MovieChat Forums > MichaelJPollock > Replies
MichaelJPollock's Replies
To me, it's one of the most interesting traits some "real authors" display, that they are compelled to revisit similar themes and stories with each new film while always managing to illuminate different aspects and provide different insights.
I think, for example, that Michael Mann's thematic exploration of life in globalised economies of 20st century Late Capitalism ('The Jericho Mile' to 'Blackhat') or Friedkin's exploration of "contamination" by evil (from French Connection" to "Killer Joe") are fascinating precisely for this reason.
By the way, Roger1, I'd be curious to know how you rate DePalma's work in general...
BUT:
- The second act is shown from his point of view and he genuinely seems surprised, angry and scared about the rape allegations (who would he be acting for, when he’s not on the phone?).
- He does help Tess escape, even after he shots her by mistake and even after he's thrown her off the roof: he's definitely not a hero or even a likeable guy, but he is acting under extreme duress (his whole world is crumbling down around him as he is being "cancelled", he's been abducted by a monster, and he just witnessed a suicide by gunshot to the head) and nothing in the film allows us to know for certain that his motivations are evil or that he is indeed a rapist.
Of all three men, Long's character is the most realistic one and therefore the one most men are likely to recognise something of themselves in. He's not incredibly handsome, charming, resourceful and kind like Skarsgard's character, and he's not a monster like Brake's character, because very few men are either of these things.
Most men (and women for that matter) are complex, make wrong choices and bad decisions, are sometimes scared and act irrationally under pressure, fail to hold themselves to their own standards, are unclear about their motives (which can even be unclear to themselves), misunderstand others and are misunderstood, etc. Most men are neither prince charming nor monsters, but a variation of the (maybe sometimes unlikeable but certainly not unrelatable to) Justin Long character.
Would you agree more with that, friend?
Hi there friend,
I understand your reaction, but it's not what I said or think, because I don't think that's what the film shows.
I don't think one can be sure, watching the film, that the character played by Justin Long is actually a rapist.
(please pardon the long reply...).
The film shows three male archetypes :
1) The Bill Skarsgard character who, although he looks creepy as hell and whom Tess is really suspicious of at first, is in fact an all-around decent and kind man who respects women.
2) On the opposite side of the spectrum, the Richard Brake character whom women don't notice and let into their home but is in fact a psychopathic serial rapist and killer.
3) And somewhere between these two polar opposites, in the grey (and therefore most interesting) area, is Justin Long's character who:
- Is ACCUSED of having sexually assaulted a work colleague (whom the film hints COULD possibly be a manipulative woman out for extortion or revenge, we don't know for sure: after all, the first act of the film is precisely there to remind the audience not to judge on appearances).
- Is definitely not subtle with women and even a bit callous, as seen in the night club flashback (more a character flaw than a crime).
- Is a coward (he throws Tess, whom he thinks is dying anyway, off the tank's roof to save himself).
Nah the horror is that because some guys like the 3rd guy exist, when women run into a guy like the 1st one in the conditions like the ones depicted in the film, they HAVE to assume for their own safety that he *could* possibly be like the 3rd guy, even when he's not.
When in fact most guys are probably closer to being like the 2nd guy, grey areas and all.
To give Burkhart a glimpse of where he knows he's going for sure, as he looks through the window, sitting on the bed of the dying wife he's poisoned and whose whole family he killed: Hell.
Would be surprised if it weren't.
At the very top. His best. Eyes Wide Shut looms very big in its rear view mirror though.
Only American in all Irish and English cast. He's the perfect outsider, just like his character. Perfect casting I think.
Makes sense. Thanks for the info !
One word: "Lester". The name alone is enough to make me uneasy.
No, there indeed weren't.
Their respective tones were definitely different, but I felt both epilogues provided: 1) some form of relief from having just spent 3 hours + of seeing people getting murdered and families being destroyed, 2) some reframing signalling "although this may seem like distant history to you, yes, this happened in the real world to real people".
What I'm really curious about, is why Scorsese decided to locate the epilogue in the 50's, specifically.
“This story is entirely true, because I imagined it from one end to the other”
Boris Vian
I agree he's a one hit wonder. But that one hit happens to be 'Nope'.
Well agreed. My favourite of his, with Barry Lyndon.
Both films are about a simple, uneducated man just back from the war who is loyal to a fault to a father figure who asks him to commit murders, and eventually to kill someone he deeply cares about, and who in the end are denied forgiveness.
"Imagine if Spielberg had done something similar at the end of Schindler's List..."
Well, he kinda did, didn't he? The films fades into present time, in colour, and the actors playing the characters all appear on screen as themselves...
*Spoilers ahead*
Just saw it and thought it was so very similar in tone and plot and execution to 'The Irishman', with DiCaprio playing the same role De Niro did in that film, and De Niro playing the role Pesci did in The Irishman.
Both films are about simple, uneducated men just back from the war who are loyal to a fault to a father figure who asks them to commit murders, and eventually to kill someone they deeply care about, and who in the end are denied forgiveness.
Topaz
Topaz
and...
Topaz !
He got confused.
We hear you, believe.
We used to have great discussions with genuine cinephiles with informed opinions, who knew how to construct a sound argument, and knew their film history (and of course, if I take off my rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, I can also see the trolls and crazies in the rear view mirror...).
Today, it's all about politics, box-office, and trivia.
Oh well. We still have the likes of "ecarle/Roger1", yourself 'Mr. Spade', and others for good film discussions... :)
"This town will never be the same. After the Tangiers, the big corporations took it all over. Today it looks like Disneyland. In the old days, dealers knew your name, what you drank, what you played. Today, it's like checkin' into an airport. And if you order room service, you're lucky if you get it by Thursday. Today, it's all gone."