MovieChat Forums > SlackerInc > Replies
SlackerInc's Replies
Okay, as of two years ago I apparently didn't agree. At this point I remember very little about the movie, including the basic plot.
Huh.
Why would you ask? I didn't say anything about young girls in the movie.
Cover definitely has major comedy vibes.
Fair.
I have never been to India, but there were still aspects of the portrayal of the country and its people that made me cringe a bit while watching. I don't agree with blanket prohibitions of "cultural appropriation" in all contexts, because blending cultures is a natural and positive aspect of human society--when done respectfully. So Peter Gabriel and Paul Simon incorporating "world music" elements into their albums, totally cool by me. David Bowie with the satirical "Asian" motif in the song "China Girl", maybe not such a great idea.
And this whole movie was so lightweight, it comes across like a lark. Which makes the Orientalism in it a little sketchy, because it really does use India as a prop, kind of a goof.
Sure, Anderson plays with his settings in a lighthearted way across his filmography. But I think the OP nailed it in the above comment:
"If Anderson wants to make a fairy-tale NYC for Tennenbaums, that's cool. An American audience can easily tell that it's not realistic, and as an American he's free to do that. But in this day and age, when you use a foreign country and it's religion and culture as a major part of your film, you need to show some respect. Part of showing respect is getting at least a few details right. Not doing that is called Orientalism, or racism."
So if someone is going to make a movie that mocks India and Indians, it probably ought to be a South Asian person, not a white American who is doing it all like ": "Duuude, check out how weird this place is, lol".
Yeah, it's weird the things we didn't notice then, and don't remember now.
If you rewatch, come back and reply here, I'd be curious to hear what you think.
I mean, here's the publisher's blurb for the Nick Hornsby book: "Nick Hornby's High Fidelity is the brilliant story of one man's journey of self-discovery. When Rob - a 35-year-old record shop owner and music obsessive - is dumped by Laura, he indulges in some casual sex, a little light stalking and some extreme soul-searching in the form of contacting every ex-girlfriend who ever broke his heart. An instant classic, High Fidelity is a hilarious exploration of love, life, music and the modern male."
As for the movie, here's a scene where Laura's new boyfriend confronts him for "ten phone calls a night, hanging around outside my house" (which he doesn't deny):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycukyN56gIo
I'd say that qualifies--some might argue that it's not even "light" or "low key" stalking. I think we can still root for him as a character because young single guys who get their hearts broken can get like that (I know I did once upon a time), and as long as they are not using or threatening violence, we ought to cut them some slack. But as I say, in the 2020's that kind of thing doesn't fly anymore.
I just think this makes practically everything other than "Schindler's List" a comedy. It's just too broad a definition.
Like I said, a few funny moments--but overall, not really a comedy.
Right? That set decorator did an incredible job.
Haha, good point.
Though maybe lesbians aren't grossed out by them like I thought?
I tried asking about this, very respectfully, on Reddit and got banned by the sub dedicated to the movie. Yet even on an NPR podcast, the very progressive women discussing the movie said that they found this confusing (though they acknowledged that they themselves were not "queer" so maybe there was something they were missing).
Interesting that they shot it so differently. Sounds like the director wanted to leave it more ambiguous what happened to them. He also presumably directed them to look confused and kind of freaked out as they pulled into the parking ramp.
If they blended in right. A big "if", since they were slow to get out of the silver Impala the cops were looking for, we saw cop cars converge on that parking spot seconds later, and they were carrying duffel bags (if they were trying to get away with the loot).
One more thing it occurred to me to add has to do with his reputation in the criminal underworld. Obviously it doesn't look great for the people he drives to get busted. But what story are other criminals going to hear? "The two dudes in the back seat got picked up by the cops, but the driver was in the wind." The proof is in the pudding: he got away clean, so they could have too--but once it was no longer about driving but about walking, they failed and he did not. Not his problem, not his fault.
The last point at which we see the two thieves is a shot of the back seat just as they've pulled into the parking ramp. They don't look steely-eyed, ready to spring into action. They look kind of freaked out and a bit confused about what's going on. Then when the driver parks, we can't see the back seat but it sure doesn't look like those back doors open at the same time he gets out. Then just a few seconds after he has walked away from the car, cop cars converge on the area where he parked. To me, it doesn't look promising for them but it's left ambiguous, which is a nice touch.
I think you are stubbornly overlooking nuances in the script and direction here. The driver is extremely competent, yes: but he also lays out very clear boundaries of what is and is not his responsibility. "Anything happens in that five minute window, I'm yours. No matter what. Anything happens a minute on either side of that, you're on your own. You understand?"
Now, this does not technically, literally apply to the point when they get to the arena. But the dynamic has been laid down. He will do his job to the utmost, and get them to a place where they have every chance of escaping if they act just as professionally and competently as he does. But they are "on their own" after he parks the car. It's not his problem. It's not his job to hold their hands at that point--he never looked back. And I just don't think they looked like they were up to the task. They were not as highly skilled as he is. That doesn't make HIM a Will Ferrell buffoon! That's on them.
And don't forget, one of the two masked burglars (or perhaps robbers: the police radio said "shots were fired") was very slow to exit the building they robbed. His partner was sitting there like "C'mon, c'mon, where are you man?!?" If that second guy had gotten out as quickly as the first one did, maybe they make a clean getaway right from the beginning and there's no real drama. The driver can just drop them off wherever they had originally agreed to (I've got to think the arena was an emergency backup plan for if things went pear-shaped).
I mean, they're definitely going to stand out. The cops are looking for burglars, and duffel bags are something burglars would carry but no one else at a ball game is going to be carrying them. That doesn't mean they will definitely get caught if they don't just ditch the bags, because as you said there's an ocean of people. But the driver is much better situated, with his cap and no bag. Not to mention that although we didn't see what ultimately happened to the burglars, we did see that they were acting more like they were caught flatfooted, and did not jump out of the car (which the cops definitely had identified) nearly as fast and smoothly as the driver did. He acted like the pro he is, and nothing we saw from them made them seem like anything but amateurs over their heads.
Another good analysis.
I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at, but I felt on a rewatch that the ending suggests Stephane and Camille may yet still get together at some point. I had incorrectly remembered it as a sort of final goodbye, but he says he will "bien sur" come and see her when she plays in Paris, and then they have a somewhat long kiss on the lips, not just a friendly "bise".