MovieChat Forums > MovieMadness > Replies
MovieMadness's Replies
The only medical condition we should deplore here is hatred and intolerance, which is what you have. Even Pope Francis has said we should accept gay people and that homosexuality is not a sin. You think you know better than the Pope?
It doesn't "matter" whether the script "matters" or not. Tons of unproduced and/or unfilmmable scripts would indicate that. The person who decides how a script is used, whether it could be used, whether it is feasible (technically or logistically) to be filmed, how much of it is used or not used, etc., is the only person who matters. And that person is not the writer, unless he or she is also the director. This is not a knock on writers. This is just the nature of the business.
If someone brings in rotten vegetables, the chef doesn't just make bad salad. He or she goes through a decision-making process: should I cook something else, should I get new vegetables, should I fire the person who brought the rotten vegetables, etc. The chef does what a chef does, and DECIDES what the meal is going to be. That's my point. The person who brings in uncooked food doesn't decide anything.
"Minimizing" the writer may be a strong word, but I see writing as just another "raw material" used in the making of a film. Someone needs to create a nice melding of all the different material. Hence the saying: a great piece of work is better than the sum of its parts.
Regarding Shakespeare, I've seem markedly different portrayals in, for instance, Hamlet. In the 1948 Olivier film version, Polonius is played by the actor as a silly senile old fool. But in the 1996 Kenneth Branagh version, notice the cunning and intelligence the Polonius character is depicted. It is just like the Mulholland Drive auditions. Two actors can deliver very different portrayals by speaking the same lines. Writing as sublime as Shakespeare's doesn't change the fact that his works are meant not to be read on a page, but watched as it is performed by actors who use their own interpretations on how to play the roles. It is the *performances* (and stage direction too, probably) that determine his works' final worth.
The audition scenes in Mulholland Drive (2001, David Lynch) may illustrate why the writer is never in control in the film medium. In the first audition, the actresses say the lines and act in a cheesy, laughter-inducing manner. In the second audition, the actors say the exact same lines, but with a much higher level of acting, much more effective pacing, elocution, emotion, everything. A screenplay for a film is but one "raw material" used in the making of the film, the same way that food is the raw material for a chef. The person *handling* the screenplay or food is what counts. Yes, we can say Greene's or any writer's screenplay is great, but that in itself serves no purpose and is meaningless, just like uncooked food. I have great respect for film writers like any other film fans, of course. But the true medium for writers is on a page (or stage), where they are much more in control. In a novel, the writer communicates directly to us, with no one else standing in the way and affecting the writer's vision. Not so in the film medium.
Regarding changes to a shooting script, sometimes even a small change yields very different result. Even if no change occurs to the writing, it can still yield very different result, as illustrated above.
It's not a bad story per se, but a story "whose worth had yet to be determined" before the film was actually made. The final product is what counts. The story itself wasn't even intended for publication. Television is more of a writer's medium (but even that is iffy with TV shows becoming increasingly cinematic). But film is 90% a director's medium. A script or story may be considered great, but it will be modified, have content removed or added (often to the writer's dismay) 90% of the times by the director. When they give out awards to a screenplay, it is, of course, for the version that is actually shown on the screen; it is for the director-modified version of the screenplay, not for what the writer originally wrote. In other words, all your praises of Greene's story is kind of moot. His writing ability was not really used for writing here. His writing doesn't have to be perfect for the film to work. I agree the film still works even with the bit about the job. The film mentions "job" just once, doesn't dwell on it, and focuses our attention on Harry's death instead. But still, we could still amuse ourselves by wondering what that job really was!
But film is really a director's medium, not the writer's. A film often works in spite of the story, not because of it. Also, story is different from *story-telling*. The writer does the former, the director the latter. The latter is, of course, the more important job. A bad story or a questionable plot point can often be helped by good storytelling, which is what I think the case is here.
But why bring Holly to Vienna at all. Why bring over someone who would (and eventually does) muck up a nice operation you have going there. They are clearly not dear friends anymore. There is simply no need for them to see each other.
But it's possible that Harry asks Holly over so he could bump him off. Holly knows about his past and background, and Harry may see that as a danger to him. Harry probably wants to arrange an accident for Holly just like he did with Joseph Harbin. He thinks a gauche and naive guy like Holly "should be easy to get rid of," which Harry later says himself. Baron Kurtz and Dr. Winkel say "That's him" when they first see Holly at the cemetery, as if they are expecting him. Later, when Holly gets too suspicious, they chase him down and try to kill him the old-fashioned way. Harry twice ponders killing Holly himself. Once on the Ferris wheel. The other time is near the end when Anna warns Harry that the police is outside; Harry pulls out a gun and tells Anna to get out of the way, because she is standing in front of Holly! And that is why Holly kills him at the end with no qualms apparently. He knows Harry is clearly endangering him.
I don't think the film ends with a question, though. It is clear by that point that Anna will never reciprocate Holly's affection. She is TOO smart and worldly, and she thinks nothing of him. When Anna wonders why she is given back the passport and allowed to leave Vienna, notice her scene with Holly, where she sees Holly through a foggy train window, then sees through Holly's lies with tremendous ease. This is a SHARP woman, and she is way ahead of him in many ways and can't be interested in him.
Holly is unfamiliar with the place, the culture, everything, so he can't be good with anything Harry does, especially illegal activities. So I just can't see why Harry would think of Holly helping him with anything. It's just a strange set-up at the beginning. The sole purpose seems to be just to place a naive American in a cynical post-war wasteland, which does make for a good story. It might be more believable if Harry invited Holly over for a reunion of old friends, or if Holly went to Europe on his own to look for inspirations for his writing and/or to look up an old friend he hadn't seen in a long time. Greene could have picked any number of scenarios, but he picked "Harry's job" as the set-up, so he probably had his reasons.
The arm-chopping, rape, cult-like behavior, etc., shouldn't be taken verbatim. They are metaphors for something else, just like in Get Out, which is also full of absurd things like stirring a teacup, bizarre brain surgeries, etc., which all stand for something else -- something the filmmakers want to convey, but not directly. Some viewers tend to take everything in a film at face value. But a film doesn't always tell you things directly, the same way a novel or any fiction doesn't spell out everything. Sometimes a work of fiction speaks in code. Get Out does it very well, of course. This movie does it less well, but it is a nice attempt nonetheless. It deals with the theme of people physically hurting other people in order to control them and alter their thinking, whether the intention is good or bad. In that case, the arm-chopping fits right in. Are there better ways to treat these themes? Yes, of course. But first we must know that this film is mainly about inflicting physical harm, and adding a layer of meaning to it. Would something that makes more sense than arm-chopping work better? Yes of course. But the theme of bodily harm should remain in order to make the story work.
Except that this movie, as well as other good movies, is story-telling first, horror second. With Eli Roth, it is often horror first and story second (if there is any story to speak of). You can usually tell by the presence of well-known actors (or not), since good actors look for good scripts and stories, always.
The only thing imaginary is the rationale you came up with for rape victims who would lie. Oh they don't lie, oh they could lie, oh I didn't say they lie, oh I did say they had reasons to lie, LOL. The verbal hoops you jumped through simply shows you are not all there upstairs. And here you are posting long-winded posts lecturing everyone about everything. Sort out your personal issues, get your mind straight, then worry about debating about social issues.
It's not so much sickening, but poor film-making. In fact, that whole bus scene didn't come off too well. It was a little too long, with not much going on other than everybody acting hysterical. Camera work and editing failed to create the right feel. It was just an unexceptional scene. The scene was the first introduction of terror to the viewer, and it didn't make a good first impression. The rest of the movie was fine, however, with very effective editing, composition, acting, etc.
[quote]Beg you pardon? That's been my position long before this debate. If you're saying or suggesting otherwise, you're assigning to me (again) words or statements I haven't said or suggested.
>> There is "reasonable incentives" for ANYTHING to happen
Not at all. Sometimes there's incentives beyond reasonable, sometimes less than reasonable, many times incentives are negative.
Well, at least here you're not making up words I haven't said and assigning them to me. You're insulting me instead :D[/quote]
Again, EXACTLY. That was your position before, and it didn't support your argument about rape victims lying, and it STILL doesn't support it. You have YET to offer any convincing argument that supports it. That's commonly known as LOSING AN ARGUMENT, which you are too insecure and defensive to admit. Your only defensive mechanism is, "Hey, I didn't say it; you put words in my mouth." If that's your debating skill on display, no wonder your thought process is so convoluted.
That's the definition of "anything," buddy: incentives could be reasonable, less than reasonable, N times less reasonable, etc., etc.. You did nice a job covering all bases and demonstrating incentives could be ANYTHING. Bottom line: you DON'T KNOW what "reasonable incentives" there could be for rape victims to lie. All you have are unproven speculations resulted from your PERSONAL issues, beliefs, education, upbringing, etc. I have personal feelings too, and so does everyone else. But do you see me making wild unproven speculations?
YOU INSULTED YOURSELF with all these inane remarks that tell us more about yourself than anything. YOU INSULTED YOURSELF with defensive mechanisms such as "You put words in my mouth; that wasn't my argument" whenever you lose an argument.
The only complaint I see that is not valid for the situation is YOUR complaint, buddy.
Everyone who has made any complaint in the history of humankind did so because of their own PERSONAL reasons, wholly or in part.
Your complaints about this show being "political" and "special groups need protection" came from your PERSONAL feelings that you accumulated via your PERSONAL life, upbringing, and education. I didn't "assign" words to your comments; you assigned them yourself.
To make your personal beliefs valid to more people than you, you need convincing arguments, which you don't have.
Exactly, "we just don't know." Thank you for finally reaching that conclusion on your own. There is "reasonable incentives" for ANYTHING to happen, but you need PROOF. And as I said, the court of law is already set up to make lying rape victims unlikely. It is also set up to prevent incredibly obtuse people like you from causing any damage, such as not having you serve as a juror in a case like this. So continue with your paranoiac thought process that will affect no one but you.
But sometimes the cultural background IS the real situation.
Again, if someone's grievance doesn't involve you, don't feel slighted. And don't make up convoluted logic to dismiss it. Not everything good in this world has to involve you.
You need to understand that when a rape victim is not credible to you, that doesn't necessarily mean she "lied." Also, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The rape victim has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her attacker is guilty. So lying wouldn't do her much favor, and it could even have her put in jail, as depicted in the show. A weak case with an "unreliable" accuser probably wouldn't even make it to a trial.
You gotta realize that sometimes a disadvantaged group doesn't need protection, and sometimes it DOES. In some professions women outnumber men by 8 to 1, and in the NBA black men outnumber white men by N to 1. Why don't men (and white men in the latter case) complain? That's because even with the discrepancy they DON'T FEEL DISADVANTAGED, and that they feel they have the same opportunities (provided they have the abilities) to succeed in those fields. The point is, do you truly feel "disadvantaged" by someone or a group, or do you simply feel SLIGHTED when someone or a group offer to help others but not you?
But this show does make a great point that people don't really "lie" about being raped, in the sense that when someone makes such an accusation, she or he has been "violated" one way or another.
Similarly, your mind has likely been victimized in one way or another for you to resort to conspiracy theories to explain the motive of this TV show (and other things in your life as well, probably).
When someone's life is spiraling totally out of control, they often don't put on a likeable and affable appearance or demeanor. Marie was angry with the world and everyone, and tried to push everyone away. So the depiction you saw of her was the point. To humanize a person, you don't necessarily make him or her "likable." To humanize them, you show their truly feelings, their psychology, and show where those feelings are coming from.
We are shown many instances of police incompetence throughout the show: a knife not found, a lab test not double-checked, the bureaucracy, the lack of communication, etc., right down to the end where the FBI agent nearly missed the hidden panties. So we are told in no uncertain terms what the filmmakers' "take" about the police is. There is no question this show represents some sort of indictment on the system.
To those who feel like engaging in a little victim-blaming, know that Marie's only "crime" was that she was distraught and vulnerable to the point that she felt lying to the police would end the pressure. Her only "crime" was not having a parent by her side to ease her distraught and vulnerable feelings like a normal teenager would have had. Her only "crime" was being put in system that was supposed to help her but didn't.