The Official Movie Thread

also simon yam, star of numerous johnnie to films as well as spl 2, bullet in the head, ip man, man of tai chi etc was stabbed while on stage and is in hospital. lame.
 
Mark E. Smith on Philip K. Dick movie adaptations:
“I think the original Blade Runner is the most obscene film ever made, I fucking hated it. The Man in the High Castle is one of my favourite books; how they fucked that TV show up I don’t know,” Smith told the Guardian. “The only good Philip K Dick film is Total Recall, it’s faithful to the book. Arnie gets it. I was physically sick watching A Scanner Darkly, it was like an episode of Cheers painted over except they all smoke dope and imagine women with no clothes on.
https://www.spin.com/2018/01/mark-e-smiths-best-insults/
 
Day off today so I decided to inspect Netflix, decided to renew my Netflix and spend 7 hours watching The Punisher. Anyways had a look at what movies are available and I'm definitely going to be using Netflix way more often, so many films I want to see on there. Pretty excited tbh.
 
Last edited:
ASD film adaptation is brilliant, imo. The film nailed the surreal paranoid atmosphere of the book.

I've been bothered by this movie all day and gave a shot at writing a longer review of it. Not something I usually do but I wanted to figure out why it bothered me so much.

Minor spoilers.

In an interview, Ari Aster described his film Midsommar as “a breakup movie dressed in the clothes of a folk horror film.” I have a reflexive reaction of disgust to statements like these that suggest that the subtext of a horror film is the crucial component and the text mere window dressing, and it's especially disingenuous when something like 2 hours is spent establishing the strange customs of this invented pagan cult and substantially less time than that on the relationship struggles of the main couple. I'd furthermore be surprised if anyone could make a case for how the breakup theme forms a consistent narrative throughline throughout the film; although one or two of the main character's decisions are motivated by it, for the most part the main characters exhibit no agency at all as they are being dragged one way and another by the members of the pagan cult.

The primary narrative throughline I identified in Midsommar was the invisible hand of the director moving pieces into place for the denouement. For the grand finale, Aster has a gorgeous, macabre tableau prepared and he will sacrifice any amount of organic storytelling to get to this conclusion. Midsommar moves towards its ending as inexorably as Hereditary did, but that film explicitly involved demonic entities to which any narrative meddling from on high could be attributed. I would also argue that Hereditary's narrative fatalism was also strongly integrated into the film on a thematic level, and made up an essential part of that film's horror. In Midsommar, it comes off less like a strength and more like an unnecessary holdover.

The inorganic storytelling of Midsommar is expressed not only in the passivity of the main characters, but also in the gradual reduction of the cultists themselves into caricatures. Initially, their portrayal is humanized; they present rational motivations for being part of the cult; they appreciate the community it provides, and they find solace in the ancient traditions. When a ritual suicide is carried out early in the film, they are given the chance to explain this extreme practice, and their rationalization gives them depth. But as the plot escalates and the rituals become less suicidal and more homicidal, they are given no opportunities to account for their actions. What is the justification for blood-eagling your victims before placing them on the sacrificial bonfire? Will the sacrifice offend Ymir if the lungs are still inside the body? It is also mentioned that between the ages of 16 and 32, cultists go on a “pilgrimage”, leaving the supervision of the cult for long stretches of time. In other words, this is a cult that routinely offers its members the opportunity to deradicalize, then expects them to participate in murderous rituals upon return. To be clear, I extend horror directors the license to invent however sensational and implausible cults they want. But when cult mentality is the main driver of your plot, maybe it behooves you to put some thought into the mechanics of cult mentality. This is an area where comparisons to The Wicker Man are especially unfavorable; in contrast to the stodgy Christian policeman protagonist, the pagan cultists of The Wicker Man came off as uninhibited and liberated, passionate and life-loving. The Wicker Man gave cult life a seductive appeal; it explained why anyone would want to be part of this community even if it involved the occasional participation in ritual sacrifice, without needing psychedelics or psychosis to explain their actions.

These criticisms aside, there is much to appreciate about Midsommar. As a Swede I got a kick out of being on the receiving end of Hollywood xenophobia for once, as I feel we're mostly just overlooked. (When Swedish actors are cast as villains in American productions, they are usually given more threatening nationalities, like German or Russian.) I continue to be impressed by Aster's direction and use of sound. But while I loved Hereditary on a sensory level when first I saw it in the theater, and afterward on a cerebral level; I loved Midsommar on a sensory level, but came out of the theater thinking that all the pieces did not fit together.

As I already said, this is a great post, and I don’t have any kind of point-by-point response. I think you voice several concerns that I had, but that waned after reflecting on the film (for various reasons). I definitely don’t think it matches the level of Hereditary, but I don’t think the ending was quite so contrived.

I thought that the ending felt overly long and drawn out, especially once the final act of the ritual commenced. My wife actually changed my mind about this, and I think she made a good point. She said that part of the point of ritual is that it must be observed. It’s not enough to simply consider the symbolic implications of the ritual; the performative act is indispensable. The priest has to say “do you take this man/woman,” the witness has to vocally swear to tell the truth, etc.

My wife saw the final 15-20 minutes or so as the cinematic equivalent of observing the ritual, and forcing the audience to witness it. I think it feels slightly inorganic because rituals always feel inorganic—they’re always forced, always theatrical. I thought the film could have ended, but she said that would have been a betrayal of its source material.

Anyway, that’s all I really have to say. It helps put the ending in perspective for me.
 
Last edited:
She went easy on her. SJWs always have to embarrass themselves because they see isms and bigotry everywhere they look. I actually had heard about this via an article written about the film itself, I didn't know this accusation of racism was from an actual live event that was filmed, cheers.
 
She went easy on her. SJWs always have to embarrass themselves because they see isms and bigotry everywhere they look. I actually had heard about this via an article written about the film itself, I didn't know this accusation of racism was from an actual live event that was filmed, cheers.
I remember being a bit let down when I saw the clip after seeing a bunch of puff pieces saying that she "humiliated" the person who asked the question. I sincerely hope she felt humiliated. Plus Ana Lily isn't exactly a raging shitlord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
Ever see this? Skip to 9:54.



"I don't make a film to tell you a message."


This is an exercise in the intentional fallacy.

The questioner pinned herself into a corner as soon as she asked what message Amirpour was trying to send. The director isn't sending a message any more than a pigeon that shits on your head. The viewer might be picking up meanings, but those meanings aren't intentional, and they're only valuable insofar as they resonate within a discursive community.

I admit to sympathizing with those who want to discuss the dynamics of racial representation in cinema, but this questioner went about it the wrong way (which is somewhat endemic in the current SJW twittersphere). What she should have said was "I'm curious if you have thoughts about the potential effects of the way race is represented in the film." It's fine to talk about effects, dynamics, implications, etc. But tracing this back to a director's "message" is simply fallacious.
 
This is an exercise in the intentional fallacy.

The questioner pinned herself into a corner as soon as she asked what message Amirpour was trying to send. The director isn't sending a message any more than a pigeon that shits on your head. The viewer might be picking up meanings, but those meanings aren't intentional, and they're only valuable insofar as they resonate within a discursive community.

I admit to sympathizing with those who want to discuss the dynamics of racial representation in cinema, but this questioner went about it the wrong way (which is somewhat endemic in the current SJW twittersphere). What she should have said was "I'm curious if you have thoughts about the potential effects of the way race is represented in the film." It's fine to talk about effects, dynamics, implications, etc. But tracing this back to a director's "message" is simply fallacious.
This always gets brought up with George Romero. Romero always stuck by his word that he wasn't trying to make a political statement by casting Duane Jones in the lead of the Night of the Living Dead and that Jones was simply the best actor for the part. Obviously 99.9% of people who have analyzed that film feel otherwise. I've even heard some say that it doesn't matter what the director says, like they're forced to own up to whatever impact the film might have on any random viewer.
 
Thought Romero said he casted him for the racial reason, and the ending coincided with that?
https://www.thewrap.com/night-living-dead-casting-cult-classic-20545/

Director George Romero agrees with that recollection: “Duane Jones was the best actor we met to play Ben. If there was a film with a black actor in it, it usually had a racial theme, like 'The Defiant Ones.' Consciously I resisted writing new dialogue ‘cause he happens to be black. We just shot the script. Perhaps 'Night of the Living Dead' is the first film to have a black man playing the lead role regardless of, rather than because of, his race.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
@Einherjar86 I think she ruined any chance of getting an interesting response from the director when she said "it was offensive" and I think this is especially true if the director you're basically trying to interrogate is herself a minority. A white director might be more willing to tread the subject lightly due to cultural pressure, guilt, political ideology and how that interacts with their race and so on.

Trying this stereotypical heavy-handed SJW approach on someone who is Iranian-American is a totally different dynamic and her relation to race, representation and racism is worlds apart from [insert generic white director here].

I don't even mind if these kinds of subjects are discussed with movie makers, I love to analyze films and I don't necessarily always care about the intent of the artist in doing so, but coming at someone like an inquisitor is a big part of why SJWs are so unpalatable and unlikable in the first place.

rip rutger hauer

I came in here to post this myself. RIP to one of the very best.