Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

AlmostAGhost

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1382

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by AlmostAGhost

  6. Posted

    12 minutes ago, DrGuts1003 said:

    And from Halle's perspective, does she think 'trublue' is just some random stranger?  If so, she starts flirting, bordering on cybering, with him very quickly.

    I could be totally wrong, because this movie was nonsense, but I think she thought 'trublue' was Bruce Willis and that she was bringing him down for extramarital sexting

  8. Posted

    5 minutes ago, tomspanks said:

    Also, Amazon trivia says that this scene wasn't shot the way it was originally scripted.

    That's interesting, and something I've been thinking about in all our movies lately. Wasn't Taxi Driver also written one way first, but due to limitations or luck or whatever, it ended up being another (far far better) way?  (I'm about to sleep, can't recall the specifics right now.) These sort of coincidences of fortune seem to come up often in these AFI films.  So are great movies just a product of luck?  Or like, a function of a good director/writer who can notice and adapt?  I mean, all along the way of Rocky, it could have fallen apart/been far less great so so so easily, but they continually got to go with the flow in ways that really help it (from minor things like the robe fitting to this scene with Adrian, etc.).

    • Like 4

  9. Posted

    43 minutes ago, WatchOutForSnakes said:

    He is entirely unconcerned with who she is as Amy says he only talks about himself on the date.

    Nah this isn't proof of that.  It's proof of social awkardness.  It's proof of nerves.  It's proof of inexperience, selfishness, a clueless man, a babbling moron.  I don't believe it to be a sign of a monster.  I get the "she wanted to leave and he kept at her" point, but not this.  This is what I meant when I said I thought their weird date felt real to me. It was two socially awkward people having an awkward time, and I don't think we should judge him as if he were some lothario / typical leading man type.  Would it make sense at all if Rocky was a total gentleman and wooed her with flowers and intellect?  No, he'd talk too much and try to kiss her and tell her to spend the night.

    I probably shouldn't keep on this, because I support men changing their behavior, 100%.  I'm not coming from it from the wrong side. But if we start pulling social awkardness into this, I dunno.  *shrug*

     

    • Like 3

  10. Posted

    29 minutes ago, grudlian. said:

    Their date really came across as almost monstrous to me this viewing. I know it's supposed to convey Adrian just being an incredibly shy introvert that Rocky's natural bonhomie wins her over. But he doesn't have a phone, no one will hear her scream, he takes off clothes immediately, he locks her in, he slams his muscular arm against the wall to keep her in, his apartment is disgusting. In any other movie, this would end in sexual assault.

    Yea I'm torn there. I absolutely think we should reinterpret situations to modern rules, but I also don't think I read it as quite that predatory here. Not for this character, anyway.  

    Thinking about this whole movie from Adrienne's point of view though is certainly fascinating.

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    1 hour ago, grudlian. said:

    it's a weird kind of feel good movie.

    I like this description!

    I'm still listening to the episode right now, but Paul & Amy keep saying stuff that I hinted at in my longish Letterboxd note about the movie, from it not being so triumphant to the lack of "Hollywood" in it.  I called it an early 'mumblecore' movie.  I really like the realism, from the dirty streets and the dark apartments and train sounds and toilet flushes and even the weird date (I see Amy's flaws in it, but it also feels like how a real guy with no experience would pursue someone - clueless and selfish and inconsiderate).  There is no 'gloss' on this movie, and that's kind of cool.

    I won't pretend to be a giant fan of Rocky, but "kind of cool" is about where I am on it (to piggyback off of grudlian's "kind of feel good movie").

    • Like 3

  15. Posted

    3 minutes ago, grudlian. said:

    If you've ever heard of The Shaggs, they have genuine fans. Frank Zappa, Kurt Cobain considered their album great even though it's objectively garbage. If they got together today, The Shaggs next album or tour would do some business. I wonder if Florence Foster Jenkins was Cole Porter's The Shaggs.

    Outsider music is an interesting phenomenon, and I dig some of it -- love me some Jandek -- but mostly it's people making music for themselves and then people enjoy it as a some sort of expression, not usually as "this is garbage, let's laugh at it."  This movie would be much better if it tapped into her outsider-ness, instead of her being everyone's joke.  

    • Like 3

  16. Posted

    This is probably a similar point to Cameron and Tom's but basically, I just didn't care. There were some funny moments that made me laugh, but I think for a biopic it just didn't feel like it mattered. Which I think is important for a biopic. I don't know enough about Jenkins, but I think you could make a biopic of her that at least alluded to history or metaphorically related to today somehow. But instead it was just sort of "here's this lady, and a thing she did."

    • Like 4

  18. Posted

     

    17 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    just want to say that I thought this was a good, productive exchange and that I also had some of the objections AlmostAGhost was raising to your earlier line of argument. I think you've explained yourself well here, and I don't really object any longer.

    Ditto - and if anything, just see me as giving a little push to get some elaboration and better clarity I know we're all capable of :)

  19. Posted

    2 minutes ago, bleary said:

    But the people who try to cure him are definitively judged to be wrong

    That's true. But I think I read it more "both sides are wrong" and not "government is wrong, thus Alex is right."  EVERYONE is being bad here.  

    Focusing down, I think the flaw for me is less the shock/violence, but the statements about violence/morals has become super muddled and it's obviously unclear what's trying to be said.  (None of us are really sure.)  That's not a good thing for a film.  Also, the comedy/irony angles play as ridiculous forms for this message. 

    I was going to wonder if the exploration of violence and morals would be better received (by this forum anyway) if it was done in a more serious, less cartoony manner, but I see that Taxi Driver is running away in the poll above so I guess that answers my question!

    • Like 2

  20. Posted

    32 minutes ago, bleary said:

    In this case, I mostly lean towards Cameron H.'s side (as well as Amy's side and that of many others here) that the film teeters too closely to glorifying or excusing Alex's violence, particularly the violence towards women.

    Yea for sure. I'm closer to you guys than I may sound.  But I myself wouldn't classify it as "glorifying" because I just don't see how he's anyone's hero. I mean these are bad actions in the film, and doesn't the film make that clear?  Isn't that why they try to cure him?

  21. Posted

    I'm not upset in the slightest. We discuss things here!  Let's just get that out of the way for now and forever.  We're not mad at each other, nor offended, even if we disagree on something or what to focus on something someone in particular said.

    51 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    My only point is it always seems like it’s men defending the movie, which seems to be the case here. I’m not trying to paint people as “un-woke.”

    Well maybe I misread you but you said this:

    "I hope I'm not stepping out of line or offending anyone when I say this, but I think there is a certain degree of privilege on display when a person is able to look at those scenes and then casually talk about objectivity, art, shock-value, and morality - especially when they may have been fortunate enough in their lives not to have to undergo the horrors presented within. While this might be a fascinating philosophical game for some, for others, it's a grim reminder of how things have always been, and sadly, continue to be."

    Which is what I was referring to by "unwoke" and not having empathy.  I should have used a direct quote, I guess, but you absolutely imply that supporters aren't aware of the horrors of a reality, as a function of their privileges - which is pretty much the definition of 'woke'.

    My point is that I don't agree with that. And I think it effectively tries to shut off anyone who disagrees. You're saying explicitly "you can't possibly talk about it as art or morality" when that's exactly what we should be doing.

  22. Posted

    Because you're still pointing it out, and using it here to make a claim.

    OK so here's my defense of the violence of the film. It is a movie about ULTRAVIOLENCE.  There has to be some shockingness in it.  I'm not saying everyone has to like shocking violence, or that even the point of the film is interesting at all (it kind of isn't), but I think it does have to be there.  I don't take this as gratuitous, or purely shock value.  It's there because that's what the characters do.  They can't just be like breaking in and stealing silverware.  They have to be brutal and gross. 

    Now maybe Kubrick went too far, or it is certainly too triggering for a lot of people, but I do think it has to be there in this story.

  23. Posted

     

    44 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Which is why I'm of the mind of disregarding those numbers altogether.

    That's totally fair re: IMDB rating, but why aren't you dismissing your own anecdotal evidence with the same scrutiny?  Is there any actual proof of a gender issue in liking the film?  Everyone is confusing me with this line of attack, tbh.  I don't love the movie, as I said, but I do support it as a film and an artwork. I don't think it's fair to paint Clockwork supporters as bros who aren't woke enough and lack empathy, and we can't have a fair discussion about the movie if that's what's happening. 

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    18 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    On the topic of the unreliable narrator, I don't think Alex is supposed to be Rashomon-type unreliable.  It seems like everything he describes happened, does in fact happen. 

    I don't mean to imply the violence didn't happen or is imaginary.  Just that it's skewed to how he envisions it -- attacking the 'upper crust' or perhaps even a consensual menage a trois with popsicle girls.  We don't know, though, if his telling of these incidents is anything close to reliable.  It makes for a difficult foundation of a movie, it seems we all are against this to different degrees, but I think his unreliability should be considered.

    I watched Lolita not too long ago (and read it much much longer ago). I don't think it's unreliable exactly, but what it is is a lot of characters confusing their feelings/actions.  So I guess there's some unreliability there, but it is more grounded.  Like, if you don't recognize the confusion it becomes an old guy creeping after a young girl, and obviously gross.  But once you see that his interpretations of feelings is just way off, and so is Lolita's, and so is her mother's, and on and on, it becomes much more of a strange web. I don't believe it should be viewed straight either, tbh.

     

×