smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "bob" <segarini@rogers.com> |
| Subject | Re: OT (movie talk).....Re: Ducking a sock full of horse manure |
| Date | Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:57:17 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (6.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Well spoken, Steve...I'll talk movies/films with you anytime.
Yeah, the kid that played the son rocked. I would have liked to have seen
more of that sub-plot.
The audience at The Varsity giggled all over the place, but the puerile
tittering at the sex scenes was just plain childish...and it was an older
audience.
My sweetie and I had it figured out when Harris showed up at the diner...but
then we watch too damn many movies. Harris, (as always), was great, though.
...and the "bib" signature is a typo that stuck years ago that I use as my
sign-off on another list.
bibbity bobbity boo
----- Original Message -----
From: "floatingunder" <Steven.Durben@cignabehavioral.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 12:28 PM
Subject: OT (movie talk).....Re: Ducking a sock full of horse manure
> 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.