March 26, 2006

• Anyone claiming to have "gotten it" when watching Mulholland Drive for the first time is a liar.
• LOTR is pretty twisted, roly. I felt the same about it. Several years after its release, I finally saw "Fellowship of the Ring". My two word review? It's okay.
• RTD, I got it. I was a stupidass lame piece of crap. what's not to get?
• Yeah, I feel like that too, rpm. You want the supreme feeling for that, watch Primer. Would it be completely atrocious of me to use this movie-themed thread to plug the V for Vendetta video mashup thing I made this weekend and worked really hard on? It features "Everything's Cool," so no pushing, PWEI fans! What is this "shame" you speak of?
• I was a stupidass lame piece of crap. You're being pretty hard on yourself. But I don't get it -- how does being a lame piece of crap help you get it?
• oh man! what a terrible typo....I am such a lame piece of stupidass crap, I think I'll go post this on RTD's 'best of monkeyfilter' thread right now...
• Mulholland Drive was awesome.
• Sorry, Medusa!
• are you sorry that I am a stupidass piece of crap?
• Gentlemen... no fighting! This is the War Room!
• Rolypolyman, I have this seem fear, even though it usually ends up unfounded. I actually was wary of starting in on watching "The Sopranos" because of this very fear: the names sort of sound the same, many of the minor characters kind of look the same to me (face-blindness), and I certainly don't know much about the intracices of crime! I've done okay so far, though, but I have had to stop the DVD and ask questions and often times, my friend has the same questions too. So you're not alone in this!
• You're not meant to 'get' David Lynch movies.
• I got this feeling recently while watching Occupation: Dreamland. I mean, what were they there to do in the first place? What was their overall goal? Were they making any progress or not? Man, who ever thought up the plot of that movie should be taken out and shot.
• Chyren -- exactly. Medusa -- do you mean to say that you immediately figured out that the whole first half of the movie was a dream? You're brighter than I.
• RTD, I just meant that most Lynch movies are contrived and try-too-hard to be that so confusing dreamlike pile of poo that I think they are...I found Mulholland Drive so annoying that I didn't care what it was about while I was watching it.
• i don't get why "larry the cable guy: health inspector" exists. does that count?
• Talk about not getting movies: Once I was driving across the US with a couple of friends, and we stopped in Kansas City, where one afternoon we watched one of the Die Hard sequels, which absolutely sucked (it was the one with the snowstorm at the DC airport). My friends and I found ourselves laughing out loud in places where the rest of the audience was dead silent -- and looking at each other with silent, puzzled expressions at the "jokes" the rest of the audience was cracking up at. It was a weird experience, especially for my friend Dave who's from KC but had been living in New England, NY, and LA for years at the time of our Die Hard Deux or Trois experience.
• rolypolyman - perhaps reading some reviews/critiques of the confusing movies by some well-thought of critics might help? It could be that some new films are using a "language" (for want of a better word) that you haven't learnt yet. If they cover it in the movie critiques it might key you in to what to look for in future movies of that type? I'm thinking something similar to movie conventions -eg. in horror movies, we all know what to expect when people split up, or enter a dark room etc. Or how flashbacks in a lot of films can be desaturated. Or how shaky handheld cameras with fast cuts and closeups give a feeling of immediacy and realism... On the face-blindness front - I take a little bit of time to recognise faces (I have been known to walk past family members on the street without recognising them). Perhaps it would help to focus on another aspect as well when movies introduce characters- like hair, or clothes, or voice, or they way they move?
• RalphTheDog - I watched Mulholland Drive and got the "twist" the first time :) But I'd heard a lot about how David Lynch films were weird mind-benders, so I think I was looking for the twist from the beginning... Still thought it was a cool movie though, even if I hoped for something a little weirder ;)
• "Against All Odds" and the last Harry Potter movie had me saying "Huh?" for about two hours. After the movie was over, i stopped caring.
• MonkeyFilter: I was a stupidass lame piece of crap.
• For a beautifully crafted and unpredicatable 'psychological thriller' (ghost story), I can reccommend The Skeleton Key. So good I had to see it twice, and picked up a number of things I'd missed the first time.
• Right - just watched Cabaret last night with my teenaged sprog (third or fourth time for me). Anyone understand the reason for the discordant atmosphere between the Baron and Michael York the last time they were together in the car? I couldn't piece it together from the film, although apparently they had indulged in sexual fun recently. "The pleggum that comes in the tubes"!
• *attempts to dislodge disturbing mental image of revered London monkey engaged in salacious behavior on the subway*
• Yes, all these movies are confusing. This is why we have the beauty of... SNAKES ON PLANES. No confusion there. It's snakes. On planes.
• I hope this is the basis of Chy's new religion...something simple the people can cling to in times of difficulty...snakes...on a m********g plane.
• Anyone claiming to have "gotten it" when watching Mulholland Drive for the first time is a liar. Pfft. Sez you. I got it right out the gate. Chick on chick action is hawt, fool. PS: Not only do I not get the end of Ichi The Killer, I can't really remember what happens after the rooftop scene between Ichi, Kakihara, and the kid. I know it differed from the manga's ending, or is muddled up with it, or something, and Jijii, the short old man, is a big part of it. Anyhow, I need closure. And, by the bye, I need to stop using so many commas. But, I assume, that's another thing entirely, right?
• What an interesting coincidence. I just came back from watching "V for Vendetta" with a friend. It's pretty good, but there are strange plot points left unexplained, and we can't figure out if we're too dumb to put them together coherently or the writers were too dumb to come up with something clever and decided to hint at something and let us make up our own story. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I get the feeling that I won't have this problem with "Snakes on a Plane". That seems straightforward enough. SNAKES. ON A PLANE. I can't wait to see if they can't resist throwing plot twists in there... Is one of the snakes actually... an eel?!? Oooh!
• Film Noir usually loses me. Especially Raymond Chandler adaptations. I've seen Out of The Past at least four times and I still don't think I get it.
• To your actual point though, I do lose my ability to follow plots and keep faces/names straight when I'm in a certain state of mind. It's goddamn frustrating. I think more intellectual types are prone to it. I don't think it's a matter of a new film language, though. In my case anyway; I haven't bothered with the LotR series really.
• Also: Branded To Kill. Who needs to understand?
• Sorry, I meant I haven't bothered with LotR therefor I can't say it's not a matter of new film language. The last mainstream film I saw was Hostel and that was coherent enough, but other than that I live in a vacuum in terms of the current mainstream-film-experience zeitgeist.
• I seem to spend most of the time when I'm watching a film with Mrs Dotcom explaining the meaning of it to her. She has a finely honed but linear and scientific mind. However watching Syriana I had to bite the bullet and admit too that I wasn't entirely clear what was going on (i.e.: clueless)
• Airplane is another movie where it takes a few viewings to 'get' all the nuances. It's a very dense narrative, with lots of subtle imagery and quite a few 'in-jokes' which you may not spot the first time. For example, the pilots badge being on the wrong side, in a cute dig at union regulations.
• nice HTML skeelz, twat
• "Especially Raymond Chandler adaptations." To be honest, Chandler's early books are a bit all over the place with seemingly irrelevant diversions at times.
• This thread is amazingly coherent and on topic. something must be done!
• Don't worry -- I'm here now...
• I generally understand the plots of movies (what wasn't there to understand in the lord of the rings movies?). I don't mean to brag but I figured out the "twist" from M. Night Shyamalan's the Villiage simply because I knew that he always makes a cameo in his films and there wasn't any other plausible way for someone of Indian (not Native American) ancestory to appear in it. When I went to see Pulp Fiction back in the day one of my friends was totally confused because it wasn't told in linear order. What I don't understand is why certain movies are popular. I hated Rushmore with a passion and fell asleep on the floor while watching The Royal Tannenbaums and Sex in the City. I watched ten minutes of Napoleon Dynamite when it was on cable and begged my friend to change the channel.
• I've always had this problem with films that start right in on a lot of dialogue, plot set-up and character introductions. I'm still taking in the visuals, and suddenly I realize that I don't know who anyone is. But unless the plot is intentionally opaque, the reasons for not being able to follow it are usually a) bad writing, b) bad directing, c) bad editing, or d) all of the above.
• I remember trying to prove, whilst under the influence of reefer madness*, that the plot of Pulp Fiction was actually a loop, with the events being out of order, but if you did put them in order, right, the last one would lead into the first one, forever. Apparently the director of Hidden just decided to cut the last scene. He did this just to annoy me. *a mind-eating troll
• Roofer madness? Is that when you breathe in too much tar?
• My wife has this problem. We watched The Constant Gardener recently and I had to stop the dvd several times to explain the course of events to her. Though to be fair, that one was pretty twisty. I think there should be a distinction made here between movies that are confusing as a result of experimental/nontraditional narrative structures or ludicrously intricate plots (i.e., Lynch, The Constant Gardener, the best film noir) and regular movies that, because of personal quirks or outside demands on one's attention span (in my wife's case, the kids, her knitting, pets demanding attention) are impossible for one person to follow while others find them easy enough. Nota bene: not to imply that I don't worry about the kids while my wife does. Just that I shut out the world when watching movies after the kids' bedtimes, and any slightest creak or squeak from upstairs completely destroy's my wife's concentration on the plot. My favorite Lynch movie is Lost Highway, only partially because of the extended Rosanna Arquette nude scenes. A large part IS that, of course, but still only part of the whole. And agreed, Lynch is not telling stories that you're supposed to "get," in the sense that the point of them is to get from the beginning to the middle to the end. I think looking at Lynch's movies as jigsaw puzzles that you're supposed to put together so that you understand what happened is not an entirely useful way to go about it, as it presumes the linear structure has just been chopped up and shuffled. Though there is that level of narrative going on, that's not "the point." Insofar as there is one. Which there may not be. Just enjoy the brain-twistiness and the hot chicks, already. Make some popcorn.
• Roseanna s/b Patricia in previous comment, obviously.
• I love Memento, not just for the time-slice confusion, but because there is a reason for it -- to put you in the mind of the main character. Took a few minutes of cranial crunching after the movie to "get" that one. I had to Google Mulholland Drive to "get" it. I keep meaning to watch it again with my newfound knowledge, but, then, my lesbian porn is better anyhow.
• I guess this goes the same for novels; some people hate those ones with interweaving plots, which I like a lot. Of course, on film it can also be sloppy editing. I liked Traffic, with all its' interlocking pieces, yet Syrianna, while being based on themes that I'm quite interesated in and reasonably informed about, was quite an applaing experience for me. Ditto Primer; it was highly recommended to me, and I've seen it twice, and while visually it's quite pleasing, I can't claim to graps the plot on its' entirety. Another example: 9 songs. Just *what* was that movie about? Apart from the hot sex, of course. Maybe it shows everybody's life is just as boring. What riles me up more when at the movies, specially on hollywood stuff, are the clichés and gimmicks and easy hooks that scripts usually have. The protagonist's good friend, that is doomed to die before the end. The catchprase that will be uttered as a mantra. The little detail, laways present, that will resurface at the finale to solve it all. The stereotypes. That there's always a kid on Spielberg's films...
• Oh, and I love watching Mullholland. Understand it? No, not there yet. And ended up snoring when watching the first of the LOTR films, on a theather. So did my companion. First time ever for both of us. I've only seen some parts of the third one on TV.
• That there's always a kid on Spielberg's films Not just a kid, a boy without a father. Cuz Steven grew up widdout a papa! Oh teh sad!!1!
• OMG liek someone didnt liek teh LOTR moveez! (Isn't this thread not about whether you liked stuff or not, but about whether you got it?) I liked them, but there are things in them that are kind of confusing - one of them is a decision made to cut the scene in ROTK where Eowyn and Faramir meet up. Without that scene you really don't understand why Eowyn has given up her obsessive crush on Aragorn and is all happy-smily with Faramir at Aragorn's coronation. Another is the whole lame "Arwen's immortality is tied to an ugly necklace" subplot. In general, they didn't do as good a job as they could have explaining the relationships between certain characters (for example: anyone who didn't know anything about the books would never in a million years have picked up that Elrond was only half-elven, which is why his daughter could be mortal or not depending where she chose to live and who she chose to marry, and that he was also the son-in-law of Galadriel and Celeborn, whose name nobody probably picked up. Apparently scenes were shot or at least planned of Galadriel and Arwen together that established that Arwen was Galadriel's granddaughter, but didn't even make it to the extended editions). So yes, confusing. OTOH, people who suffer "face-blindness" probably shouldn't attempt to watch epics. It took me a long time to catch all the lines in The English Patient - some that are important to understanding the plot are said sotto voce. You'll hear them well on some sound systems and poorly on others. Lynch is intentionally confusing, which is why, though he was my favorite a decade or so ago, I don't bother with his films anymore. It's greatly disappointing to have been a Twin Peaks fan and then to have found out that he had no master plan whatsoever and was just doing whatever sounded good to him at that moment. Oh, so that's why the series never made sense. You might make your own sense out of it with a fan explanation, but that's the best you're going to do. I didn't see any subtle/dropped plot points in V for Vendetta - would you care to elaborate, splice?
• Script Cliche #2--In period movies set before the year 1900, when a character is shown coughing into his/her hand or handkerchief at any point in the movie, however mildly, that character is FUCKING DOOMED. Bank on it.
• Barton Fink.
• I'll show you the life of the mind.
• I didn't understand that explanation.
• there is also the plot-twisty thing vs. the symbolism thing. one of those either-or things for most people, it seems. I don't usually figure out twists early on, but I am always the one to explain the symbolic components to my fellow viewers. (altho I will never understand how my friend didn't get that the scary bunny in the nightmares in Sexy Beast are like, symbolic of...DEATH, you know, cause the guy is like, worried....)
• I'll show you the life of the mind. I bet you will, baby. I have no idea what that means. So -- huh! -- it fits rather nicely in this thread, then, doesn't it.
• my lesbian porn is better anyhow I don't get much lesbian porn. No, seriously, where can I get some?
• I've also found perplexing how many people interpret Vendetta's scene with the mob unmasking. 'No, the little girl wasn't killed, it happened just in the inspector's imagination! Because she shows up on the last scene!' And several people have told me the same. Then, how come every single major character that died appears there? Come on! Barton Fink I find more veering into 'magic realism' territory than a puzzling plot twister. Hey, it's just a movie.
• Oooo, Barton Fink! Look upon me!!
• Would it be completely atrocious of me to use this movie-themed thread to plug the V for Vendetta video mashup thing I made this weekend and worked really hard on? It features "Everything's Cool," so no pushing, PWEI fans! I just watched it. I don't get it. So.. you made a video?
• Either the little girl was totally killed, or the whole movie "happened in someone's imagination," in which case you have many more questions to answer, chief among them being, "Why bother?" (that kind of thing only "works," insofar as it does at all, if there's a contrasting part where the "real world" is depicted). V SPOILER AHEAD: On that tack, another question to ask about the mob scene unmasking in V... is whether anyone in the group is alive, or if they're all victims being "avenged" in the climactic event (& therefore, not in much danger when it happens, as a real mob might have been). I have to admit that I wasn't looking closely at anyone's face in the mob, but regardless of subtleties like that, I still thought the movie was fairly straightforward.
• *Spoilers:* I remember from memory the little girl, the actress and her lover, the murdered actor, V's mother... and I've read that even Hugo Weaving appears unmasked there, but I can't recall him. Plus many 'anonymous' people. That's what makes me consider it a mixture of 'real events' and a symbolic scene; both the mob and the slain there, at the lighting of the fires heralding a new regime, a new era.
• *glances through thread* *does double-take* *changes name* I never worry about films where the plot doesn't seem to add up - I just assume that if I don't understand them, why, they must be either pretentious nonsense ('Draughtsman's Contract') or badly scripted ('Howl's Moving Castle')... Incidentally, that bit in 'Donnie Darko' where he explains the Smurfs to his mates - was I right in thinking that that was, in effect, saying to the audience "Most of you won't understand this film - but that's just because you're stupid"??
• Hey, I like Peter Greenaway flicks. But then again, I've always been a fan of pretentious nonsense.
• Oh I agree, TP - I like a bit of good pretentious nonsense myself, and most Greenaway falls into the good category in my view. Certainly DC. There are some moments in later films, though (especially 'Prospero's Books') when I think things cross the line and become ludicrous - that book bouncing up and down, Caliban apparently delivering lines while rolling around on the floor upside down as if to ensure the audience has seen his red-painted bollocks from every possible angle...
• I didn't like Prospero as much as The Pillow Book, which I thought was great. I especially like DC, Drowning by Numbers, Belly of an Architect, and The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover. Never saw 8 1/2 Women, though.
• "is he a baddie, then, him in the glasses?"
• Plegmund, interesting question re the smurf scene. DD is one of my fav movies, I'll have to watch it another time with this idea in mind...
• Anyone seen the movie "Pi"? And can you recommend it or no?
• I like pi(e)
• Definitely worth the price of a rental, I think, pete. Weird movie, much strangeness, did not at all bore me.
• Pi was hugely disappointing. As a math minor in undergrad, I found the premice just stupid. Anyone who knows a lot about math should know better. The ending just sucked.
• i liked pi as an indie movie made by a young director and his friends on a shoestring budget. i know a fair amount about maths, computation, and stock markets, and i still found the story quite interesting and watchable.
• The end is definitely an easy out for the writer. But well worth a watch.
• Confusing movies that I recommend: Thin Red Line City of Lost Children Faust (Svankmajer's)
• Just saw Pi for the first time last week. The story was interesting, even if not mathematically accurate (suspension of disbelief, jccalhoun!). Many of the camera and sound effects were perfect for the mood they were trying to create. I'd recommend it.
• Ah, Svankmajer's Conspirators of Pleasure is another wierd, perplexing visual feast. Same can be said of most of Greenaways'; his static tableaus of highly detailed texture make up for all the confusing plotlines. Pi: I got it on a double DVD collection, along with 'Requien for a Dream'. I love Requiem; Pi is the perfect 'wait, what did I miss' example. Too much is 'explained' at the end, and still it's not clear just what happened.
• I like Pi because so far it's the only American movie to take the game of Go seriously.
• Terrence Malick. Alan Pakula. Both require sustained attention, otherwise their films can be confusing.