|
Post by sgev1977 on May 13, 2021 10:36:36 GMT
Wikipedia isn’t the Bible but maybe they are right. It’s a kind of romance but it’s a extremely platonic one. Sex would had completely spoiled the movie because yes, the age difference but also because it’s from the point of view of this young woman (not the creepy old guy) and her admiration and “attraction” for this funny sad old man. If he would had made a move on her, it would had felt as a total betrayal. That’s in part what make the not obviously attractive loser played by Murray attractive. He is decent, sincere, sad, funny and unattainable.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on May 13, 2021 12:37:28 GMT
The intimacies the two protagonists share are ones of connection, friendship and affection for one another.
Physically they share one kiss that lasts all of 3 seconds (maybe) in the last scene of the film, as Murray's character says goodbye on a crowded Tokyo street.
This movie is the very antithesis of an old geezer getting his rocks off on a "Lolita". There's nothing sleazy or creepy about their relationship. They are two very damaged people who find companionship and comfort in the barren wastelands of their emotional lives.
I think people classify it as a "romance" because they have a difficult time putting a label on it due to its complexity.
Definitely it is a film about love (in all its complicated aspects) and it also is a VERY funny film. BTW: the bar at the Shinjuku Park Hyatt is still a highly sought after place to be in Tokyo. When we were there it was THE place to see and be seen! And the night view of Tokyo is spectacular!
Japan is indeed a "strange land". Of all the places we've been (including India and Nepal) it is the one place that I felt totally and completely "foreign". It has a specific "otherworldliness" about it that is difficult to explain to those who have not experienced it. It was overwhelming. I LOVED going there and would really love to go back some day, but I couldn't live there. Just too rigid of a repressed and patriarchal society.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 13, 2021 15:06:36 GMT
Yes, I agreed. But even if it’s interpreted as they, or specifically she, having some romantic feelings toward this old man, it’s still the antithesis of the “old geeze” and his “Lolita” because again he doesn’t do any “romantic” move towards her and the relationship is very chaste. It would be more like a girl being infatuated with an old teacher and, even when he is flawed, he behaving like the idealized old mentor she admires. If he would show any romantic interest toward her and abuse her naivety then the story would be very different and it totally would spoil the nature of this movie.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 15, 2021 0:06:10 GMT
I had to correct myself here. Someone posted the first shot of the film on Twitter and someone angrily screamed “that it’s the ass of a 17 years old!” That made me think that maybe it wasn’t Coppola cameo as Johansson “double body” so I googled it and it seems I misremembered facts, www.theguardian.com/film/2003/dec/28/features.magazineThe article is funny because I can imagine The Guardian “cancelling” someone for saying things like this about a teenager,
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on May 15, 2021 1:34:44 GMT
Sgev said:"Someone posted the first shot of the film on Twitter and someone angrily screamed “that it’s the ass of a 17 years old!” "
Someone should have retorted "So you're the EXPERT on the asses of 17 year olds, are you???"
Honestly that opening shot was gorgeously photographed and made a very important point IMO.
I'll never get over the fact that there are people out there who are soooooo afraid of a bum or a penis. I think Johansson seemed perfectly capable and comfortable with the decision she made and Coppola wasn't being exploitive in any way with that shot. It was part of the artistic aesthetics of the film.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 15, 2021 1:51:22 GMT
I don’t think she was exploitative in any way but I’m sure that if her first name were Francis or Roman instead of Sophia, “he” would be in big problems right now even if Johansson still hadn’t denounced “him”.
In the same way, I think people would be angry at Jane Campion if she were a “he” about the relationship between Holly Hunter’s and Harvey Keitel’s characters in The Piano.
Those two movies were great not because they were directed by women but because they portrayed the complexity in the relationship (two very different kind of relationships) between men and women.
Still, I don’t like to post fake information.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 21, 2021 20:47:30 GMT
I just watched a video podcast by some young Mexican film critics about a few female filmmakers and it was awful! They are very sure about themselves and do a lot of comments about shots and frames but they just haven’t watched the films and clearly ignore basic stuff about the directors!
For example, they were three young women and when they talked about Jane Campion, two of them have watched Sweetie and the other one, The Piano so any of them have watched more than one film! Still, they decided based in their no-knowledge that she went from some David Lynch inspired filmmaker to something more conventional, because The Piano won some Oscars. The girl who watched The Piano, and loved it, agreed because she also watched some of her shorts (she was the most informed!) and decided they were indeed more surrealist. The problem was that her main example was The Water Diary from 2006 which she believes it was a college short! So, they began to talk about the “young” Campion, the one who directed Sweetie in 1989 and The Water Diary (20006!) and the old Campion, who directed The Piano in 1993!
I hate to be the old person screaming to the clouds but they are so ignorant! What happened with the old critics who seemed to know everything?! Lol It reminds to when Matt Zoller Seitz claimed on Twitter that the biggest problem with young critics is that they haven’t watched enough old films! With “old” meaning probably something older than 2010!
It was entertaining to see the girl trying to summarize The Piano plot as if anyone could imagine what it’s about!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 9, 2021 12:51:22 GMT
This is real in certain quarters. Mostly in those related to award pundits,
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 10, 2022 16:01:23 GMT
I sincerely feel sorry for this guy,
Just look those two tweets quoting him!
He is using Akerman’s suicide against her work and he believe that Trump and Bolsonaro won their respective elections! He totally lost his mind!
He is the guy who defended Morrissey against The Simpsons and BC (who he linked with Weinstein’s crimes like the crazy conspiracy theorists who believe his kids and wife are fake, by the way. Just because he starred in a pair of Weinstein films and dared to made fun of his darling Morrissey) and later, called TPOTD “homophobic, racist and misandrist”. He used to be a great writer with frequently contrarian but interesting views then he began verbally abusing directors and actors who made films he didn’t liked during award ceremonies and as a consequence was expelled from NYFCC.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 10, 2022 16:16:22 GMT
Actually, I think S&S kinda wanted and searched a result like that. I remember some comments pre publication by professional critics (they are female, by the way!) saying they weren’t invited this year meanwhile younger people with some specific profiles were included for the first time.
I think there are valid criticism but, on the other hand, I’m happy for Ackerman’s film and the publicity it got for it. She ironically refused to participate once she was invited because she didn’t agreed with the concept of making lists about the quality of films and that’s the other issue: it doesn’t matter how old and publicized it is, it still is a silly list! Who cares if your favorite film isn’t there? You should still love it! And of course, there are political stuff in play. That’s always the case and today’s situation probably will be very different in ten years.
Something more scandalous about the list than the inclusion of too many women and very recent films: there are 0 Latin American movies but, again, who cares! The voters probably would be different in ten years.
|
|