward never had any intent on showing up at the restaurant.

And you know this because . . . ?
#1 - you wrote the script and not Tom Ford
#2 - you're Tom ford's BFF
#3 - you're cleverer than everybody else
#4 - you're omniscient

You don't know - and you're just a 'know-it-all douche' as somebody else called it.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

I really can't help if you can't process.

That's a 'you' problem.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Farshnoshket

Like I said, I don't know why he didn't show up, and if he intended to or not. But who was that character to make me care what was his intentions? It's a character that we DON'T KNOW. We saw the (real) Edward for like 3 minutes in total in the film. What was so interesting about this character, or should I say, those characters (he and Susan), that would make me care if they had a reunion or not? 80% of the total movie was the Texas story. So Susan was in the movie for 20%. It's not enough for me to care about her. She was an empty character to me. What was interesting about her? All we see her do in the movie is reading the book. We never see her have a crucial moment with someone, a collision, something. What do we know about her, that she lives an empty life and her husband (another non-existent character) cheats on her? Boooo-hoooo, bring me some tissues...

This movie was full of indifferent characters. I remember watching the opening credits, and I counted like 10 famous actors in it, and I wondered, how all of them can fit in a 2 hour movie? Well, I tell you, they can't, because half of them was like if they weren't in it at all. I just checked the cast, and I read that Michael Sheen was in it. I don't even remember him in the film!

And since that Texas story was fiction, and these things never happened, why should I care about any of these characters? Besides the fact that the sheriff and the redneck were so, so void. Well, of course, they threw a bit of cancer to the sheriff to make him a more "tragic" figure. But who the f--k cares?? He's not an existent character!

Dude, whatever. These characters meant nothing to me. And for me (and for everyone I guess), the characters in a movie is everything. I didn't sympathize any of them. And it's a pity, because Adams, especially in this film, she's so beautiful in a "dark" way, they could have done so much with her look and all. Waste of chance.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

And since that Texas story was fiction, and these things never happened, why should I care about any of these characters? Besides the fact that the sheriff and the redneck were so, so void. Well, of course, they threw a bit of cancer to the sheriff to make him a more "tragic" figure. But who the f--k cares?? He's not an existent character!

Dude, it's all fiction. Wake up! Both stories are fiction. I think your biggest problem in trying to appreciate what was brought to the screen is you keep trying to separate the 2 pieces, but it's really the 2 pieces together that make the film what it is.

The film is about relationships and how you should cherish whatever relationships you have.

The film speaks for itself. Won plenty of awards and has lot of nominations, but none of that means anything to me. Not every film is about liking characters.

A big mistake a lot of people made when they watched No Country for Old Men is they grew attached to Llewelyn. But what happens to Llewelyn? That film won best picture. Films are not always about liking characters, so you can whine all want about not falling in love, but that's your tragic mistake.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Dude, it's all fiction. Wake up! Both stories are fiction.

For once more, I think we have a communication problem.
Every movie is fiction. Except the ones that were based on a true story. Ok? But...every one of these movies...is SUPPOSED to REALLY happen. Even something like "Star Wars". That's why people like them. All these movies, all these characters, are supposed to exist in the REAL world (or A real world). Including "Nocturnal Animals". BUT...the story that Susan reads, and those characters...they don't exist IN the movie, thus in the world. They exist in Edward's mind. We, the viewers, feel that Susan could exist in the real L.A., but not the characters of the book she reads, that's PURE fiction. So, I don't care about characters who don't exist in the movie I'm watching.

If you still don't understand what I'm saying here, let's just drop it. I'm not implying that you're stupid and/or I'm smart, but we just can't communicate, we see movies in a totally different point of view.

A big mistake a lot of people made when they watched No Country for Old Men is they grew attached to Llewelyn.

Did I mention that movie before? If not, it's funny, because the Texas story in "Nocturnal Animals" reminded me so much of it. Maybe they had a different story (not that I remember the story of "No country"...), but for me, they were both laggish, pointless, pretentious movies, that were showing so simple stuff like they were Greek or Shakespearean tragedies or something... I'm tired of Americans being so obsessed with stories about kidnapping and rednecks killing innocent people for fun. Can I have the right to be tired of these movies? With your permission, of course. :p

Anyway, I don't care if a character is good or bad. A movie may have the worst person in the world as the main character, but if he's written well, I will like the movie and the character. Who doesn't like Hannibal Lecter? Or Darth Vader? Or Freddy Krueger? And so many others. My problem is not if a character has flaws, it's if they're written bad.

So, I don't care if a character is the most perfect or the worst person in history. Or the strongest or weakest. All I need is to care about WATCHING them. I don't (necessarily) care if they end up happy. I care to carry on watching them, to their victory or downfall. All the characters in Scorsese's movies were weak and had a downfall at the end, and he was (once) my favorite storyteller.

And yes, of course I can like a character and feel sorry if they die, and/or get pissed off with the writers/director for "killing" him (I was outraged with Han Solo's death, at least because of the way and timing it was done). But that's another story, it's not my problem with "Nocturnal Animals". If it had a good screenplay and a good story, I wouldn't mind if those character were the most weak/flawed characters in the world. Actually films noir MUST have weak/flawed characters. Give me a film noir where the good guy dies at the end, and the femme fatale who framed him flies to the Bahamas with all the money he stole for her. If it's done well, I'll love it. If the characters are indifferent and it has an unrelated story within the story, f--k it.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

We definitely are coming from 2 different worlds and I'm going to leave it at that.

Enjoy film.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

We definitely are coming from 2 different worlds . . .

True enough - I would guess you're lost in a world where the sun don't shine, as the saying goes. Nobody else would want to visit that place - land of endless night.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

Funny how you respond to comments meant for others.

No, sad, not funny. And in such a feminine way.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

And in such a feminine way.

It's always good to keep in touch with one's feminine side - that way you can understand Susan's POV.
You want to know what weak really means? It means poor old Edward couldn't cut it in the sack, sweetie. Very sad case - ED Eddy, as he was known at college, and premature also on the rare occasions he could get a weak woody.
Of course, Susan had confided in Mommy dearest, who sensibly tried to talk her out of marriage. Couple of years pass - and she realizes Mommy knew best all along. Now you know the real story, you can't really blame her for jumping onto Hutton's tent-pole, can you?
As for the restaurant no-show - Susan always felt sorry for Soft Eddy and wanted to show support, but unfortunately he couldn't face her - he's playing for the other team now. Susan felt a bit sad about it, but what can you do?
So there you are - all NA's loose ends neatly tied up. It's amazing what a little feminine intuition will do for you.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

I wanted to ask you if you liked "Under The Skin", because it's one of those rare exceptions of "weird" films that I did like, and I see that you have rated it with 9. At least we found a small bridge between us... :p

I'm also curious to know what's your rating for "Enemy". I'm sure that you liked that one too.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

When most people go see a film they expect that what's presented will be done in a way that is straight forward enough to understand, however there are films that are made that ask the audience for a little more. A foreign film has subtitles. If you don't read the subtitles you'll probably miss a lot. That's an easy example. Under the Skin is a tougher one and films like Under the Skin. The ask the audience to think about what they've seen and process it. If you went into Under the Skin completely in the dark I'm not sure if anyone would realize they were watching a film about aliens or some type of other being until close to the end of the film. With that in mind the process of figuring out what you just watched probably does not occur until the film ends. Then you take what you learned and process that over the entire film. Now that you know she was an alien things make a lot more sense. If one does not process the film properly they'll wind up with a mess and usually walk away saying wtf? Some people simply prefer not to think so much, or at least that's what they admit.

Have you seen Holy Motors?

Enemy is on my list. I'll have to catch it soon.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

No, I have not seen "Holy Motors", and I don't think I'll like it. I have seen only one film of Carax ("The Lovers on the Bridge"), and it's not my thing. I'm not saying he makes bad movies, it's just not...my thing, it's not the style that I enjoy to watch. But I'll watch it because I'm curious about Kylie Minogue's performance. I like to see pop-stars, and generally "celebrities" play in weird films. Like Madonna in "Dangerous Game", or like Scarlett Johansson in "Under the Skin".

Before you watch "Enemy", I suggest you do some googling on the symbolism of spiders, otherwise you're lost...

"Spiders symbolize the feminine energy, ability to be receptive to new environments, creativity, patience and dark life aspects. The spider is a unique symbol because it has dark and light aspects to it, meaning that it connects with many areas of life."

"The Spider is an ancient symbol of mystery, power and growth. We take our first lesson from the ancient symbol of the Spider by contemplating its web. Just as the Spider weaves a web, so too must we weave our own lives. The Spider symbol meaning here serves as a reminder that our choices construct our lives."

http://www.shamanicjourney.com/spider-power-animal-symbol-of-creation-weaving-our-realities-infinity-balance-past-present-and-future

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

But the revenge movie just spoiled the whole thing.

There are a lot of posters with a teenage mentality on this board who think Edward wanted revenge, and ultimately succeeds in 'crushing' Susan with his dinner no-show - but perhaps they're not very bright, and it's not a revenge story at all. Perhaps there's another narrative lurking under this simplistic infantile interpretation.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

Or perhaps you're just some twerp that has little understanding of anything, much less film and likes to jump on threads adding nothing but nonsense.

Oh I know! The painting was a "red herring"! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Well, fancy that! My red herring bait has been swallowed yet again by one of those intellectual minnows. The basic thinking of these primitive life-forms is matched by their predictability.

[–] bensfiction 7 years ago

Dude stop pretending like this movie was some sort of objective masterpiece. The New York Times wasn't very fond of it and they get paid to critique films. You're just some pretend to know it all douche on IMDb. You gave Allied an 8 for crying out loud. You are NO "student of film."

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

The New York Times wasn't very fond of it and they get paid to critique films.

I don't review films based on what others do, whether they get paid or not. I'm pretty sure the people that pay them for their opinion know little about film themselves. I won't bother mentioning all the awards the film has won and nominations it received because, again I don't base my opinion on others.

You're just some pretend to know it all douche on IMDb.

I never claimed to be anything.

You gave Allied an 8 for crying out loud.

More like a 7.5, but I round up. The film's average is 7.2, so sue me. Plus the fact you don't rate any films probably because you are scared how others will receive them.

Thanks for stopping by.

[–] bensfiction 7 years ago

No, I just know that I actually studied film, and your borderline obsession with this ok film and your ridiculous confirmation bias shows that you think movies are better than they actually are in a lot of instances. If you actually studied film and looked beyond your own self delusional deconstruction of every breath in this film, you'd probably discover that it's really well shot, but lacking a lot of substance.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

So says the person who can't stop reading what I write.

Talk about obsession?

You believe this is just an ok film and yet you keep coming back to see what I wrote next.

Hilarious.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

You're just some pretend to know it all douche on IMDb.

How could you say such cruel, unfair things about FartyKat? He's the (self-)recognized galactic expert on Nocturnal Animals, and certainly knows more about the film than Tom Ford himself.

[–] bensfiction 7 years ago

His arm must be tired from jerking off Tom Ford so hard...

[–] jimmer69 7 years ago

It was artsy and intellectual :-)

[–] Kompressor_Fan 7 years ago

I like intellectual films that are artistically pulled off. There are so few intellectual films being made anymore, and yet they used to be fairly commonplace. Sad....

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

And the worst part is when one comes out there are people who complain about them because 'they don't get them' or they use the word 'pretentious' when in fact they just don't get them.

[–] jimmer69 7 years ago

Yeah it is sad. Just depends on if you consider this movie as one that falls into that description.

There was a movie critic who compared this to classic Hitchcock movies. Not sure I think of it that way, but that's obviously high praise from the critic.

This movie was interesting. Not overly difficult to understand as some try and make it out to be, but there are some good performances (like from Taylor -Johnson) and the movie sticks with you. Won't be forgetting it any time soon. Which, you know, is a plus.

Overall, I didn't recommend it to anyone. I wouldn't bother with it again, myself, but it was worth seeing once.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

My friend's wife had said she wanted to see it during the Golden Globes. She stated so on Facebook when I made a comment about Johnson winning his globe. I told her I didn't think it should be on her menu, knowing her taste in film. I don't believe she'd be able to get through the first 90 seconds. lol

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

jimmer69

There was a movie critic who compared this to classic Hitchcock movies.

Yes, the beginning of the film did remind me kind of a modern Hitchcock film. Susan could be a Hitchcock character. It's a pity that this chance was lost.

Not overly difficult to understand as some try and make it out to be.

The only difficult part to understand is why it got so much praise.

[–] RoloTomassi777 7 years ago

Alright alright let me ease your pain. This is what Tom Ford's own interpretation of the movie so pseudo-artsy detractors won't be able to deflect you from real one, creator of the movie itself. Here's the link to the interview if you're interested.
http://www.vox.com/platform/amp/culture/2016/11/15/13499342/tom-ford-interview-nocturnal-animals-amy-adams-jake-gyllenhaal

As other poster has pointed out when I made this post the ending was more about freedom than revenge. Exactly what Ford had said.

Does he not show up as an act of revenge, or does he not show up because he just literally can’t face her? [The ending] seems the correct conclusion to me, because she falls in love with him again through reading [the novel]. She is liberated, by the way, at the end. This has been painful. She’s taken those rings off. She’s wiped off that lipstick, and she is not going back to that life. We don’t know what the next chapter is for her, but [the previous] chapter is over.

Either he still love her but can't bring himself to face her again. Or he wants to continue to use that tragedy as an inspiration to help him keep on writing. Meeting her might compromise that. By not knowing the outcome of the meeting with Susan it allows him to continue to keep writing powerful novel as this one. What drives him to write such powerful novel. Another quote from Tom Ford:

"This is what you did to me. You stole my life. You killed me, in a sense." But at the same time, we learn in the opening letter that he says that in the end, she left him with the strength to survive from the heart. He takes his damage and turns it into the thing that has always eluded him, which is the successful novel that he knew he had in him.

So what is the message Ford is trying to deliver? Another quote:

The central theme, which is don't throw people away in your life. Don't throw people away. When you find people you love, hang on to them.

Why did Ford throw all this symbolism in there whereas in the Austin Wright's book there's no symbolism to connect the fictional story from the story in the reality?

I think that's a very hard thing to do. People expect you to be quite literal, and a book is subjective. If you read the line, "She's the most beautiful woman in the world," every single person will come up with a different vision in their head, and so it'll always be disappointing when you see that onscreen. Not always, but most of the time, because it's not going to match your idea.

In the end the ending kind of ambiguous similar like gone with the wind. That's why Ford mentioned Scarlett O'Hara who vow one day she'll win Rhett back. Ford answered from Susan’s assuming point of view.

Am I going to move out of the house, be a Scarlett O’Hara and get up the next morning and get on a plane and go, and maybe I’m gonna become that artist? I don’t know. She doesn’t know.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

RoloTomassi777

First, is your last reply addressing to me? Just checking.

Second, I don't know why you deleted your first reply (which was clearly addressing to me), but fortunately I read it, and after a couple of hours I came here to reply to you, and I saw that you had deleted it. Maybe because you felt like you "insulted" some people. But anyway, I just wanted to thank you for what you wrote, because it was exactly my thoughts, 100%.

I don't know what has happened to movies and people. Years ago, even if I didn't like a movie, at least I could understand why somebody else liked it. But now, when I see so many mediocre films being praised as masterpieces so easily, it feels so depressing. I'm not saying, or should I say better, I don't want to say that every person who says that "Nocturnal Animals" (or whatever else movie) isn't honest or doesn't have a clue about cinema. I want to believe that many of them just sincerely liked it for their own reasons. I don't have the right to enter their minds and tell them if they should like a movie or not.
But on the other hand, I'm afraid there are also some people who just want to praise a movie (and especially a "weird" movie with lots of enigmatic endings, twists, mind puzzles, etc.) as a masterpiece, to show that they're smart and that they know about movies. For most of them, their perception about cinema and good screenwriting is not only poor, and not only they haven't seen/understood what a REALLY great masterpiece is (or maybe they've seen a couple very famous ones), but also they just don't be honest and say "ok, it was just an interesting weird film, but with some flaws/stuff that didn't make much sense". Noooo... They're gonna come in IMDB, rate it with 10, and call people who didn't get it "idiots". They want to convince themselves that they saw a great movie, when deep inside, they know that it wasn't. And as I said in my above reply to the other user, a reason for that is that because they don't make real masterpieces anymore, but they (the audience) feel the need to praise something, even if it's not really great. If "Passengers" is a bad sci-fi movie, then "Arrival" must be the good one, with all its (flat) allegories and (superficial) deep meanings... That's how they think.

So, we live in an era where "Nocturnal Animals" and the "Arrival" and "Ex Machina" are praised as monuments of cinematic art. Three films full of storytelling flaws. Especially "Arrival", wow... And I saw "Ex Machina" just recently, and I came here and wrote a huge topic analyzing its flaws, but my Internet crashed before I posted it, and then I didn't have the courage to write it again.

We live in an era of artistic mediocrity, if not decadence. Take a look at the music they used to make in the '60s and '70s, and even the '80s and '90s, and the music now. Who was No.1 in the '60s? The Beatles. Who is No.1 now? Taylor Swift (or Katy Perry, whatever). Just a small example of the path humanity has taken.

And cinema isn't much better. Take a look at the American cinema of the '70s. Countless of great, great, GREAT directors, making GREAT movies. Without puzzling storytelling and multiple twists and all that crap. Clear movies, with clear storytelling, which were great just because they had something to say, and they had real characters, made from flesh and bones and soul. But, since Tom Ford and all the others can't make this kind of movies, because...they just can't, they make pretentious movies like this one, trying to think complicated mind-puzzling situations, the audience bites, they come here and rate it with 10, and good cinema goes to oblivion.

[–] RoloTomassi777 7 years ago

I understand where you coming from because I myself not a big fan of melancholic and morose style of movie like ex machina. So depressing. But I will try my best to explain why people like this movie. You already took the trouble of writing so much might as well I return the favor. When you watch nocturnal animals the feeling is a combination of birdman, the great gatsby and revolutionary road. When I say birdman it's in terms of cinematography, when I say great gatsby maybe I mean the ending is kinda tragic and when I say revolutionary road maybe it had to do with melodramatic and abortion.

Why some people who don't get it will say that it's style over substance but in fact the opposite. As a director the challenge is to try transfer the story from a book to a film but the meaning of a word is subjective and to transform metaphors to reality is hard. That's why Ford uses symbols to relate the inner story to the outer story. That's why in Austin Wright's novel there's no symbolism whatsoever reflected in Edward writings. Instead of substance over style it's style emphasizing substance. Some people may misread the signals to construed it as clues why he didn't show up. No. Ford style as he pointed out is that he is intuitive meaning whatever he do is a result of his subconscious mind. The movie is autobiographical same like how Edward always write about himself. Edward subconsciously relate the green GTO, the red sofa, the gold chain, blinded eyes shot in the gut etc etc to relate to his relationship with Susan. It's actually a subconscious reflection of Edward. Alot of the outer story is change. Like how Susan is too cynical to become an artist. That's actually Ford. He said that directing the movie is the closest thing he will get to be an artist. I think when people say it's a masterpiece it's not the movie as a whole is a masterpiece. Maybe just the style of cinematography is masterpiece. That word gets thrown alot but maybe it just means ingenious. Like the single continuous shot in Birdman movie or like the inception that used different color palette to distinguish different level of dream world.

And about the ending one interviewer concluded why Edward didn't turn up was because of revenge. And you get that wounded face from Ford. It's not literal revenge he said it was more like Edward was using that visceral feeling and turn it to make a novel. That's why he didn't showed up because he didn't want to ruin it. Yeah you get the ending I was telling you in previous post right?

[–] gilbert_gumphrey 7 years ago

Howdy Dreamcatcher:

I agree with almost everything you said in your first post. It's been a long time since a film angered me, and this one accomplished that by being the most beautifully made pointless story I've seen in quite some time.

However, there's a couple things you've said I want to address:

The 70's are probably my favourite decade of film too, but let's not put it on such a ridiculously high pedestal. Sure, there were a ton of masterpieces (although many of those now considered classics were ripped apart by critics and audiences as much as you are doing with Nocturnal Animals). But there were also a LOT of total crap. That was the decade that brought us Empire of the Ants and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes and Old Boyfriends and Lovers & Liars and Frogs and backward reeleth the mind.

And if you think I'm just picking on the low budget crap, don't forget this was also the decade Hitchcock made Topaz, Scorsese made Boxcar Bertha, Spielberg made 1941, Hopper made The Last Movie, and so on. No one was completely safe.

You said films in the 70's were without "puzzling storytelling and multiple twists" but man, that sounds like you haven't seen many 70's films at all! Even the most famous ones were often so artsy and obtuse and puzzling that they can be a chore to sit through.

I guess my point is...there are always great movies, and always bad movies, and always will be. 2016 is probably the worst year for quality films I can recall. But that's not to say it was entirely without merit. Despite your claims, I thought Arrival was a pretty wonderful flick. The little-seen rotoscoped documentary Tower is absolutely fantastic (check it out if you can). Eye in the Sky, Red Turtle, Neon Demon, and even Captain America Civil War were all awesome flicks. Far from perfect, and of course don't compare to some 70's flicks like Jaws or Godfather but then, hey, how many movies do?

I don't think flicks like Arrival, Nocturnal, and Ex Machina are being praised as "cinematic art" so much as really good movies (except stupid-ass Nocturnal) in a time where many people often don't see really good new movies. There's masterpieces coming out every year, but you usually have to get to a film festival to see them. In terms of mass-produced Hollywood movies, yeah, this is a pretty rough time.

But shouldn't that mean it's a GOOD thing when people see some small movie like Ex Machina or a big risk like Arrival and really dig it? Perhaps if someone enjoys them so much, they'll take the risk and go watch something like Last Year at Marienbad (which, by the way, was not a well loved film upon it's release, and was entered in a book called The Fifty Worst Films of All Time in 1978).

Trust me, there were MANY smart people in the 70's calling it a time of "artistic mediocrity and decadence". Perhaps 50 years from now Nocturnal Animals will be praised as a masterpiece and 2016 a wonderful year for art. Perhaps in 50 years Nocturnal will be completely forgotten as the pretty-looking tripe I think it is and 2016 looked back on as a pathetic time to go to the movies. Who knows.

But let's not discourage too much, eh...?

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

The 70's are probably my favourite decade of film too, but let's not put it on such a ridiculously high pedestal. Sure, there were a ton of masterpieces (although many of those now considered classics were ripped apart by critics and audiences as much as you are doing with Nocturnal Animals).

I'm aware of that. But the difference is that nobody is gonna remember "Nocturnal Animals", in, say, 5 years.

Man, of course there was garbage in EVERY decade. There was a ton of garbage in the '50s, and lots of mediocre boring films in the '40s and earlier. But my point was, look at the (big) movies they were making in the '70s, and look now. Godfather, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, Deliverance, Serpico, The Deer Hunter, Close Encounters, Clockwork Orange... I can't even go on throwing titles, it could go forever. And I just mentioned a few of the REALLY famous ones, there are so many other masterpieces that didn't get much attention. Like Looking for Mr. Goodbar, Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia, Bobby Deerfield... The list is endless... NOTHING today can compare with them. The best movie today is like a fingernail of one good movie from the '70s.

And if you think I'm just picking on the low budget crap, don't forget this was also the decade Hitchcock made Topaz, Scorsese made Boxcar Bertha, Spielberg made 1941, Hopper made The Last Movie, and so on. No one was completely safe.

"Topaz" was from 1969 actually. Yeah, ok, Hitch made one mediocre movie after 4 decades of great movies, give him a break! :p
"Boxcar Bertha" was a fine movie! It's not a masterpiece, but it's interesting, especially if you see it now and see how Scorsese's filmography has evolved.
"1941", yeah, it was Spielberg's weakest (until he made "BFG"...), and sure, "The Last Movie" is a mess, but at least, even in not good movies from back then, you good see some "authenticity", it was the '70s, drugs and all that... To say it otherwise, a mediocre film from the '70s is much more interesting than a mediocre film from the 2010s.

You said films in the 70's were without "puzzling storytelling and multiple twists" but man, that sounds like you haven't seen many 70's films at all! Even the most famous ones were often so artsy and obtuse and puzzling that they can be a chore to sit through.

Trust me, I've seen a lot of films, not only from the '70s, but from...forever. I have seen 10,000-15,000 films in my life.
I was referring to the great and known ones, like the ones I mentioned. All o them had "clear" storytelling (except "Clockwork Orange"). None of them had a mind-puzzling screenplay like "Interstellar" or "Inception". What I want to say is that today's cinema tries to impress us with complicated storylines. And that's because they're unable to impress us with normal, plain, well-written storylines. I said above that "Nocturnal Animals" could be a perfect modern Hitchcokian thriller, if it had a linear story. But instead, it chose to be another movie for which people will make an "ending explained" video on You Tube. It seems like for every f--king movie now, there is a 10-20-60 minutes "ending explained" video on You Tube. Like, suddenly, after 120 years of cinema, the world is full of philosophical genius masterminds directing movies. They refer to Nolan like he's some kind of deity from another planet, and for me, he has made some of the worst movies I've ever seen. "Interstellar" and "Dark Knight 3", fro example. These 2 were quite unbearable to watch, because I didn't feel like I was watching a honest film, I felt like he was trying soooo hard to make an intelligent screenplay that is gonna impress everyone. When I see a movie in which I can clearly see that the director's first (and probably only) intention is to impress us by how smart he is, I give up on it.

I'm curious though, can you name me 5 (or less) films from the '70s that did have this puzzling/twists intentions? And please don't tell me something like "Murder by Death", because if yes, then I guess you don't understand what I'm saying.

I guess my point is...there are always great movies, and always bad movies, and always will be.

Yes. But the good were better before, and the bad are worst now.

Back in the '90s, I used to write down every movie I was watching, and I was rating them from 1 to 5 stars, and at the end of the year, I was making a list with the best of them. And every year I had at least 3-4 movies rated with 5 stars.
I have not rated any movie with 5 stars (or 10, in IMDB) at least the last 5 years. Actually, the only movies I remember now that I rated with 10 stars from 2000 and after, were "The New World" and "Toy Story 3". And if I was alive back in the '70s, or the '60s? I would rate with 10 stars a movie every month...

I don't know what kind of music you like, but I guess that you'll agree that music back in the '60s-'70s was amazing, and now it's s--t (and ok, don't tell me about 4-5 bands you like, I mean IN GENERAL!). Back then, the top names were the Beatles, the Stones, the Who, etc., etc., now its Nicki Minaj and Bieber. You know what I mean? Well, for me, movies is not that different... The difference is that the bulls--t in movies is dressed with an "genius" clothing...

But shouldn't that mean it's a GOOD thing when people see some small movie like Ex Machina or a big risk like Arrival and really dig it?

Since you ask me, the question is no, because they were both mediocre. They had good predispositions, but for me, they were full of flaws. But if you talk in general, yes, of course it's good if a good small film is discovered and recognized.

Perhaps if someone enjoys them so much, they'll take the risk and go watch something like Last Year at Marienbad.

That's the other sad part. That I don't think they will. I don't think that any kid (under 25, at least) that loooooved "La La Land" is gonna watch any of the REALLY good musicals of the '50s or whatever. Or if they will, I bet they'll watch only one, and they'll get bored.
The target group of movies today, with all those Marvel and CGI s--t-fest, is kids about 20-25 years old. Kids who were born in the '90s. How many of them will be ever interested to watch '70s or older movies? And I mean many movies, not just the Godfather, Taxi Driver, and that's it. Answer: a very, very low percent. So, they will always praise Nolan as the greatest director of all times. Because they will never know who Sam Peckinpah was. Or Stanley Kramer. Or even Stanley Kubrick. How many of those who watched "Interstellar" and said "BEST MOVIE EVER!" have seen "2001"? They're kids, man. Or adults who don't know much about cinema before 1980.

Perhaps 50 years from now Nocturnal Animals will be praised as a masterpiece and 2016 a wonderful year for art.

Probably, because the way we're going, I don't see much hope for humanity, in general. In fact, I don't think there will even be movies in 50 years, at least in the form that we know them. And I'm not joking. The good news is that we're not gonna be alive until then. Or may be too old to care.

But let's not discourage too much, eh...?

Sorry, I can't do otherwise with what I see around me. I was a teenager in the '90s, and although we also were listening and watching new stuff that the older ones would call as rubbish, we knew about the old good stuff. All of my friends new and dug '60s rock and movies. Today, I see teenagers and kids in their '20s on You Tube and they don't know s--t, even for the VERY basic stuff. Watch this video, and tell me not to get discouraged. And these are not just a bunch of random clueless kids... This IS the generation of 2010.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7SXMdhFmHc

And you tell me that young people today can appreciate a '70s movie? Yeah, ok, take one of these kids in the video, and tell him/her to watch "Barry Lyndon"... Or Coppola's "The Conversation"... They will turn them off in FIVE minutes. I remember I tried to watch "Blade Runner" with a teenager a few years ago, and she got bored in TWO minutes. (And ok, now with the sequel coming, MAYBE some of them will get encouraged to watch the old one, but whatever, I just used an example!:p).
So how can I not get discourage if today's kids don't recognize even "Lethal Weapon" or "Beverly Hills Cop" or "Die Hard"?? "Ooooh, that oooold movie with the black and white cop...". Back in my days, even if you were blind and deaf, you would know about these movies! So, if young people today don't even recognize these insanely famous movies from the "ancient" times of the 1980s, how can they not appreciate what comes today? It's like you've never heard a song in your life, and someone puts you to listen one of Taylor Swift's catchy hits, what will you say? That it's the best song you've EVER heard of! Right?

And it's ironic, because my generation didn't have Internet, and still, we were managing to discover the good old stuff. Now, with all that endless power of knowledge of Internet, best case, the kids know just a bunch of old hits, and that's it.

Bottomline is that up until one point, I'll say up until my generation, people knew about the old good stuff. Now, in the era of Facebook and Twitter and Instagram, kids just don't care man. Because their time and mind is being occupied with selfies and likes and making videos of make-up tutorials and "what's in my bag?" and all that crap. There is so much space in a human brain. Probably if my generation had all this crap, and smartphones and tablets etc., we would be wasted too (well, we were wasted, but in a different sense...). But we din't have all these, we didn't even have mobile phones, so we had more time and desire to discover things, GOOD things. Now, all this obsession with Twitter and Instagram and You Tube stars like PewDiePie have destroyed a WHOLE generation. You disagree? If yes, please think again.

Wait... Are we still in the "Nocturnal Animals" board? What's PewDiePie has to do with it? I think I went a bit too far!

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Why did Ford throw all this symbolism in there . . ?

David Lynch did the something similar with Barry Gifford's Wild At Heart - which is particularly interesting since several posters have seen strong comparisons between the two films' Bobby Peru and Bobby Andes.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

David Lynch did the something similar with Barry Gifford's Wild At Heart

LOL

[–] RoloTomassi777 7 years ago

I haven't watch Wild at Heart. If it's Willem Dafoe then I'll definitely must put it on my must-watch list. Usually a cryptic movie like this requires me to relate with other movies like the great gatsby or revolutionary road or inception in order for me to get similar feelings. Unless I've been through similar trials like the director or author have been through I won't know what they feel or how to relate to them as Ford pointed alot of the movie is actually autobiographical about him. So I don't know. I never been a successful fashion designer cum director I don't go through similar trials as him.

Regarding the metaphors in the movie for me it's like a narration by iconography because the images somehow open up all wound in Susan. You can't have Susan narrating like Nick Carraway in the Great Gatsby about the book. That would be awkward. That's why we have her traversing around the gallery and musing on the art around her house mulling about her past.

That's why it's different from the actual book because Austin Wright using different prose for Susan and for Tony. Some people may say it's rubbish prose but actually I think it's intentional to reflect different perspectives from different characters. And Tom Ford prohibited his actors from reading the original source because they deviate too far because the movie stands on its own. But he did encourage people to read the original book.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

I haven't watch Wild at Heart. If it's Willem Dafoe then I'll definitely must put it on my must-watch list.

Dafoe's performance in Wild At Heart is riveting. Although the film isn't my favorite Lynch, I'd still give it a 9.5 rating, along with Lost Highway, Blue Velvet, Inland Empire etc. IMO only Mulholland Drive earns the 10 - every frame and line is perfect in that one.
FWIW I don't think Nocturnal Animals is a masterpiece, but I do think it's much deeper than a simple revenge story. It seems Ford saw the potential in an undistinguished messy novel and turned it into something much more profound. Personally I would have admired it more if the novel's abduction and revenge sequence had become more nuanced and mysterious.

[–] RoloTomassi777 7 years ago

I don't think Nocturnal Animals is a masterpiece, but I do think it's much deeper than a simple revenge story.

As I've mentioned in my previous post one interviewer concluded why Edward didn't turn up was because of revenge. And you get that wounded face from Ford. It's not literal revenge he said it was more like Edward was using that visceral feeling and turn it to make a powerful novel.

As far as being a masterpiece I don't think so. I wish Ford had tweak the inner story like he did with the outer story.

Edit: I must've misheard him. The interviewer mentioned revenge was at the heart of the film. Ford said yes it was literal revenge. But I think he meant for the inner story not the outer story. But what the outer mean is more like a revenge through metaphors or poisoning through a pun. When we talked about the language of revenge there are different types there are literal and there are figurative. Violent and non-violent. Like a sports team talking about a payback to avenge a loss to a rival team. Some revenge are crafty but fatal. Like poison being the women's choice of weapon. In this case since Edward is 'weak' his weapon of choice may not be through physical contact but rather revenge through art. But I rather think he used that visceral feeling of revenge to craft a novel. That was what Ford said.

but revenge is literally the painting in the film. In case someone is not figuring it out. But revenge is Susan's regret. It make her look back "Oh this is what I did to you and I'm sorry"

When he said in case someone is not figuring it out that is him saying obviously. I take it he purposefully put the revenge painting there so that audience won't get lost trying to figure out the meaning of all those symbolism. When people said he failed to communicate the message to the audience I think he just did. He communicate it through art. I'm afraid it is really as simple as that. And the tagline "hold on to someone you love" is really a no brainer. However the style of filming isn't really a novelty as you mentioned it Wild at Heart already did that. So it is not really a masterpiece at all far from it. Hey it's only been what like his second film I'll cut him some slack. Given the fact that the original source wasn't that much to work on. The writing is a bit daft and odd at times. For example:

When that young Susan on Edward's bed saw Arnold Morrow's alarming penis suddenly come into view with swollen purpose, she heard a gong in her head. She heard another soon after, when she decided to let it in.

I don't see how can it be a masterpiece or end up as a classic given the fact that the characters seemed to be one-dimensional. Bobby Andes was just looking to capped some delinquents. I don't hold any particular fondness toward Susan's ordinary suburban lifestyle. Seems like a boring and uninteresting group of people.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

But I think he meant (revenge) for the inner story not the outer story. But what the outer mean is more like a revenge through metaphors or poisoning through a pun.

IMO there's zero element of revenge in the outer story. At one point Susan suspects there's some kind of threatening intent contained in the novel, but by the time she's agreed to the dinner meeting, she's realized it's an allegory about Edward's grief at their divorce. Sitting in the restaurant, she understands it also sends a message about his imminent death from cancer.
As others have also pointed out, the idea of Edward seeking revenge through his dinner no-show is pathetically juvenile. The concept of him making peace with her before dying is mature, beautiful and backed up by plot elements in the novel. That's a story worth telling - it could have been done better though.

[–] RoloTomassi777 7 years ago

allegory about Edward's grief at their divorce.

Exactly allegory is perfect way to put it. I agree also if we take the abortion out of the story like in the original source revenge is completely out of the picture. But still the idea of him having cancer if we look at it literally then it will also mean he is blind in real life because in the inner story he was blind as well. If he was blind in the book as a reflection of his current state in real life how can he write those text message to Susan. I think his story means nothing more than metaphors of his relationship with Susan. I wish it was according to your theory but I don't think Ford meant it to be that way. Yeah it could have been done better. The inner story could use more depth. It could be more cryptic and convoluted like Memento where he leaves messages for his future self like how Edward used metaphors to leave a trail of clues about the journey of their relationship for his reason for not showing up. But it's not. Edward no-show or current state is not really a Da Vinci Code that needs to be cracked.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

But still the idea of him having cancer if we look at it literally then it will also mean he is blind in real life because in the inner story he was blind as well.

I think it's easy to see how the 'blindness' symbolism translates into Edward's real life. Initially he was blind to Susan's romantic interest in him - later to her insecurities, her infidelity, her abortion, as well as his own shortcomings, both as a husband and writer. With good reason, blindness is a pretty common metaphor for the human condition.

I wish it was according to your theory but I don't think Ford meant it to be that way.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CineasteWest 7 years ago

To answer your question, there is NOTHING great about this film. It's lousy.

It's as if it was penned by a second year NYU film students who had a flash that he could create a parallel structure to create something brilliant and new, a PARALLEL STRUCTURE, I should say that in all caps, because that's as subtle as the screenplay is. I don't think I've ever seen a more flaccid attempt at trying something "different" in my life. Using a PARALLEL STRUCTURE is hardly a new idea and it's so poorly implemented as to make me think it should forever be eradicated by the Directors Guild of American to prevent it happening again.

The number one failure of this film is DON'T TRY TO TELL TWO STORIES IF THEY'RE NOT BOTH EQUALLY INTERESTING. There was a fairly recent British film where a writer is investigating a historical romance found in a series of letters, and that was tied to her own love story. Unfortunately, and as exactly what happens in "Noctural Animals" is that one story is fairly intriguing while the other is dull, so one instinctively starts reaching for that FAST FORWARD BUTTON IN ONE'S MIND to skip the doldrums.

That was exactly what happened with Noctural Animals with me. I gave the film a good hour to convince me that Amy Adam's melancholy baths (and baths, and baths, and baths) were somehow going to be ingeniously shadowed by the parallel story that the film would click at some point. However it never clicks. Adam's mundane story slowly became more and more of a roadblock to the interesting (if cliched) advances of the crime story so instead of creating a sense of intrigue, all that's created is a sense restlessness.

Directorially, don't think I've ever more amateurish attempt at linking transitions in my life. There must have been twenty of them. Jake Gyllenhall takes a shower, cut to Adams in the shower. Adams wake up from a dream, cut Jake wakes up from a dream. OKAY WE GET IT ALREADY. Absolute overkill and lazy, lazy direction. David Lean would be rolling over in his grave.

If the film showed any real originality, I might call it a failed experiment. But as I can't even credit the film with a smidgen of originality for its amateurish PARALLEL STRUCTURE 101, and so I can only call it is a lousy, no, TWO lousy films.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Thanks CineasteWest, it's good to know that there are others who found this film pointless.

I may gonna repeat myself, but the Texas story, as a story itself, was so cliche, and uninteresting. Another revenge story in the modern wild West. I'm so sick of seeing actors playing redneck rapists/murders, and get credit because they look so creepy and bad, and evil Taylor-Johnson's performance was so indifferent. Yeah, ok, give him credit for being a Brit and making a good Texan accent. But other than that, that character had nothing interesting on him. Nothing. He was a completely empty character. And worst of all, that character was't even "real", he didn't exist. And he won a Golden Globe...

The main (but shorter) story had material to be interesting. Like I said, the first 5 minutes of the movie really intrigued me. I felt like I was watching a modern Hitchcock movie. They could have made a really interesting erotic thriller with her being "possessed" by her old lover, and cheat on her husband, and her old lover becoming so obsessed with her and all that. Yeah, ok, things we've seen before, but they could make it interesting. And instead, we saw the boring Texas story.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

This mirrors my experience and thoughts watching the film exactly--in particular that both narratives needed to be equally compelling (or even compelling at all) and steadily becoming more disinterested as the 'revelations' fell into place. And just how many cross-fade ablutions do we need to establish parallelism?

[–] fifthquartile 7 years ago

I liked the movie, but that opening scene seemed cruel and abusive. I kept wondering what those poor women thought about being treated like that. I did not like it at all, it seemed like mean fat shaming for the shock effect. I felt really bad for those women. There was no reason for that at all.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

I didn't feel bad for them since they agreed to do it, and they got paid. Nobody forced them. But it was an awkward scene to watch.

[–] fifthquartile 7 years ago

Well all I expect from a movie is to entertain me, make me think and keep my attention. This movie did that. The story and the characters made me care. I rooted for some, felt sadness for others, loathed and feared a few and wished they were dead. I think maybe you make things too complicated.

As for the obese ladies at the beginning, I read the screenwriter explain they were supposed to represent everything disgusting that America had become. Overfed, gluttonous and disgusting. That made me mad. How would you like to be one of the ladies he exploited and be told that they represent everything that is disgusting about America. This written by a gay man that complains about how gays are treated. Bashing gay men is wrong but fat shaming obese women is art ? What a jerk.

I wonder what he would think of having a bunch of fat gay men dancing naked at the beginning of a film and the director saying that it represents everything that is disgusting about America.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

Righto.

If the beginning featured obese "bears" to make such a statement, he'd likely decry the state of homophobia and offer some platitudes about "community."

Then on his gay online 'dating' profile state "No fats or fems. Just a preference."

Then he'd speak of gay people as though they were beyond reproach because they were "born that way"--as if there were something morally wrong with ANY person choosing to sleep with whatever gender or sexuality they wanted.

His use of the obese ladies in the beginning was another jab at the middle-American masses, which he tellingly views as slovenly, disgusting, stupid, and backwards. His contempt for those who are not of his elite-liberal ilk is palpable.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

His use of the obese ladies in the beginning was another jab at the middle-American masses, which he tellingly views as slovenly, disgusting, stupid, and backwards.

Well, if truth be told, the middle-American masses are: "slovenly, disgusting, stupid, and backwards" - as well as obese gluttons. Your own complacent boasts about mastering basic grammar are a sign of low US standards - not high ones.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

Tigerfish, why are you antagonizing me? Can you just relax and not take everything so personally, please?

I said that bit about spelling and grammar on another post, in another forum, because that's how people invalidate others' arguments, rather than dealing with the content of the argument itself. So I told you to comb my words for errors because that's right next door to the ad hominems you launch at me for God-knows-what-reason. I wasn't being complacent or boasting. Please stop mischaracterizing my words and intentions.

***

[back to the discussion]

If, as you say, middle-Americans are these disgusting blobs, then what is the point of this not-so-subtle criticism by Ford? And later, if this exhibit, and the Damien Hurst-esque Sebastian cow, and the revenge painting are slightly-more-subtle ways of indicating that art (i.e., via Edward's manuscript) have insinuated themselves into Susan's life and psyche--that Edward has actually awakened Susan to their power rather than their function as ornaments in an empty, surface existence--do we really need the low-blow jab in the first place?

'Fat-people-as-art' is just another cultural shorthand as 'nonsense Abstract-Expressionism drip paintings' used to be when symbolizing the emptiness and pretension of contemporary art.

It's actually a low-brow way of attacking high-brow pretension--which is a technique that would register to the very low-brow disgusting blobs he exploits.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Tigerfish, why are you antagonizing me?

I recommend you pay attention to your hypersensitivity. You do some shallow speculating about the opening titles, and then attack Ford's thinking based on your facile conclusions. OTOH you take it personally and start bleating when your conclusions are challenged.
As far as I'm concerned, the titles herald what was to follow - a masquerade - while also critiquing the vacuous excesses of contemporary art - junk, as Susan describes it. I would imagine Ford is progressive politically, but the film is entirely apolitical, apart from its message that materialism leads to a dead end. Your obsession with Ford's supposed insult to middle America reminds me of Don Quixote's farcical quarrel with the windmills.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

You do some shallow speculating about the opening titles, and then attack Ford's thinking based on your facile conclusions. OTOH you take it personally and start bleating when your conclusions are challenged.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Besides, you haven't substantively challenged a single thing I've ever written; you've only offered your own opinions and tried to legitimate them by denigrating those with whom you disagree.

And considering you wrote something like this...

Well, if truth be told, the middle-American masses are: "slovenly, disgusting, stupid, and backwards" - as well as obese gluttons. Your own complacent boasts about mastering basic grammar are a sign of low US standards - not high ones.

...are you at once conceding that Ford's is a critique of the vacuous excesses of contemporary art via disgusting fat ladies, and then in the next breath denying that he's drawing parallels between these excesses? Are you willing to shift your argument, to the point of self-contradiction...just to attack lil ol me?



"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

His use of the obese ladies in the beginning was another jab at the middle-American masses, which he tellingly views as slovenly, disgusting, stupid, and backwards. His contempt for those who are not of his elite-liberal ilk is palpable.

These are your ugly words, your ugly interpretation and your ugly projection of what Ford intended. You happen to be wrong - something which appears to happen frequently. Ford has asserted the women represent a counterfoil to Susan's obsession with appearances: joy, liberation, exultation, contentment.
Apparently, as far as you're concerned, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. Others have seen the same tendency in you - it must be tough to live with that negativity.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

Yes, I read that article too. But I don't think that Ford can have it both ways. I don't think that he can use these women as a cynical comment on the vacuous excesses of contemporary art (as you and I both claim), and then at the same time uphold the subjects of this art as somehow joyful, liberating, exultant, and content. In other words, you can't really use fat people as shock value to suggest the emptiness of shock value, and then when interviewed by a women's magazine, make it out to be some all-inclusive Dove commercial. Seems like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

So you may be correct in the sense that I went too far in my criticism of Ford, but I don't think you're accurate in your Johnny-come-lately uncritical acceptance of what he claims was his intention--the "beautiful" aspect of your trust in Ford's intentions notwithstanding.

When you say that "others have seen the same [ugly] tendency in you," (the irony is real), are you speaking of those who accuse me of internalized homophobia? Or are you merely trying to bolster your argument by claiming that since others believe me to be negative, it therefore must be true? Like, when so many others view this film's central theme as revenge...viewers you refer to as village idiots.

And does being negative, and living a miserable life, invalidate in any way what I observed of Ford's usage of these models? And if it turns out that I'm not negative, and that everyone else is wrong, and that my life is quite joyous as a fat woman who gets more play than I can count on my chubby, Vienna sausage-like toes, does this mean that your argument is meaningless?

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

And why do you insist on bringing me back to comment on this mediocre and tedious film?

I like these little exchanges we have, but couldn't you attack me elsewhere for my comments on films that are actually good?

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

Honestly what is there to argue over? It's not like this movie was complicated. It was a simple straight forward story told in a unique way. The only part for speculation is the ending. Why did Edward stand her up? I think it he was being spiteful.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

There's absolutely nothing to argue about. LOL

Tigerfish just responds to my posts and insults me to be spiteful. It's growing on me.

And yes, I agree with you about the film's narratives not being complicated at all. The novel Tony and Susan was really a meditation on novels (i.e., self-conscious postmodern literature) that was made into a pseudo-thriller. To this end, Edward standing her up certainly was spiteful, but a rather natural conclusion to Ford's attempt to bring the story to the screen. While some people see the end as anti-climactic and elliptical, I see it as beating a dead horse.

(Incidentally, at the end of the novel Tony and Susan, Susan contacts Edward but he never responds. Then she writes some thoughtful criticism [she's an English professor] and then throws it away, instead sending him a note which says that if he wants to meet and hear her thoughts, she's open.)

That would never play on the screen--hence the parallel symbolism and infinitely less subtle "revenge" aspect that Tom Ford injects into the story.

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

Which character did you relate to more- Susan or Edward? I kind of related to them both. Me having aspirations and dreams that weren't supported or having been criticised by my love ones and Susan's affluent lifestyle and pressure to fit in with her family.

Certainly all elements make a great drama I just felt that the focus on Susan's reactions to the content in the novel took too much time. Perhaps having her do something more interesting besides lying in bed alone reading. I felt it repetitive. They already established that karma of Susan was a lonely wife married to a cheating husband. Instead I was yearning for more cutscenes from Edward's novel.
Amy's acting was kind of weak as well. The emotional connection that I felt for her was from her situation and not from her dramatic acting. I get that Susan was cold and aloof woman though. The character was just boring and one dimensional.

More scenes with Edward would have really set strong empathy towards him and made the ending more satisfying since that's the direction the plot took.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

I related to them both too, and saw them as more of a whole (a "marriage")--but at the same time, ultimately, I couldn't relate to either. I was a grad student at Columbia as well, and the glamorous lives they lived, and the kinds of "problems" they had, were just so out-there for me as to have a distancing effect that I just couldn't get over.

And yes, I agree that the focus on Susan just felt out of place (although this would work as being central to the novel Tony and Susan, for reasons I mentioned before.) There's something about it that just didn't translate that well onto film, especially given our automatic tendency to compare the two narratives. According to my understanding, the novelist of Tony and Susan made zero allegorical connections between Edward/Susan's marriage and the story in the manuscript--which kind of makes it more interesting to me. It becomes more about raw emotion as experienced through language than some exercise in seeing what matches up with what.

Susan's life was just so...dull. She's a sad rich girl who has everything and yet who has nothing. Boo hoo. I think the biggest mistake with this film was not making her relatable or likeable enough for us to identify with her--which would have carried with it the danger of making Edward's manuscript damaging for us. On the other hand, if he made Susan really hateful, none of us would tolerate her scenes at all. Amy Adams was maybe a bad choice for the role, and I can't tell if it's her acting that's mostly the problem or the problematic/indecisive direction.

When reading the novel, we're automatically placed in Susan's shoes by virtue of we being the ones reading Edward's manuscript; we don't have to identify with Susan (as we do when watching the film) and also endure her reactions when we might not much care for her in the first place. It's very removed in the film; Susan being cold means a cold and distanced viewer--whereas the medium of the written text bypasses that altogether and yet STILL gives us a sense of Susan as a character. The director doesn't go far enough to make us coldly examine and reflect on the self-consciousness of the film either: he wants to make it a straightforward thriller, but with some aspects of postmodern literature, and ends up doing neither well.

And for me, maybe more scenes with Tony, not necessarily Edward, would have been better. But I think Ford was careful and thoughtful in giving us a zoomed-out picture of the two (or three? Edward-Tony and Tony-Susan?) of them interacting solely through the medium of the manuscript--with the cost being, as you say, a less satisfying ending because no strong allegiances could be made towards either by the viewer.

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

As for the obese ladies at the beginning, I read the screenwriter explain they were supposed to represent everything disgusting that America had become. Overfed, gluttonous and disgusting.

Did he really mean that? Maybe he meant that that was what Susan wanted to say by making these videos? Maybe there is a deleted scene where she explains this. If it's the character's point of view, it's ok, but if it's his, then he's a jerk, as you said.
Yes, those bodies were ugly, but saying that they represent the "disgusting" side of America is worst and more demeaning than many things that even Trump would say.
And yes, some people can become fat because they're gluttonous and stupid for not caring about their health, but if I'm not mistaken, it can be a biological factor. Just like being gay.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

I read the screenwriter explain they were supposed to represent everything disgusting that America had become. Overfed, gluttonous and disgusting. That made me mad.

Where did you read this? Because I heard him say exactly the opposite.
In any case, America is "overfed, gluttonous and disgusting". You don't get to be world champion in obesity without over-indulging somewhat.

[–] Oskiros-Arg 7 years ago

The movie is pure trash, no sense violence.

Oscar
Hablo mejor español :)