|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 25, 2021 15:19:10 GMT
It’s about Phil, he is the one who opens to Peter and the leading man in the film. Peter doesn’t open to anyone. He is the real “predator” of the story even when he didn’t looked like one.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 25, 2021 16:01:28 GMT
I read the comments to see if someone is discussing this but oh, boy! They are just awful! Most of them hate TPOTD, In the Cut and The Piano, which it’s not even mentioned in this article! Lol At least most comments about BC are positive but yeah, not very bright comments!
The first one is positive but even that person doesn’t understand why the author is “suggesting” that Peter killed Phil!
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Dec 25, 2021 16:37:50 GMT
There’s a podcast review I listened to last week - I’m not sure it was posted here. There were three people speaking, and only one (the only woman) liked it. Actually, she loved it! She spoke first and went on and on about it. She totally got it! She listed all the little details and praised everything about it. She said she could talk about for hours if they let her.
Then the guys spoke. The first guy seemed hesitant, though, because it was like he had watched a completely different movie from his co-host. So I think he focussed on things that she hadn’t mentioned. He said that for him, it’s a sign of a bad movie when you get distracted by something in the background, which happened a few times. He gave the example of when Rose took Peter shopping for new clothes. When Peter goes to look at the display of white shoes, the reviewer spotted Converse high tops - which, he said, wouldn’t have been around in 1925! So he immediately had to look it up and discovered that yes, those shoes were around then. (I remember that same shoe discussion coming up when they first released the teaser/trailer for the movie. Guys on Twitter were thrilled to point out the anachronism of Peter wearing white tennis shoes in the 1920s, so the movie must be really bad for no one to notice that mistake!)
The other guy reviewer said he that the ending made it seem like Peter had killed Phil. The female reviewer said “Yes! That was the point of the whole movie!” And she added that she also noticed the Converse shoes, but she already knew they had been available at that time, so she didn’t have to take her attention away from the movie to look them up online. Ha!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 25, 2021 17:15:23 GMT
It’s funny because the “this isn’t logic” vs “who cares if it’s logic or not that’s not the point of films”, has been out there for decades. Hitchcock defended his hate for logic in films in his famous conversations with Truffaut. It’s a pathetic way of judging film especially for filmmakers like him or Campion that are very much about dream logic and the subconscious. It’s of course, much more pathetic when the “error” in the film isn’t even an error in the first place!
There is an interview of Campion about how she saw Smith-McPhee playing with a hula hoop and her first reaction was “we need to have this in the movie. Someone check if they existed then!” She discovered that they did but not like the one in the film but whatever, that’s good enough! Her impulse was right because that’s one of the most commented shot in the film because the craziness and intentionally ridiculousness of it! It was something similar with the sneakers. She said she chose them because the photo of Thomas Savage wearing them in one cover photo from the 1980s. They weren’t an error because they existed but also because even if they didn’t they have an intention behind them. They were a conscious election by the filmmaker. They felt off because that was the intention! That character was from another place and, yes, from another time that the rest of the characters. And no, the film doesn’t have to spell out things to you so you can get them. This is not that kind of film. If you distracted yourself it’s on you because this is intentionally not the kind of film designed to explain things to easily distracted minds. This is not a kiddie film.
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Lee on Dec 25, 2021 17:22:25 GMT
Oh yeah the early comments on that WaPo article were bad. (Short attention spans? Anti-intellectualism? Misogyny? I get different tastes, but there was an edge beyond just not enjoying the film) I was going to post a comment on that article and then decided not to. It’s Christmas and I choose not to spend time with negative, shallow, willfully ignorant people, even virtually.
(Actually I’m not spending Christmas with anyone this year … my fully vaccinated and boosted older sister tested COVID positive yesterday, I’d had dinner with her the day before, so I’m isolating as much as I can until I get tested… other family members in the same circumstance are also staying home since we’ve got a couple of vulnerable people in our mix and we don’t want to chance spreading it around.)
But I’ll virtually hang out with you folks and chat about BC anytime 😊
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 25, 2021 17:27:43 GMT
Oh, Hannah Lee, I wish the best for you, your sister and your whole family! I send my love!
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Lee on Dec 25, 2021 17:40:27 GMT
Thank you so much for the kind thoughts sgev ☺️
We’re all vaccinated and boosted so hopefully all will be well.
It was going to be a strange Christmas anyway; our 90 year old mother passed away last month a few days after suffering a stroke. So it’s not a bad thing to have a quiet more contemplative day, the rain and snow is fitting the mood. My sister dropped off food planned for our gathering to everyone in driving distance and we all zoomed together last night for a virtual Yankee Swap, and some good conversation, so that was nice.
|
|
|
Post by llminnowpea on Dec 26, 2021 12:13:36 GMT
Oh, I am so sorry about your mom. I hope your day ended up ok?
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 31, 2021 17:43:47 GMT
I won’t post this review, published in a Conservative publication that already published a negative kind of homophobic review before. Actually I didn’t even dared to reading it! Maybe in another day! Lol I just know it’s bad because it’s by this controversial critic who has always hated Jane Campion (she is a “racist white woman” who “hates men”) and declared the war to BC this year for being part of a parody of a celebrity who supports a political party that was called “Nazis” by *check notes* Nigel Farage! Lol
Unsurprisingly, he used the terms “homophobic” and “misandrist” in the headline!
But I couldn’t avoid to smile because it was very predictable but also because this thing and the polemic that followed were so funny and should always being remembered! Especially today, the last day of the year!
Another nasty gay man played by BC, I guess! And he is also a man so discrimination against men!!! (without mentioning the fat phobia!) But no one dares to criticizes the real guy when he calls Asians “sub-humans” because that’s not discrimination at all! He has a very thin skin but also don’t say anything negative about my favorite racist because “Cancel Culture, Inc.”!
Also this,
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 31, 2021 17:53:49 GMT
Two random thoughts!
A) What would think PETA of that parody now that they know that BC castrates “cows” (city slickers from the USA doesn’t seem to know the difference!) as hobby!
B) Was BC channeling himself when the character just stop of being vegan and love sausages? Maybe this was the character that provoked him to abandon his veganism and not Phil! 😉
|
|