|
Post by gingerale on Dec 21, 2021 12:10:21 GMT
I saw that same thread of tweets too! He was so annoying lol. I like that Guy Lodge defended it by pointing out that no one in the movie showed normal sexual behavior. I think another person said too, it's not about how men masturbate, but how Phil does. And critics Wendy Ide and Carmen Gray (who both love the movie) both responded that they understand Campion is quite playful in her storytelling and not too serious. It reminds me of the scene in The Piano where Stewart was watching Ada and Baines make love from under the floorboards. That's not normal behavior (you would think a jealous husband would just storm in there and attack them), but it tells us more about the character than a typical reaction would.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 21, 2021 12:56:41 GMT
Also that scene is so important for Campion that she said she cast the role based on it. She needed a vulnerable actor but also “a great lover”! It probably doesn’t matter to that guy and there is indeed some perversion in the scene but that delicacy is what Campion, one of the most erotic filmmakers of all times, considers it’s the way a great lover masturbate! So the joke is on him! Lol
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Dec 21, 2021 12:57:46 GMT
About those 2 cows pushing their heads together at the beginning: to me the important bit was when the third, much larger bull, came in and pushed them apart, establishing its own dominance.
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Lee on Dec 21, 2021 13:21:34 GMT
About those 2 cows pushing their heads together at the beginning: to me the important bit was when the third, much larger bull, came in and pushed them apart, establishing its own dominance. That’s the amazing thing about this film - Campion does not just include things randomly, each shot is there for a reason, supports the storytelling whether by showing the viewer important information, setting the mood and tone to inform about the place/culture and characters or by symbolically highlighting important elements and themes.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 25, 2021 11:30:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Dec 25, 2021 11:57:01 GMT
Am I reading that last sentence correctly? Because Phil absolutely did trust the wrong man.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 25, 2021 13:04:30 GMT
The NYT profile about Jane Campion said it better,
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 25, 2021 14:15:28 GMT
Am I reading that last sentence correctly? Because Phil absolutely did trust the wrong man. I read your comment again and I think I misunderstood it! Even when my reaction was exactly yours when I first read it! I think she agrees that Phil trusted the wrong man but that Campion was more subtle about it and because that a better and more mature filmmaker. That’s interesting because the main criticism by highbrow critics who didn’t liked the film (not the “I didn’t understood it” crowd!) is that the film needed a much bigger climax. I agreed with the author, at that time probably the scene with Phil “opening” to Peter would always be very discreet and contained but still subtly explosive! But agreed that the last line sounds contradictory to her main point but if you read the whole last two paragraphs, she is just comparing the way she managed the last scenes to the more direct In the Cut. Phil opened to Peter just a little in comparison to her other heroines but the consequences were still tragic!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Dec 25, 2021 14:39:56 GMT
Okay, that makes more sense now, but it’s still an awkward sentence, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Lee on Dec 25, 2021 15:03:21 GMT
I read that last line as being about Peter, instead of Phil. Peter played that he was more naive and trusting than he was, but he did not trust Phil, even when Phil appeared to have called a truce and to have started to warm to Peter.
Though reading it again it could be about Phil. His entire adult life he built a world, persona to never ever putting him in a position of having to trust the wrong man …. but then wavered a bit, with deadly consequences.
|
|