Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What DVD / Video did you watch last night? (pt3)

My last film on a plane was a Ricky Gervais one on the way to Bishkek. I was happy that the headphones weren't working and went back to sleep.
 
Antichrist: confounding and challenging or a load of misogynistic old cobblers? Frankly, I have no idea really but it looked nice and some of the stuff Lars von Trier seemed to be saying about the dehumanising horror of grief and guilt was powerful and interesting. I liked the way it bolted horror tropes (the cabin in the woods, witches, Satan, the cruelty of nature) onto a very raw human story about a couple losing their child.
 
My last film on a plane was a Ricky Gervais one on the way to Bishkek. I was happy that the headphones weren't working and went back to sleep.

Was that the lie film one?

That could have been great but just fell into a very tired hollywood formula hole half way though instead of subverting it (which it seemed to be stetting out to do).
 
Antichrist: confounding and challenging or a load of misogynistic old cobblers? Frankly, I have no idea really but it looked nice and some of the stuff Lars von Trier seemed to be saying about the dehumanising horror of grief and guilt was powerful and interesting. I liked the way it bolted horror tropes (the cabin in the woods, witches, Satan, the cruelty of nature) onto a very raw human story about a couple losing their child.

I've had discussions with feminists who think that that's a very misogynistic film, mainly because the woman yields in the end and admits her 'inherent evil', but I think that misses the point somewhat. I know directors' intentions shouldn't always be an indicator of this sort of thing but Von Trier actually treats his female protagonists with a lot of sympathy, so I don't see how he would suddenly turn against that in this film. I think he's commenting on misogyny, sure (the man doesn't exactly come out smelling of roses here), but that doesn't make it misogynistic.

Other than that I quite liked the film, although he maybe tried a bit too hard to be controversial.
 
I think Von Triers films are misogynistic and they strike me as rather childish in their desperation to provoke. Mind, I found Antichchrist so intensely silly that I wasn't offended by the whole "women are the root of all evil" gubbins. There is formal skill there and his films are so luridly entertaining that I will always check them out. The scenes of Gainsbourg walking through the fairy tale forrest were rather beautiful.
 
I really don't see how Dancer in the Dark can be misogynistic, apart from maybe towards all the men who let her down.
 
I really don't see how Dancer in the Dark can be misogynistic, apart from maybe towards all the men who let her down.

Von Trier took great glee in completely obletarating his central female character, who is shown to be nothing but a powerless victim within circumstances that aren't based on any recongnisable reality. She has plenty of opportunities to save herself, but like the idiot she is, she never takes them. Von Trier is like a kid pulling the wings off flies.

While people were suckers for weeping over the ridiculously protracted execution climax, Von Trier was laughing at them. As Von Trier himself said, when confronted about why he keeps victmising his female characters on Radio 4's Film Show: "All women are bitches"
 
I really don't see how Dancer in the Dark can be misogynistic, apart from maybe towards all the men who let her down.

you can't be misogynistic to a man- the clue is in the 'gyny' part of the word, referencing gynecological etc. Man hate is Misandry. Universal people hate is misanthrope.

Anyway, this pedantry aside I watched True Blood's latest episode- I think Sookeh should dump that cock Bill and hook up with Eric Northman who is on my 'if I had to' list.
 
how can one be misogynistic towards men?

Oops I guess I meant misandry.

Von Trier took great glee in completely obletarating his central female character, who is shown to be nothing but a powerless victim within circumstances that aren't based on any recongnisable reality. She has plenty of opportunities to save herself, but like the idiot she is, she never takes them. Von Trier is like a kid pulling the wings off flies.

While people were suckers for weeping over the ridiculously protracted execution climax, Von Trier was laughing at them. As Von Trier himself said, when confronted about why he keeps victmising his female characters on Radio 4's Film Show: "All women are bitches"

She gives up her life because
she doesn't want her son to go blind like she has.
How does that make her an idiot? It's only the women who stay strong and humanistic throughout the entire film.

Also I believe anything Von Trier says or does is just an elaborate piss take, perhaps because a lot of men would like to believe that all women are bitches and he's just playing on that.
 
She is an idiot because she could easily have given evidence that would save her in court, but then Von Trier made up this fairy tale justice system which makes little sense. Anyway, the whole film is idiotic, though there were things about it that I liked. Bjork gives htis heartfelt, naturalistic performance which is wasted on what is a rather lurid and shallow film. I also loved her score. Catherine Deneuve on the other hand is so grotequely miscast, it's another reminder that Von Trier can only have been taking the piss.
 
The Man In The Glass Booth. The fact that it's adapted from a play is fairly evident throughout, and the static nature of some scenes reminded me more of a Perry Mason episode than a film. There are times when you think Schell is overplaying the role, but as the film continues, you're drawn into his performance, which is ultimately explained by the film's surprise.
 
I started to watch the Thai gorefest Meat Grinder, but gave up within 20 minutes. It is really gruesome, but as a piece of filmmaking it's pretentious and dull. I watched the ghosty classic The Innocents instead, in a brand new transfer on the projector. It's just one of the most beautiful b&w films ever made and I love all those split diopter shots.
 
The Midnight Meat Train - risible adaptation of a Clive Barker short story. So shit it actually annoyed me.
 
Ikiru, I lreally like all of Akira Kurosawa's films, but this is probably the most personal of all of the ones I have seen and I think many local gouverement workers will see a bit of themselves in Watanabe.
 
A marathon: Godfather, and Godfather II. The Godfather remains a gorgeous movie, a timeless classic. And my opinion of II is confirmed: overlong and somewhat tedious. The first appears a labor of love; the second, almost a filler movie.
 
i watched Shadows, John Cassavetes first film, i very much enjoyed it. it is a new york beat film really with all improvised script kind of about 3 children in a black family where two of them look white and the tensions that come from that, but it is not really about that mainly, it is more about these cool characters runnign around new york getting drunk and talking to each other. because it is improvised the odd scene falls dead but in general it is pretty gripping and fast and quite real.
 
I watched a film called The Killing Jar - Michael Madsen plays 'Mr Blond', holds the customers of a red diner captive while tortuing and killing and attempting to form it all into some kind of plot with some kind of twist which never really twists and isn't very plotted.

I wanted something simple. I got it.
 
A marathon: Godfather, and Godfather II. The Godfather remains a gorgeous movie, a timeless classic. And my opinion of II is confirmed: overlong and somewhat tedious. The first appears a labor of love; the second, almost a filler movie.

The DeNiro stuff in 2 is good, the Pacino story less interested.

2 works better in the chronological version shown over here, with added scene and extra DeNiro!
 
Lovey Bones - visually stunning in every aspect, not just the special effects (which really put your HD telly to work) but every camera movement or choice of angle. The story was great, and handled fairly well considering the subject but as many people have already said, does seem to drag a little bit. Either way, its a fine example of film making and sets a standard as far as visuals go.

Carne (Gaspar Noe) - watched this straight after, and was a similar kind of story I suppose, but in a third of the running time and with Noe's traditional format as per Irreversible. Large blocky letters, dark music, very questionable and troubling subject matter. The guy's got issues no doubt, but then again, aint we all. At least he acknowledges them and strips them down to their raw, uncomfortable essence and portrays them so brutally well.
 
Last night I watched Ponyo, which was a lovely film ruined by the stupid rental DVD skipping at the important parts :mad: Not the best Ghibli I've seen but nice nonetheless.

Today I watched White Ribbon which I also liked, really nicely shot and I do like not being given any easy answers.
 
The DeNiro stuff in 2 is good, the Pacino story less interested.

2 works better in the chronological version shown over here, with added scene and extra DeNiro!

I'd agree. I think they should have done a prequel alone, telling the back-story of Vito Corleone, and leave the rest for a different film.

It was refreshing to see something where actors like DeNiro and Pacino were at the top of their games, and not picking up anything that will give them a paycheck as they seem to be doing nowadays.
 
Back
Top Bottom