MovieChat Forums > MovieMadness > Replies
MovieMadness's Replies
The Arrow Blu-ray has a 22-minute blow-by-blow explanation of the plot and themes. It says the boar signifies (1) the beastial nature of the villains, and (2) forbidden flesh for the Jews, who traditionally don't eat pork. And it points out resemblance to other sources, from Silent Hill (woman finding dream visions in a sleepy town) to The Shining (man haunted by visions in a off-season hotel).
The baby may look like this based on the book's description: https://i.imgur.com/uSrvS81.jpg . Unnerving to see, but not too horrifying that Rosemary wouldn't show motherly love for.
A couple of exceptions I can think of that avoid the "magical confession" cliché are David Fincher's Zodiac and Clint Eastwood's Changeling. These two are fact-based dramas, so they have stick to what really occurred in the real-life events on which they were based: no confessions.
The early 90s TV series Homicide has an early episode that shows an interrogation in its entirety, with two detectives trying to break down a suspect to obtain a confession; but the suspect never confesses. When I first saw it I thought it was refreshing, because we so often saw otherwise.
My very first thought when I saw that scene was that the old couple were just some people Betty had met on the plane. On long plane flights you often become friendly with a fellow passenger or two. They showed up at the end of the movie because Irene had told her, "I'll be watching for you!"
All the theories about them being Diane's "psyche" or whatever doesn't seem to match the rest of her dream in which all the characters in her dream were based on REAL PEOPLE. So it's safe to assume the old couple did exist and did meet Diane in real life at some point.
The moment when we saw the old couple grinning strangely in a car seems to confirm that they were just briefly acquainted with Diane. When you meet someone briefly, you only have a limited impression of them. Maybe the only impression Diane had of them was that of a happy smiling couple. If you dream about people like James Dean or Marilyn Monroe you always picture them as they were young and glamorous, because you never saw them any other way.
Some people WANT to believe certain things, which compromises their logical thinking.
Still, "UFOs Are Real" was one the first things (or maybe the first) that made Roswell a household name. This film has a place in history because of that.
A Tale of Two Sisters and Mulholland Dr. are "art house" films that use a more heightened sense of style (unusual camera work, editing, music, etc.) than mainstream thriller/mystery/horror films. The Uninvited, like The Sixth Sense, The Others, etc., are basically mainstream creations with mainstream camera work, editing, music, etc., which mainstream viewers are used to seeing. Mainstream art is art too, so I'm not knocking that -- the same way pop music and obscure avant-garde music are both art.
1 and 2: Her being in the hospital is the last thing that happens. The events in the movie all occur prior to that.
3. Yes, the stepmother was indirectly responsible for the deaths. We can assume she also feels some guilt later, as she sees Su-yeon's ghost near the end of the film. The people who see strange things in the film all suffer from mental trauma of various degrees. The film's director is clear about this in the DVD/Blu-ray audio commentary: the film is not so much about the supernatural, but mental illness. Su-mi suffers the most, and she sees things practically all the time. The stepmom and the sister-in-law (who sees a ghostly being under the kitchen sink) also feel the trauma but perhaps to a less extent.
4. The deleted scene titled "Poison" explains how Su-mi kills herself. She wants to poison the stepmom by injecting poison into her stepmom's medication. But the stepmom is HERSELF! So by taking the poisoned pills, she kills herself. The director's commentary says that subconsciously, the guilt-stricken Su-mi wants to punish herself.
5. I agree it is in bad taste to bring the stepmother's family members into the house when the girl's mother is still upstairs feeling distraught. We can assume the sister-in-law also feels some guilt, and may also even be a witness to the ensuing deaths on that fateful day. That may have traumatized her, resulting in her later convulsing on the floor and seeing a ghost under the kitchen sink.
This film is a bit like Mulholland Dr. in that only repeat viewings would clarify the various strange occurrences. When Su-Mi walks alone in the woods and looks back seemingly for no reason, we only find out why later. When Su-Mi rescues Su-Yeon in the wardrobe and says sobbingly, "Sorry, I didn't hear you!", we find out later why not being able to hear her sister was such a source of sadness for her. When Su-Mi sees a female ghost with a crooked neck, we know later why that is.
Mulholland Dr. also does this kind of things. We hear the line "That is the girl!" repeatedly early on, and later we know why that line is significant to the protagonist. We find out why the strange cowboy is significant. We find out why the women walk through a shortcut in a wooded area. Both films are about a distraught young woman's guilt-stricken self-reflection. Both films present a subjective vision that presents past events, dialog, feelings, etc. as an obtuse, oblique series of seemingly random clues that would only make sense when the viewer, like the protagonist, think back on the same events in hindsight.
My take is that all the strange occurrences are subjective visions by people with mental trauma or illness. When the sister-in-law convulses on the floor and sees a ghostly being under the kitchen sink, she is likely suffering from mental trauma because she, too, was a witness to the tragedy on that fateful day. When the stepmother is supposedly attacked by Su-yeon's ghost, she is having a mental breakdown as well; she is likely feeling the same guilt as Su-Mi. Both the sister-in-law and the stepmother probably have less severe illness than Su-Mi, as they sometimes see visions and sometimes don't. The only sane person is the father, who never sees any strange visions. Of course, Su-Mi is the sickest person as she sees things practically all the time. One would think the father should be the one feeling the greatest sorrow and guilt. But I guess, as in real life, some people are less affected by traumas than others.
The Shining has a similar feel, in that basically the whole family is able to shine, since all 3 people (Jack, Wendy, and Danny) see ghosts as some point. I see The Shining being also about a troubled family's mental turmoil manifesting as strange visions.
You'll find similar themes in the horror films The Other (1972, directed by Robert Mulligan of "To Kill a Mockingbird" fame) and The Others (2002, starring Nicole Kidman). But stylistically, A Tale of Two Sisters makes me think of Mulholland Dr. (2001). The dream-like scenes, the subjective viewpoints, a young woman's guilt-stricken self-reflection, all remind me of that David Lynch film.
I watched this on a Blu-ray with a beautifully restored picture. The Blu-ray is all-region and made by a company in UK, where the film is called "Never Take Sweets From a Stranger" ( https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Never-Take-Sweets-from-a-Stranger-Blu-ray/283536/ ). Ironically no one says "sweets" in the movie, as it is set in Canada.
The film definitely feels modern. The strong ensemble acting, the thriller elements, and the social indictment aspect, all make me feel this would be something Clint Eastwood would tackle if he made this kind of film today. The film makes me think of Changeling (2008) or Mystic River, in which we not only get a crime story, but also powerful depiction of the social mores and the attitude of the time.
In the novel, it is also not clear if he is her father. The theme of the story is "make believe" -- the two characters often just pretend to be father and daughter while conning other people with their make-believe schemes. The "Paper Moon" song is about make believe. Another great film that year (1973), "The Sting", is, of course, also about cons and make-believes.
Doesn't look like the episodes are out of order here: https://tubitv.com/series/300007076/family?start=true . Seasons and episodes are well organized, with subtitles to boot. Those YouTube uploads are likely EDITED for reruns too. There are tons of channels like Tubi, Roku, Peacock, etc. with free content nowadays.
Early in the film, Rose hears chanting in a nearby apartment. So we know "the deed" is done nearby, not the basement.
Those YouTube uploads have lousy picture quality (240p, LOL) whereas Tubi has beautifully restored high definition picture. Tubi actually paid the studio, which was able to restore the show to its great visual quality. Those YouTube uploaders didn't pay anybody, so you get lousy picture in return. Good job.
He appealed to the ordinary folk who felt ignored and marginalized, which in itself was not a bad thing. But many of those people were so downtrodden in life that they had become fearful, angry, poorly educated, and susceptible to wild ideas -- a dangerous combination whose destructiveness was fully realized yesterday at the Capitol. A good president would guide these people with such a dangerous cocktail of negativity to a better, more enlightened attitude and mentality. But sadly, Trump inflamed it to an even more dangerous state.
If the economy were better, if more people lived better lives, there would be fewer people like these. Most of you don't go rampaging with pitchforks because you live comfortable lives, or if you have setbacks in life, you at least have hope and/or support from loved ones. But if you ever became so hopeless and angry and desperate to the point you felt you had "nothing to lose," you wouldn't be so sure you wouldn't become one of them too.
But there are many different kinds of history. The only kind that matters is scientific history, because science is built on objective truths, and new discoveries don't negate past discoveries. History that is built on "beliefs" is always subject to change.
And you seem to be out of ammo in this debate when you have to bring up a totally irrelevant topic. When you are out of arguments, it is commonly known as LOSING an argument in a debate.
Whether it was deemed progressive back then no longer matters. The social mores at that time was only relevant to the people ALIVE at that time. The people alive now determine what the social mores is, always has, always will.
A movie can be looked at in WHICHEVER way any person wants to look at it. This is why art exists. Nobody "owns" an art or how to think about it. It's REALLY ironic the way you people object to certain ways of judging this movie when in fact you are doing the exact same thing: judging it in a certain way, while not allowing it to be judged differently. You are allowed to judge it any way you want (just like the last 80 years), but you gotta to CONVINCE those who disagree with you that your judgment is better. But as time goes on, your way of thinking has been deemed outdated, and that's why this decision was made.
Btw, being young has the same danger as being old, my friend -- the danger of not being able to learn new insights and ideas. Some of you people have the stereotypical "you young punks, get off my lawn" kind of attitude. Why do old people have to conform to this stereotype?