The GMD Movie Club Thread

[challenge_everything]

There are definitely some unusual things and definitely some illegal things, come on!

How is cheating on your wife or buying her a vibrator unusual or illegal? Maybe the finger part is technically sexual assault but that would rarely if ever get proven - which is essentially my point.

 

[rms]

The cucumber!?

 

[Einherjar86]

I think the cucumber is an extension of what @challenge_everything means when he mentions "the finger part."

Do you have any other examples? Because you made it sound like Steve regularly does weird and illegal shit. His behavior with his wife definitely veers into the realm of assault, which is partly the film's commentary on marital abuse (i.e. the long-held belief that rape can't happen in a marriage). But I took challenge's point to be that Steve is pretty much a regular patriarchal dude, doesn't do much that would incur the wrath of the legal system, is loved by his kids, successful at work, etc. The effect of the film is its revelation of horror in marital banality--which, of course, is anything but banal to Alexandra. As viewers, we're expected to sort of settle into Steve's typical work-dad persona ("grab a beer from the fridge") and then go along for the ride.

 

[challenge_everything]

Basically what einherjar said, plus I'd add that, legally, there is difference between reluctance and sexual assault but it's not easy to resolve (half the #metoo cases fall in that grey area). Alexandra made it seem like she was the former not the latter, ie this was the first time she was raising her objections.

 

[rms]

you have any other examples? Because you made it sound like Steve regularly does weird and illegal shit. His behavior with his wife definitely veers into the realm of assault, which is partly the film's commentary on marital abuse (i.e. the long-held belief that rape can't happen in a marriage). But I took challenge's point to be that Steve is pretty much a regular patriarchal dude, doesn't do much that would incur the wrath of the legal system, is loved by his kids, successful at work, etc. The effect of the film is its revelation of horror in marital banality--which, of course, is anything but banal to Alexandra. As viewers, we're expected to sort of settle into Steve's typical work-dad persona ("grab a beer from the fridge") and then go along for the ride.

I guess I'm an outsider considering the entire breakdown from his wife to be unusual, in a marital sense, and the entire depiction of the relationship would be illegal in the sense of having full support in 2022, maybe not in 2003. Which I took away to be the films point, that this in fact is wrong and should be considered that way legally.

Spoiler

also, didn't she say he had sex with her whenever he wanted, especially in the middle of the night? That she should wake up to him inside of her or something like that?

Banal, sure. I guess this is just another play on the white suburban family. I'm just surprised to see a defense of his actions that they would not be considered unusual or illegal. If Alexandra didn't feel powerless, neither of those wouldn't be true nor would the positive relationship of the children

 

[Einherjar86]

I don’t think anyone is trying to defend anything. I think we’re in agreement that the film is pointing out the horror in what society views as marital banality.

Spoiler

In a hypothetical court of law, Steve would likely counter Alexandra’s accusations by saying, “I thought she was awake!” or something. It’s the kind of situation so deeply personal that much of society—especially men—would probably look the other way.

 

[challenge_everything]

Spoiler

I had forgotten about the 'sex while asleep' part (i think it's only mentioned briefly). Granted, i wouldn't call that usual or legal, though as einherjar says, it doesn't really change the basic point about the insidiousness of his behaviour and her powerlessness to deal with it through normal channels.

 

[CiG]

The action and stuntwork in Point Blank is surprisingly barbaric for the time. I love seeing Lee go on a rampage.

 

[CiG]

I was dreading having to watch Black Book. These days WWII films are unbearable to me, and the idea of a 145 minute mid-2000's WWII drama was dreadful. As usual I'm just a retard, because it was fucking great. That's what I get for doubting Verhoeven!

I really appreciated the lack of a black and white morality at play, and how villains are smuggled inside heroes (and vice versa). Vegard said it best so I'll just second his comments. As someone who really appreciates practical effects I was pleasantly surprised by how little CGI was used. You could really feel the craft in every scene.

I think what stood out most to me was Carice van Houten's performance. Her character was always willing to go even further than every other character in every moment, and she (the actor) sold it in a way that I'm not sure many others could have. In a typical war film, a story about a woman seducing a high ranking Nazi would settle for a wig or hair dye. She goes further and dyes her bush! In every moment that threatens to be trite or cliché, Verhoeven reaches in and tweaks it just enough.

Really just a very enjoyable watch, and unlike others in here I didn't find it dragged or got boring once. At times it even felt like a Dirty Dozen action/adventure affair. Looks even better when compared to Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds released just a few years later. Now that dragged!

Spoiler

if Hans was the traitor then why did he put himself on the line by walking into the trap with everyone else?

I was thinking about this too, then I remembered

Spoiler

Hans and Theo (I think?) were the only ones in disguises (the Nazi uniforms) thus singling them out as not to be shot. Everybody else was dressed in regular clothes.

 

[challenge_everything]

Spoiler

I was thinking about this too, then I remembered Hans and Theo (I think?) were the only ones in disguises (the Nazi uniforms) thus singling them out as not to be shot. Everybody else was dressed in regular clothes.

I'll take your word for it because I don't recall - but that would explain it.

 

[CiG]

My rankings:
1. Black Book
2. Alexandra's Project
3. Point Blank
4. No One Lives

RE Alexandra's Project and whether what Steve was doing was illegal or unusual:

Spoiler

I think it's obvious that, based on Steve's reaction to the tape, Alexandra wasn't objecting to her husband's actions. Even the crazier shit like using the cucumber as his penis or fingering her while she sleeps was probably viewed by Steve as consensual while simultaneously being aware that he's pushing her boundaries, but nothing more.

His actions are unusual when viewed in totality, especially from Alexandra's horrific perspective, but I think most men have engaged in some level of presumptive behaviour based on prior consent. For women it's actually not uncommon to have given a sleeping s/o a blowjob. These things aren't necessarily unusual.

If Steve was self-aware that he was engaging in sexually assaulting his wife all those years, his reaction wouldn't have been one of revelatory horror. If Steve the normal bloke was actually Steve the rapist, the film doesn't work anymore. It becomes just another movie about a woman escaping her abusive husband.

Fundamentally the film is about exposing the comfortable escalation of exploitation within everyday married life. The small assumptions we make about our significant others, and how easily intimate spaces can be the worst for respecting consent and boundaries.

 

[rms]

Spoiler

@CiG

Steve the normal bloke was actually Steve the rapist, the film doesn't work anymore. It becomes just another movie about a woman escaping her abusive husband.

How do you watch the conclusion and not see the film this way? And instead of escaping, she got even, in her eyes.

I would also argue the film wants you to realize you can be a rapist and also not be without empathy or regret or even just plain ignorance. He doesn't have to be the Hitler of raping, but he does have to be grossly unaware of how damaging he is to his wife, which is the case. He causes that much damage and is oblivious

Fundamentally the film is about exposing the comfortable escalation of exploitation within everyday married life. The small assumptions we make about our significant others, and how easily intimate spaces can be the worst for respecting consent and boundaries.

Even if you believed this, how would you argue this perspective from Alexandra's perspective? This seems incredibly off base.

 

[challenge_everything]

Maybe you're just a better man than the rest of us rms.

 

[CiG]

Spoiler

How do you watch the conclusion and not see the film this way? And instead of escaping, she got even, in her eyes.

By "another movie about a woman escaping her abusive husband" I meant explicit abuse. Like something akin to an exploitation film, or something like Once Were Warriors. Wifebeating, explicit rape, abusing the children, stalking his wife, controlling her actions etc.

Yes from the film's perspective a wife escapes her abusive husband, but not in the way audiences are used to.

I would also argue the film wants you to realize you can be a rapist and also not be without empathy or regret or even just plain ignorance. He doesn't have to be the Hitler of raping, but he does have to be grossly unaware of how damaging he is to his wife, which is the case. He causes that much damage and is oblivious

Not sure what this is a response to. Nothing here disagrees with what I said. Yes the film shows how most men (and women though that's not explored) have engaged in some kind of abuse of consent without being TV trope rapists. This is why I mentioned his revelatory horror at learning that he's effectively a rapist. That's the ignorance.

Even if you believed this, how would you argue this perspective from Alexandra's perspective? This seems incredibly off base.

No not off base whatsoever. She even reiterates my point when she tells the story of their early weeks of marriage. They had tons and tons of sex and at first she enjoyed it, but as the weeks went on she realised she was just a sex object to him. That's effectively where the "comfortable escalation of exploitation within everyday married life" begins. He just assumes he has the green light to go further and further.

Now she finds herself, while in what's supposed to be her safest space (the home), completely unable to reassert her boundaries.

 

[Einherjar86]

Spoiler

Even if you believed this, how would you argue this perspective from Alexandra's perspective? This seems incredibly off base.

Spoiler

No not off base whatsoever. She even reiterates my point when she tells the story of their early weeks of marriage. They had tons and tons of sex and at first she enjoyed it, but as the weeks went on she realised she was just a sex object to him. That's effectively where the "comfortable escalation of exploitation within everyday married life" begins. He just assumes he has the green light to go further and further.

Now she finds herself, while in what's supposed to be her safest space (the home), completely unable to reassert her boundaries.

Has everyone seen the film by now? Below includes spoilers, don't read if you haven't watched yet (but come on, get with it):

This might be a slightly different tack, but... the film's not even from Alexandra's perspective, so why do we need to bother arguing from Alexandra's perspective (as though that constitutes the totality of the film)? The point of the film is to put audiences in Steve's position and gradually bring one view of the world into contact with another.

@rms I'm not sure what you find disagreeable in anything being said. The conceit of the film is that it sets its audience up to sympathize with Steve, then pulls the rug out from under our feet by staging an encounter between worldviews. The perspective of the film itself isn't Alexandra's perspective; it's an oscillating perspective intended to illuminate the incongruity between two ways of understanding sexual politics in the home.

 

[CiG]

I rewatched No One Lives last night and going into it knowing how dumb the script is this time helped me enjoy it much more. The action, effects, kills etc really are pretty cool. Still 4th place but I bumped my rating up a bit, out of the "never watch again" zone.

This might be a slightly different tack, but... the film's not even from Alexandra's perspective, so why do we need to bother arguing from Alexandra's perspective (as though that constitutes the totality of the film)? The point of the film is to put audiences in Steve's position and gradually bring one view of the world into contact with another.

Not sure I completely agree with this. This is (ironically) a very male view of where the audience is being put. I bet a shitload of women were sitting there nodding along with the things Steve (and by extension, men) is being exposed to for the first time.

To me Alexandra's Project is almost like the film equivalent of reading feminist theory to a room full of men for the first time.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not sure I completely agree with this. This is (ironically) a very male view of where the audience is being put. I bet a shitload of women were sitting there nodding along with the things Steve (and by extension, men) is being exposed to for the first time.

Do you think this "nodding along" happens immediately though? Although I agree that the audience likely knows something's up from the get go (it's clear from the opening scene of Alexandra waking up that something's amiss), I don't think the film stages the episodes that invite "nodding along" until later in the narrative. Even if the audience (especially women) are suspicious of Steve from the beginning, and skeptical of his good husband/dad persona, it doesn't give us much to critique in a positive sense, and could even be said to reinforce expectations of a wholesome father/family before undermining them. We don't learn anything about his sexual aggression and impulses until the video begins; and the use of cameras within the film stages a very literal clash of perspectives. By this time in the narrative, I'm sure that many women find themselves aligned with Alexandra--but then, men should too.

I don't disagree that critical audiences will have their antennae up from the first scene, but I'm not sure I agree that there's much to nod along with prior to the video.

 

[CiG]

I don't think the film stages the episodes that invite "nodding along" until later in the narrative. Even if the audience (especially women) are suspicious of Steve from the beginning, and skeptical of his good husband/dad persona, it doesn't give us much to critique in a positive sense, and could even be said to reinforce expectations of a wholesome father/family before undermining them.

Hmm no I don't think so.

One of the first big clues we get that something is up (besides the foreboding morning scene and the bathroom mirror spit) is when Steve says she was "dead to the world" when he got home the night before. She takes sleeping pills. During this entire scene (she's making the bed iirc) she's awkward and avoiding eye contact (and he's naked so it's especially strange). This shows that she didn't even want to risk being woken up when he got home.

Then there's the moment when she hands Steve the phone bill which is overdue, and remarks that she wishes he'd let her do the bill paying as she stares blankly at the toaster. He coldly responds "yeah I'll do it."

Just hazarding a guess but I think a lot of wives in the audience picked up on that stilted atmosphere pretty immediately.

Of course I'm also probably just over-analysing the whole thing.

 

[challenge_everything]

I'm sure the bill thing was deliberate. Financial control is a common feature of abusive relationships. Lots of women going through divorce, for example, don't know what their marital assets are. Things like bills seem mundane but are a source of information that is often controlled.

 

[Einherjar86]

Hmm no I don't think so.

One of the first big clues we get that something is up (besides the foreboding morning scene and the bathroom mirror spit) is when Steve says she was "dead to the world" when he got home the night before. She takes sleeping pills. During this entire scene (she's making the bed iirc) she's awkward and avoiding eye contact (and he's naked so it's especially strange). This shows that she didn't even want to risk being woken up when he got home.

Then there's the moment when she hands Steve the phone bill which is overdue, and remarks that she wishes he'd let her do the bill paying as she stares blankly at the toaster. He coldly responds "yeah I'll do it."

Just hazarding a guess but I think a lot of wives in the audience picked up on that stilted atmosphere pretty immediately.

Of course I'm also probably just over-analysing the whole thing.

These are great details that I'd completely forgotten. No, I don't think you're over-analyzing. You're right, these should alert us. The comment about finances I'd clocked but managed to forget, but the "dead to the world" remark may have gone right past me.

This is probably my fondness for formalism coming through, but I would still insist the film isn't from Alexandra's perspective even if it does work to elicit audience sympathies from the opening scene. I'll try to sharpen what I mean about perspective.

I remember from the opening sequence what I took to be Steve's very macho attitude toward their gardening neighbor, which he evinces while standing naked by the window. The brilliance of this positioning is that the film later reveals Steve to be cuckolded by the very same neighbor. This is something Alexandra knows at the outset but the audience doesn't. We might cringe at Steve's machismo but we don't have the kind of informational access that Alexandra has. We're delivered this over the course of the narrative.

The use of a camera and video within the film is, I think, a very self-conscious move on the film's part that embodies perspectival juxtaposition. The film may want us to side with Alexandra from the beginning but it's not giving us her perspective, I'd say; rather, it's settling us into a marital environment and emphasizing specific details. As the narrative develops, we're given more details in a highly stylized and formalized way so as to draw us further toward Alexandra's perspective, even if we don't really inhabit it. If anything, the film forces us to inhabit Steve's position (very uncomfortably, I'd add).