MovieChat Forums > chrichrichri > Replies
chrichrichri's Replies
I never saw a movie where it was necessary for an actor to aim at the cinematographer.
yes, its incredibly creepy. The whole role Norma is given as a woman is incredibly creepy. The woman sacrifises herself in every way, but its not enough, because she brought a curse over the male family members - which is that they fall in love with her - and which by the way happens only because her foster-father stole her from an accident site without even checking if her mother is still alive or if there are relatives in England looking for her. What is a replacement for a woman - just get yourself a steam engine.
The story is hard to top in terms of misogynism. Yes, its from the 1920ies - and yes thats no excuse, there are lots of films with strong women also in the silent era.
What response would that be?
so true :D
because Troy came to Barbieland
don't compare your wife with an apple tree standing outside your garden walls.
listen to the music, look at the settings and season, and their actions.
read this: https://celluloidwickerman.com/2014/06/09/mozart-in-le-bonheur-1965-agnes-varda/
In the beginning its real bonheur, at the end the bonheur is an artificial illusion - for him as well as his Postière Très Tentante.
the film portraits human beings after all, not love machines
and is meant to be seen by human beings too
[url]https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8248493,12.4636569,3a,75y,242.36h,99.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suh5vP_8hTcaBzM_2DVMpzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192[/url]
well - its a french story
I like that the girl tames the story for her and takes it on in her horizon (all work machine planet). I am not sure if it was even necessary that she met the little prince in that part. I feel it would have been better if this part was also made in stop motion.
I would have prefered if she would have found a new friend or her fatehr on the city planet and was not in the need of the little prince any more.
I felt that the beach community of the movie were neither backpackers nor travelers,
- they arrived there to stay
- they brought their cliché life to the place - they were not trying to experience and learn from other cultures
- they behaved like party tourists and all they wanted was private party
So a mayor issue I had with the movie was the way it named them travellers
A community of real travelers seeking their paradise-life outside their home society would be
- a nomadic community, which tries to interact with the local populations
- it would be less about multi-linguistics than about learning the language the inhabitants speak
- they would have less issues with getting their hair bleaching equipment and stuff, but how far they can dive into the culture and still not loose themselves in it (otherwise they would become locals, they would not remain travelers), and also how far to go and not get sick as their bodies are not used to these conditions
As much as I liked the subtle ending, the great beginning and the frame with the telephone, I agree. I thought the movie fell apart and became were static and predictable. Person 1 tells his highs and lows, then person 2, then person 3. This is a very tight concept, which did not help the story to get its own life in my head as is so beatifully said by Shields.
If the three short stories are that much defined, at least the frame needed to be more dynamic. I felt Harry Pebbel's speech to the three quite stagey and then its not the three just drifting away one after the other, but they start narrating "when I first met Jonathan...". This gave a very artificial feel.
one child - the one and only,
two children - often immense rivalry, a loved one and another one, who seems to be there too, three or more - there is always another brother or sister to team up with and its not all about the affection of the parents.
Beth incpable of loving anyone - I don't think so, not before Buck's death, afterwards she put up a facade out of self-protection
she intentionally avoids Conrad because she knows that contact could hurt him and her, and that's exactly what she does not want
Probably she is not in the drama club and not even at school. She tells it to prove herself that there is meaningful content in her life. Conrad tends to turn his desperation to the outside. Karen tends to overplay it with showing everybody how happy she is. That is why Conrad is so much drawn to her.
I saw in her reaction: being puzzled - surprise - shortly being touched, which made her feeling far away in another reality - getting closed up and controlled again immediately
He won for best supporting actor? :D
Who was the lead then? The story was a lot about his mother too, but I am sorry, it was all about him!
So, watching the movie, I did not have the expression it was Beth's fault, but I had the expression that all this was most difficult for her, because she did not know how to deal with it and had nobody she could really express what she was going through. I think that is exactly what Conrad understood in the end: His mother is not mean, but she is truly helpless and lonely.
You already mentioned one issue in your post: Your parents never thought of getting divorced, they fought often. They managed to express and afterwards deal with conflicts. Conrad's parents did not. They never fought. Conflicts were no-goes. But, in real life conflicts happen, even if just by accidents. So what can you do to ignore them: establish a tight routine, stick to it and love it. This is what Beth did. There is the tight & private family life and social events and holidays to look forward to.
There was one scene: They go to a superficial party. This is Beth's chosen world and she loves it. Calvin feels more occupied with his son's well-being and is not in the mood. He feels to do something spontaneous - go to the movies. What does Beth do: she does not say no, this could cause a fight. She says yes, knowing that they still go as expected to the party.
After the party the situation is changed, Calvin is relieved, Beth is not satisfied. He could express to other people what his son is going through in a way he can't at home. And this is exactly the worst Beth can imagine: he violated the strictly seperated private and public routine. What should other people think. For Beth means danger. She needs her fun, the superficial social events as compensation to controll herself all the time.
So is she evil, is it her fault? This movie does not include categories such as good and evil, or singulary fault for events. Bucks' death was partly an accident, partly adolescent recklessness. Maybe Conrad could have saved him if he had sacrificed for him. Beth is accused of not loving Conrad, we do not know if this is true, or its rather that she can't really connect anymore which is often the case for parents when their children grow up, and this is a special case with Buck's death and Conrad's suicide attempt. Maybe Calvin loved Conrad more than Buck and could connect better to him. Watching the movie, I did not have the expression it was Beth's fault, but I had the expr