|
Post by pankakesnotstellar on Sept 26, 2017 21:21:18 GMT
They should know or at least suspect people would have extreme reactions to it. I mean it's about child abduction but also fetishism, politicians and time travelling! Also the poetic way they adapt it. If they thought everyone would understand their intentions then they have a LOT of faith in commercial general audiences! Reading reactions make me think in a late friend who was a very respected Historian and writer. He told me he discussed a lot of with his daughter in law because according to him she had an awful taste in movies and always said things like "well, we all have opinions and should respect others". He used to get angry and said: "I studied at the Sorbonne, my opinions doesn't have the same value than yours!" It sounds so pretentious but I read a pair of comments of people acting like some kind of mediators claiming people who are screaming that they didn't understanding it actually understood it but they didn't like it and we all should respect their valueable opinions. I guess it's part of the "democratization" of the Internet. All opinions have the same value because we are all equal. Except that not all opinions are informed opinions. I'm not saying people didn't like it are dumb or stupid. Actually there are a lot of very intelligent people who have awful taste in movies. Also there is the possibility that someone with good taste wouldn't like this. But why say, people telling the world they don't understand this actually meant the opposite or, my favorite, a few comments in The Guardian review actually claiming it's one of those things that only "middle and upper classes" enjoy! (nasty people who went to good schools, I guess! And I'm almost sure people who wrote that aren't working class at all. Just typical progressives who think working classes are stupid but cool!). These reactions actually kind of confirm my theory that this is something more in tradition with European art houses than BBC prime television. Nothing bad with saying people who enjoy certain kind of movies are more open to understand something like this. Also yes, I miss the snob times when consensus wasn't a sign of quality and informed opinions were more valuable than any Twitter shit storm! (I didn't study at the Sorbonne but he asked me what was my favorite Kubrick movie and I said, Barry Lyndon. That answer apparently made me a person with great taste in films! He in general hated Kubrick!) I haven't seen it yet, but I have recorded it. I thought I'd read a bit the comments here 😀 and some of the comments on the BBC site are awful...regression of brain power on display. What I actually wanted to say, sgev, is that I agree 100%...generally in discussions on twitter, or utube my position is: i respect your right to have an opinion, but I absolutely do not, in any way possible, give any value to it. 😂😂 BTW, favourite Kubrick is Dr Strange love. I absolutely do not like 2001:Space Oddysey 😆 + I don't miss the snobism, but I miss general good artistic taste that matches with mine 😉 also... I can't stand the counterculture trend... Nothing can just be simply good, there will always be a steady stream of party poopers that makes it its mission to find negativity, because it makes things "more real"...😒
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Sept 27, 2017 3:28:15 GMT
I haven't seen TCIT yet, but I've formed this same opinion just based on the grammar of the people complaining about it. Look at this one from Facebook:
I had to read it three times just to decipher it.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Sept 27, 2017 3:40:23 GMT
Two years later she had a man baby? 😂
I read one that didn't understand the shower/sex scene and determined that she must have gotten pregnant before they separated. 🤔
I hope these folks don't have man babies of their own.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 27, 2017 4:01:33 GMT
Ha! And that's just the kind of idiotic comment that's being quoted in those articles about viewers who were baffled by TCIT. I've told myself that some people treat all social media like Twitter where they have limited characters, so they avoid punctuation. But I know that's not the case!
Way back, when email was new, my co-worker and I were regularly scolded for sending emails with complete sentences, punctuation and capital letters. We were told that we had to embrace this fast new way of communicating! We actually spent an afternoon trying to email each other without regard for proper grammar - and we just couldn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 27, 2017 4:20:36 GMT
I love this described audio for TCIT!
|
|
|
Post by lorelei on Sept 27, 2017 10:55:58 GMT
Ha! And that's just the kind of idiotic comment that's being quoted in those articles about viewers who were baffled by TCIT. I've told myself that some people treat all social media like Twitter where they have limited characters, so they avoid punctuation. But I know that's not the case! Way back, when email was new, my co-worker and I were regularly scolded for sending emails with complete sentences, punctuation and capital letters. We were told that we had to embrace this fast new way of communicating! We actually spent an afternoon trying to email each other without regard for proper grammar - and we just couldn't do it. The person with the terrible grammar (and punctuation skills!) is saying she "had a baby, man, I hope.....", like a sentence filler. I read the book just after it was announced BC was going to make this adaptation, so I get that the story is distorting time. But I am also having some difficulty with the time it took for her to have the baby, if the sex scene we are shown is meant to be where the child is conceived. I believe that is the intent in the book - but there, as in the movie, they obviously do get together more than once over the course of three years. When he says Kate has been missing for that long and to me it seems it has been more than a few months since they had sex, it left things open for confusion. Not to mention - how did he not notice she was pregnant at Charles' funeral? I have only watched it once, on a tablet when I was very tired, so maybe I didn't understand?
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 27, 2017 11:20:41 GMT
He does say to her something like "I saw you at the funeral, but when I looked for you afterwards you were gone". And we couldn't see she was pregnant because she was in the middle of a crowd of people.
This is my understanding of the timeline: Stephen and Julie had been living apart for a year when they get together again at the start of the movie. Everything else occurs in the following months. When Julie goes to see him to tell him she's going away for a few months, she's already pregnant. The next time she sees him is when she returns for the funeral and has the baby.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 27, 2017 11:24:26 GMT
I guess it’s suggested he didn’t noticed her. He just saw her from afar. But yes, there are a few logical leaps. IMO It work more like a feverish dream caused from a trauma, with little kids ghosts from the past and future walking everywhere, images from family history suddenly materializing, etc. Time is never clear.
For some people logical is important in movies but there are other who just don’t care. Vertigo, full of plot holes , is now considered the best film ever but when it was selected by worldwide critics in the Sight and Sound poll there were people writing articles saying it couldn’t be because the big logical leaps and plot holes. Hitchcock, for his part, declared since the 60’s that he didn’t care for plausibility. That it was boring and irrelevant to cinema.
|
|
|
Post by lorelei on Sept 27, 2017 11:48:18 GMT
Thanks for the replies. I had forgotten about her saying she was going away, and wasn't sure how clearly he saw her at the funeral.
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Sept 27, 2017 12:13:43 GMT
The appraisal of a work of art is always subjective, of course. But a negative or positive opinion should be defended with coherent arguments and that's how how we can know if the opinion is informed or not. A random comment on Twitter during the transmission is NEVER a valuable opinion and it shouldn't be taken as seriously as a well-thought long piece. That surprises me! Because that is just absolutely, horribly, WRONG! Preference is entirely subjective, but QUALITY is NOT! And proper (informed) appraisal of art is absolutely NOT entirely subjective! I am specifically referring to "art", as in paintings, mainly there, though, rather than other art forms generally. But the same issue applies to all art in that there are parameters to quality. You obviously appreciate the difference between informed opinion and uninformed opinion, Sgev, but then you still say "appraisal of art is always subjective" as if that's something different, when it's not.
|
|