Just watched Shame. I decided to watch it because I had been reading The Ethical Prude and then I was thinking about Michael Fassbender (because who doesn’t occasionally ) and it made sense to watch this movie. I’ll write about that later. I even took notes.
It was excellent. I’m usually only emotionally affected by really cheesy movies and I get all choked up in that really embarrassing way because you know you’re being manipulated by an orchestra and a weeping actor. Both of those were present in Shame but that wasn’t what affected me. The story is just so patient and real.
Whenever the media talks about sex addiction in men its treated like an extension, an exaggeration of how man naturally are. Too much of a good thing. When its portrayed in women its the result of trauma or abuse. In Shame, it doesn’t say what happened to Branden, but it uses his sister and her problems to show that whatever it was, it happened to both of them. It just changed them in different ways. He hides it, stuffing it down where he can pretend its not there, she flaunts it, sings it. That’s rather ingenious on the director’s part.
Everyone in this movie behaves childishly, but not unrealistically. Sometimes I think that’s why we dress up adulthood in the way we do, so we can give our immaturity some validation. The final argument between Sissy and Branden is perfect. He keeps throwing around words like “responsibility” and that actions counts more than words. The fact that he seems to say that without any note of self-reflection is so sad.
Ack, it was perfect. I’ve been thinking of writing something about sex so I might talk more about it there, if I get around to it.
@4 months ago with 7 notes
#shame #michael fassbender #steve mcqueen #shame 2011 #movies #film
mootpoint:
richardrushfield:
David Cronenberg vs. the Superheroes
David, you’ve done drama and horror. Some fairly formidable directors have branched out into superhero movies pretty beautifully —is that something you would consider doing?
DC: I don’t think they are making them an elevated art form. I think it’s still Batman running around in a stupid cape. I just don’t think it’s elevated. Christopher Nolan’s best movie is “Memento,” and that is an interesting movie. I don’t think his Batman movies are half as interesting though they’re 20 million times the expense. What he is doing is some very interesting technical stuff, which, you know, he’s shooting IMAX and in 3-D. That’s really tricky and difficult to do. I read about it in “American Cinematography Magazine,” and technically, that’s all very interesting. The movie, to me, they’re mostly boring.
- David Cronenberg to Next Movie
I mostly agree with him here, but not entirely. And while he may have a point, the fact that he is saying this underscores his own problem as a filmmaker.
Forget about Dark Knight, the degree to which we have serious furrowed brow discussions of the latest Iron Man or X Men installments and treat what are, as Cronenberg says, children’s movies like they are serious works of art deserving serious discussion of their great themes, shows the degree to which our critical establishment has been overrun by fanboys. Marvel in particular, has played this beautifully, brining in ”respected” directors like Branaugh and Whedon to add just a few glib, portentous flourishes at the edges before they get down to the business of animated giant worms throwing cars at each other.
That is not to say I am against superhero films. There is nothing wrong with an action adventure movie; there is nothing shameful about making children’s movies. By and large, the soul of these films may not be inspiring but they are far less poisonous than the leering, creepy films of a Michael Bay, let alone Eli Roth. But they are children’s action films, and its one thing for fan boys who still collect action figures well into their 40’s to obsess about the details of Iron Man’s jet pack. That’s their disability and we should pity them for it. But for the rest of us who don’t have a huge emotional investment in the Marvel Universe, looking at these films at any depth beyond how much fun do they provide is not a journey likely to give much return on time put in.
Ironically, talking about the superhero films on this level has made both the films and criticism worse. Critics sound like they are chasing an audience and deeply unserious as they attempt to unearth grand themes in the films. While the films themselves have gotten much less fun to the extent they tip their hats to this audience. The ponderousness might give critics something to chat about but it does not confer life onto what are big corporate machines of films.
Which brings us to Dark Knight. Okay, the big themes of the movie might be heavyhanded and overplayed. But underneath that is in Bruce Wayne - in the first and last films of the series - a real character, not a committee creation but an actual tortured person struggling with what his purpose is in life. And then he puts on a cape and flies around punching people, but in this last film, that humanity is never lost. The big philosophical questions may fall short, but whenever one senses a real flesh and blood character in a film grappling with actual problems, that is a film worth giving your attention to, and that does make it more than just a children’s movie. There has not been a single one of those in a single Marvel film.
Which brings us full circle because another place where a person would be hard pressed to find a real flesh and blood character is in the recent works of David Cronenberg. If the Marvel characters are just machines for snapping wisecracks and throwing cars at evil aliens with a very thin sheen of humanity painted on, Cronenberg’s recent characters are graduate dissertations dressed up in costumes, acting out Great Moral Problems every bit as transparently as any Marvel character. I frankly find Chris Hemsworth’s Thor more real than any character in a Dangerous Method.
The fact that he has to knock down Christopher Nolan, that he feels the need to make a statement of his own seriousness shows one where Cronenberg’s mind is and what the problems are with his films. The opposite of a soulless Marvel film can be equally soulless. On both sides you have films attempting to make their characters leap to serve some larger agenda. Just because that agenda proclaims it’s capital S seriousness at every moment doesn’t make it so. In the end, there is no abstract philosophical question as complex as the simplest human being and a filmmaker who even attempts to honestly grapple with characters who would defy his agenda for them, is a filmmaker to be taken seriously indeed. Whatever else you may say about Christopher Nolan, in the Dark Knight Rises he does just that. Instead of throwing stones, David Cronenberg might want to take note.
Photo of David Cronenberg courtesy of Shutterstock.
I have responses to this:
1) I have no problem with taking children’s movies seriously. Or any movie seriously. But the way to take these movies seriously is probably not - at least not just - at the level of story, which is where a lot of the fanboyish conversation tends to go.
2) As much as I love Cronenberg, I am having a hard time coming up with any Cronenberg movies (which I have seen most of) where the characters seem like real complex people as opposed to machines for abstract ideas. (Spider, maybe?).
3) I don’t think psychological complexity is the only thing that makes a movie good, though it definitely can be a thing that makes a movie good. Also it is probably a good idea when your movie is actually about psychological complexity.
I feel obligated to reblog this because I love both comic book movies and David Cronenberg with a fiery passion, though its hard to figure out what to say. Obviously, I think he’s wrong about Nolan’s Batman franchise but I can’t blame him for saying what he says because obviously his films are so diametrically different them - and yes, I agree that most of his characters are not really characters but ideas. That’s not necessarily a bad thing in film, its just his style. It’d be nice if he could acknowledge the value of a cerebral superhero film without feeling like he’s invalidating his own work, but hey not everyone’s that chill about art.
@9 months ago with 22 notes
#film #cronenberg #psychological complexity
I kind of feel bad for the producers for this movie, or anyone else who is hurting because it underperformed at the box office. Because it didn’t have to. David Fincher seemed to insist on marketing it as super edgy/dark/will-make-you-hate-your-life serious movie, when really it was like most of his other movies. Kind of dark, very edgy, but pretty cheeky too. My dad and I were giggling through the whole thing, or at least whenever Mikael or Lisbeth did something embarassing which was rather frequently.
As such, it was wholly entertaining, as well as a well-made, well-acted, stylish movie. I wouldn’t say it was as good as The Social Network or other Fincher greats because of how it was constrained by its source material - Stieg Larsson’s book is extremely content heavy, and often unnecessarily. Fincher chopped most of this out, streamlined some storylines, and also included some things from the second book in order to create a sense of closure, which I thought was a good idea. But none of that changes the fact that this is long drawn out story that spends a lot of time watching the characters stare at a computer screen or leaf through books.
So all that was compensated well with great visuals, snappy pacing and editing. The actors had great chemistry, and we’re absolutely believable in their parts. Honestly though I have no idea how anyone who hadn’t read the book followed it. A lot of important information was mumbled very quickly in Swedish accents. I’m not one for hand-holding in my entertainment, but I thought maybe a little of repetition would’ve helped.
And now for the big stuff. I mentioned that there was a lot of giggling while watching this movie. Most of that was after the rape scenes were done. The only time my mom snickered was when Bjurman was tazed and fell face-first, knees locked, drooling on the floor (See what I mean? Cheeky). I’ve been hesitant to use the phrase “graphic” lately. I think I prefer “frank” or “straight forward.” The rape scene was straight forward, moreso than in the Swedish version. It was stylized somewhat, but I think there was a reason for that. Bjurman behaved in a very affected, almost ceremonious way. I see this as a reflection of a theme in the story, that these men - rapists, murderers, women-haters - think they’re special. They think there’s something important, artful even, about what they’re doing. And there isn’t. They aren’t. Like Lisbeth says - a line that is sadly not in the movie - he’s just a “common garden [variety] bastard who hates women.”
As far whether Lisbeth was sexualized, well like I said before, Rooney Mara has the cutest butt and its pretty hard not to notice that (don’t worry, there are much better moments where you get to acknowledge this). But I’ll say this - most of the time when I see a rape scene there is a sense of violation on a psychological level. That sympathy was always there. But in this movie I only recognized the physical violence, I cringed the same way I would if I was watching someone being punched in the face. I’m not sure why that was, maybe it was because I knew Lisbeth would get him back, or that it was, like I said, straight forward. However, her revenge is an interesting point. That scene is heavily stylized as well, Lisbeth totally puts on a show, one that is far more effective, dramatic and nasty than her rapist’s was. His was about his self-absorption, his ego, hers was about her desire to see him scared out of his mind.
At the Social Justice League, Connie complained, “On one level I understand this is meant to be a crime/thriller novel where the crime needs to be sensational in some way, but I am so sick of rapists being painted as psychopaths who kidnap women and set up basement torture chambers.” But that’s the point. It’s not romanticizing the sociopath, its making fun of him. Look how bad ass he thinks he is, but he burns just as easily as anybody else. Most people won’t get that part, obviously. But then again, most people probably won’t understand this movie with all the mumbling anyway, so.
@1 year ago with 2 notes
#the girl with the dragon tattoo #david fincher #film #movie reviews
