smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "floatingunder" <Steven.Durben@cignabehavioral.com> |
| Subject | OT (movie talk).....Re: Ducking a sock full of horse manure |
| Date | Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:28:38 -0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain ISO-8859-1 (5.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
OK, this is way OT. But, here it is anyway. If you'd rather not read
this please delete. I mainly write per I couldn't resist the hook
from Bob regarding his different take on this movie then mine and I'm
a sucker about talking about film. This will be my last post on this
matter, I promise. I try not to give away to many plot points but if
you're a stickler about that then you also may want to delete for
that reason.
Bob said:
Re: History Of Violence...Cronenberg should be beaten to death with
several
of the gynocological tools from "Dead Ringers". 3 or 4 cool violent
deaths
surrounded by an hour and a half of crap.
@@@ Obviously, I disagree. I think the "crap" part of the film is
what makes it a good film. Establishing the small town and close nit
family with the subsequent unraveling of the family, based on the
secret's of the father, is a major theme of the film. In my opinion,
this is not trying to be something like "Pulp Fiction" (although some
scenes have almost that feel), where the movie is purely a story of
created fictional feeling characters. To me, overall, this is
attempting something very different. Which isn't to say I think it's
a better film then Pulp Fiction (I don't). It sounds like it just
didn't work for you.
Snip: Laugh? I almost cried. If there
was a twist or turn in the plot in must have been in the fact that
Viggo's
emotional range, (to quote Dorothy Parker), runs the emotional gamut
from A
to B,
@@@@@ I thought overall he was very good, although, I'm really not
sure if he's a great actor or not. I think the fact that he didn't
emote much made sense given he's led his life hiding and suppressing
his "tendencies" for 20 years; hiding and controlling his darker,
stronger, violent more emotional side of who he is and was. He then
tries to maintain this lie (remaining calm but confused at the
allegations…more controlled lies) as the truth is coming out to his
family. That is, I thought it was an emotionally internal acting job
that worked for his character and worked for me as an audience member
per you are left trying to read what is going on within him. I find
that more interesting then if he had been very emotive (but that's
just my opinion). Plus, in the final scene he was terrific and in
striking contrast to the others in the scene in terms of his own
emotional response and recovery from what has occured. If that's not
acting then I guess I'm missing something. In contrast, to me worst
actor in the film was William Hurt per moments of over playing the
scene. Best acting over all I'd give to the best surprise in the
movie, the kid who plays his son. He is terrific (maybe that's
something we agree on). I'm betting he'll be around for a while. Ed
Harris is also great.
Snip: that the lead actress's ridiculous reaction to the "big" reveal
was
completely unreal, and that the coolest plot thread, (the kid and the
asshole at school), was totally forgotten after a great set up.
@@@@ I'm not sure what scene you are referring to with her. I thought
she was great and was a great strong female character. If your
talking about the scene where she is "asking for the truth", I bought
it 100%.
Regarding the tension with the kid and school. I thought this was
a sub story related to the dad's "story" and the impact on the family
and how there stories intertwined. I don't want to give anything away
but I'm not sure where else the kid's story could have gone once it
ended (the tension between the two classmates was over in a big way).
Snip: When the audience tittered and giggled at the cheerleader
outfitted 69
scene, I knew I was in a theater full of people that leave their
houses
because nothing there is worth staying home for.
@@@@@ Well, that's kind of how I felt too. This whole thread from me
started per my feeling different then some audience members reactions
and being annoyed with some of them (requiring me to struggle to stay
with the film and have me find what I got out of it while, a few
audience members were shoving their reactions down everyone else's
throat). Anyway, when I went, I too was surprised at the level of
giggling at this sex scene and for some, it even continued into the
next scene per they were so hot and bothered. But, that is my point.
I didn't conclude that was all the director was going for with this
scene, as you seem to imply (a voracious thrill for the audience). I
think there are several other reasons for the scene. Such as showing
an emotional and yes, sexual intimacy between them that is in stark
contrast to the later "sex" scene post their simple close nit family
world falling apart and his old darker violent side resurfacing.
Anyway, I'm not saying any of this was or was not something the
audience should agree with. I really think we get to interpret film
to how we respond to it. My point about the people in the audience
was more that they were so giddy; like you described, that it nearly
destroyed my finding my reaction to the film. Anyway, I just like
talking about film but I'll shut up now about this one.
Finally, Bob, I hope you know I'm just offering up my opinion. I've
hated many of hyped movies in my day too. It's all subjective and
all that…
(my main question is why are you sometime signing off as "Bob" and
other times "Bib". Hmmm, is there another personality lurking???) ;)
Best, Steve D
Feh...
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "floatingunder" <Steven.Durben@cignabehavioral.com>
> Steve D. "Oh, by the way and FWIW: "A history of violence" does have
> funny moments, but the guy behind me laughed in all the wrong
places.
>
>
> >
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.