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

grudlian.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2122

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by grudlian.

  1. Posted

    4 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    I just finished the episode, and I have to say, I strongly disagree with Amy’s take that Spielberg was trying to suggest that “God was on the side of the Americans.” I get that you have a lot of people praying and surviving. I also get you have Barry Pepper reciting scripture and making almost every shot. But it’s worth pointing out, in the end, Barry Pepper, our MOST religious character, still dies. If God was “on his side,” shouldn’t he be miraculously spared?

    I think what Spielberg was showing was how people brought their faith with them to war, but regardless of that, if there is a God, he didn’t appear to be intervening for either side. It goes into the age old question of, “If there is a benevolent God, why do bad things happen?” As religion applies to the military, the belief that there is a divine purpose not only provides an ethical security blanket (“I’m not a cold-blooded killer; I’m an instrument of God’s will.”), but also helps people to make sense of the insanity and carnage of war. If you take that away, if God actually isn’t on our side, or even worse, doesn’t exist, it forces a person to confront some uncomfortable truths.

    So, in those final moments, as that tank takes aim at Barry Pepper, all that existential weight comes crashing down on him. You can see it in his face. He’s probably thinking, “But God, Why? I was a good Christian. Why have you abandoned me? Do you not exist at all? Was it really all just dumb luck?”

    For me, that’s the bigger twist than the Old Man Ryan reveal. Spielberg does set it up like God is on the Allies’ side, but in the end, he pulls the rug out from under us and suggests that maybe that’s just what we want to think because it makes us feel better.

    "If God's on our side, he'll stop the next war"

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    30 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    The way I usually hear it is just someone using it to say an actor did a good job. Not necessarily the best, just maybe a bit better than good. Maybe if someone is saying 'this is a historically notable performance' than it's fine.  But rarely I think they mean that. I don't know, I find it a weird shorthand.

    Yeah, that's how I normally hear it. I should have said "to me, Oscar worthy means..."

  3. Posted

    1 hour ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    One that also never shows up here is 'Oscar-worthy'. That's just such a circular meaningless phrase, but it seems to be a go-to for most people. Maybe because just about every movie we discuss is famous for being great. Anyway, either way, yea we're better than Facebook. :)

    "Oscar worthy" means the best movie (or whatever the category) of the year or realistically in the conversation for best of the year. People obviously disagree on what that means or what comes that includes. Sometimes it's a really tough year with a lot of great potential nominees; sometimes it isn't.

    I really hate hate hate "can you believe X hasn't won an Oscar????" Were they the best any year? Give me the year they should have wom and what their competition was. Consistently great doesn't mean you're the best and second best doesn't win Oscars (setting aside that the Oscars make poor decisions occasionally).

  4. Posted

    It happened! Paul pronounced my name correctly!

    I also want to add that libraries often have free streaming services. They don't have the library of Amazon Prime, Netflix or Hulu. They have had some hard to find movies that How Did This Get Made has covered. So, you should definitely check out your local library (but do not check out the lone copy of Snowman that's been sitting there for months until I can borrow it first).

    • Like 2

  5. Posted

    2 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    I think about this. In general, I feel like calling a film "manipulative" as a criticism is not that helpful, unless it's backed up by some deeper analysis (at which point you may as well just forego the pithy term and just present the actual analysis). To me it's along the lines of calling a film "overrated," a meaningless descriptor unless backed up by further elaboration on exactly who is overrating it and how.

    I think when people complain about "manipulation," it can actually mean one of a few things:

    1. The manipulation is too noticeable and the film did not conform to my personal preferences of how obvious it should be. Some people don't respond to the big-hearted Spielberg style but love a Scorsese movie where there are loud Italian gangsters screaming at each other. Is the latter less obvious? It depends on your taste.

    2. The manipulation is working in the wrong direction, against the purposes of story or theme. (I find this the most relevant kind of criticism and generally try to steer a film discussion down this road.) This can also be a CAUSE of the filmmaker's manipulation becoming too obvious to most viewers.

    3. A little bit of "toxic masculinity," in that the critic is proceeding under the assumption that open emotion is bad in all forms. Stuff your feelings down like a real man! (Also: see the Spielberg/Scorsese example above.)

    My advice is for people to just scrub the word "manipulative" out of their criticism of dramatic storytelling and just talk about one of the above! And also maybe take time to examine your own perceptions and how they impact your reception of the work.

    In this case, the manipulation is that it's there to serve emotion but it makes no logical sense. To use Paul's example, look at old man Ryan's scenes.

    The family goes to Arlington cemetery with him but they are 20 feet behind him the entire time? Why? The real answer is it looks good to have him framed that way on screen. But logically, the family wouldn't move in a singular clump except for Ryan several feet away. At least not for any length of time.

    Why does it seem like Ryan has never told this story to his wife? I get that a lot of people come back from war never telling their story. I had two grandfathers and a grandmother who never said a single word to me about WWII and one grandfather had a small shrine in his living room to his platoon. So, I get it but it seems unusual that a man who lost three brothers, had a mission to specifically save him never mentioned it? It doesn't ring true to me. But he just so happens to have this breakdown here? He brought his whole family to Arlington cemetery and never told anyone? I think it works in the moment but doesn't hold up to any analysis. 

    Or straight up going from old man Ryan's eyes to Tom Hanks? We all think that's Tom Hanks in the beginning. It's basic transition and Spielberg knows that and knows what he's implying. We can say that is a twist or some other defense but it really is just lying to the audience. Why? To make their deaths shocking and, in my mind, more "emotional."

    The movie does this a lot by trying to evoke emotion that it hasn't really earned. I could say "in this scene it does X and in that scene it does Y to trick the audience into feeling something that feels false" but it's easier to say "manipulative". I get all movies do this to an extent. A swell of strings can heighten emotion and that is technically manipulation. There's a difference between "enhancing" and "manipulating" in my mind. This movie is manipulating by lying to us or doing things that are emotional but not logical.

    • Like 4

  6. Posted

    17 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Yes, and really, you could argue that’s the point of all movies. They’re all trying to make you feel one thing or another. While I can’t speak for anyone else, I think my problem was that the manipulation wasn’t as well hidden as it could or should have been. It was kind of smacking you in your face the whole time. From the opening and closing shot of a faded American flag blowing in the wind.

    Dont get me wrong, I voted for its inclusion on the list. At least, as the list stands now, I don’t see any reason to drop it. I’m just saying, if you were to drop a Spielberg movie, this would probably be my choice.

    Yeah, all movies manipulate but Spielberg in particular. It's just that he's especially good at it. So, we (normally) either don't notice or don't care. There's the story about Jaws where someone told Spielberg the tank wouldn't physically explode like that and Spielberg's response was something like "I've had them for two hours. If I say it explodes, they'll believe it."

  7. Posted

    8 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    I think we’re on the same page - although I ranked this higher than Platoon and Apocalypse Now on my personal list. It felt very manipulative to me. I mean, it’s effective, but kind of cheap. I remember watching this movie the first time and it was so obvious which characters were going to die and when. It’s like whenever a character revealed anything about their past, they were painting a target on their back. I mean, when Ribisi tells the story about his mother, who didn’t predict that he was next on the chopping block? The movie (almost) seems to be aware of this too - what with Miller withholding his past from his men. Like the reason he’s survived so long is because he’s kept his past private. And once he reveals his past...

    I like it, but I’m not completely sold by it either.

    ETA: After thinking it over, I just dropped it below Platoon.

    It's manipulative but every Spielberg movie is. It's arguably what he does best.

    I agree with every criticism everyone had of this movie but it really worked on me this viewing. I think I just needed a really maudlin, schmaltzy movie when I watched this. I suspect I'll probably forget most of this in a few weeks because, even though it worked, I'm not expecting much long term impact.

    I definitely saw this in theaters and I genuinely didn't remember much of anything (I didn't know everyone died, for example, which is kind of the whole point). I was also kind of meh about the movie in general. 

  9. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

    I don’t think Saturday is going to work since most of us planned for Friday.

    How about this (since we can’t do Supes, Catwoman, or Trespass)

    • Friday Night - Abduction (it’s on Prime)

    • Saturday Night - Long Dumb Road (for those who want to and can make it)

    • April - Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2 (This gives people a month to run the series while it’s available and we only watch the last one)

    • May - Cool as Ice

    Sound good?

    I'm going to feel very dumb watching 4 Twilight movies if I can't make the HDTGM Classics in April.

  11. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    I think that’s what we’re trying to figure out. Do you want to do Long Dumb Road instead of our normal “classic” or do we want to watch Long Dumb Road on our own and watch our classic - whatever that turns out to be?

    My rabbit complaint was the chat wouldn’t automatically scroll as you guys would post. I’ve never had an issue before the update. So, I would feel like you guys were being quiet or something then realize I needed to manually scroll down. It made it really difficult to keep up.

    I won't be able to attend this rabbit show. So, it doesn't matter to me. If we're doing Twilight next month, I'm going to at least try to watch the first three between now and then.

  12. Posted

    I just want to jump on the rabbit complaint train. The is some weird formatting that cuts off the edges of the chat so I miss the first/last few characters of everyone's responses. I sent a help request to rabbit and they never responded. I've tried resizing every window and it never fixes it. I can still mostly read everything but it's annoying since their old format seemed to work just fine.

    Are we talking about Breaking Dawn for this week or for next month?

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    3 hours ago, nadaj said:

    Long time listener, first time poster - and the main reason I joined the boards was to say how tacky this line from the Queen about their non-existent mixed race oppression was, but not as gross as Harry's ginger spiel right after Meghan shared her experiences as a biracial person in the US. As a black woman with biracial children, I was really troubled that the actress playing Meghan sat through a table reading, rehearsal, and final shoot of this scene and apparently thought this portrayal or rather analogy was acceptable. Yep, I'm yucking someone else's yum.

    There is a lot of truth in the queen's attitude here. I don't know about Queen Elizabeth's beliefs personally but just people in general have this attitude of "my great great grandmother was Cherokee. So, let me weigh in on the plight of the Native American people."

    As for the ginger thing, I have a close relative who has claimed being oppressed because they are left handed. So, the movie was less tacky than that at least. 

  14. Posted

    55 minutes ago, Cam Bert said:

    I just want to thank everybody for watching this movie. I think it's an interesting film that was a bit ahead of its time. At least we can all agree the music is great!

     

    Also, I found out on the weekend Neil Young wrote, directed and starred in a similar odd movie in the earlier 80s called Human Highway that stars and has music by, personal favourites, DEVO. Am I going to watch this tonight? Yes!

    This sounds very interesting and I've never heard of it. Not sure how well Neil Young and Devo go together but this came out the same year Trans did which is the most Devo-ish album of Neil Young's career. So, this could work.

    • Like 2

  15. Posted

    10 hours ago, Cinco DeNio said:

    Thanks!  I'm thinking about two weeks from now on Thursday, so March 14th.  Next week will be taken with Quasar's pick and the 15th is probably an HDTGM Classics night.  I would probably have to do it as a public room unless someone here is more knowledgeable about using the new groups feature.

    Has anyone seen Shallow Grave from Danny Boyle? 

    Shallow Grave is a great one. Probably my favorite Danny Boyle movie.

    • Like 3

  16. Posted

    They bring up that the movie should have showed the wedding but this movie came out a week before their wedding.

    Their engagement was announced in November 2017. That means this movie, from conception to release, was done in under five and a half months. I don't know a lot about how long a typical Lifetime movie production but that's very fast for a regular movie. It doesn't excuse the movie's faults, but it does explain most of them.

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    3 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    What was interesting for me is that I kind of expected to have this reaction (the movie was great in its time, doesn't hold up as well), but after watching it again this week, instead I thought: "Holy crap, this is great!" I'm not sure if you revisited it again recently, but I'd be curious of your take.

    I found myself liking the movie more than expected, because this time I could also see how the film was being critical of Benjamin as much as anyone, and actually WAS fairly conscious of the societal issues that still plague us. This time I left with more of a feeling that The Graduate is evergreen. Individual people might fall in and out of favor with it, but it won't stop being picked up and appreciated by new generations.

    I hadn't seen this since I was in high school. I also probably would have been very welcoming of a Mrs. Robinson to put my thoughts in perspective. To be honest, I didn't like the movie much back then. A lotr probably sailed over my head but I had a very "that's it?" kind of reaction to this classic.

    I expected to like it a lot this time and it fell kind of flat. I can see the quality. I can understand it all intellectually but it didn't grab me emotionally. I never laughed. I wasn't ever moved by anything. It was just there despite the quality of everything.

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    Does anyone know how directe any of this was? As someone who doesn't follow the royal family or Harry or Meghan, a lot of this was surprising to me (for example, I didn't know Meghan was an actress or biracial). I assume all the private conversations are made up but I assume gossip columns covered all their public stuff right?

    The part about Kate Middleton saying they can't have opinions is, I believe, based in truth. The royal family isn't supposed to publicly express opinions on governmental matters. I think it works similarly to the US and how Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented on Trump becoming president. It's not illegal but it's a very big break in traditional decorum.

  20. Posted

    2 hours ago, tomspanks said:

    Did you guys anything about the Oscars this year?  😂

    One of my favorite moments was when Olivia Colman won best actress.  Ngl I got teary eyed even before she started speaking.  

    I don't actually ever watch the ceremony because I hate award shows. I just check the results.

    I did watch Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper perform on youtube though because I love that song. That was really nice.

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    Also, as Cameron said, I don't think anyone is a villain or evil in this movie even though she is sexually assaulting Benjamin in my mind. I just wish this had been addressed. They mention Benjamin being creepy but Mrs. Robinson gets a tossed off "Ben is prey" but gets a lot of "sexy and confident"

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    1 hour ago, bleary said:

    Honestly, I didn't even consider this as a potential problem until I read your comment, which absolutely is a gender double-standard because I'd certainly feel the same way as you if the genders were swapped.  However, I don't entire agree about the extent of Mrs. Robinson's misconduct.  Certainly, when she corners Ben in Elaine's room and exposes herself to him, this is clearly sexual assault.  But I do feel that in everything that happens after Benjamin leaves the house that night, he has complete agency.  Sure, she is psychologically manipulative, but he's not a child.  He's 20/21 years old, of sound mind.  She isn't threatening him, there's no power imbalance.  He is capable of making the decision he does, and I think to put it all on Mrs. Robinson as a predator is to bend-over-backwards to forgive Benjamin's share of the blame (if there even is any blame to give).

    That said, I agree with everyone here that it's clear Mrs. Robinson is interested in Ben because she thinks she can get what she wants with him (which I was almost literally screaming at the podcast when Amy wondered what she saw in him).  She's not going after those other seemingly fun guys because she already knows how Benjamin will act, having known him for many years.  And it's not only that she knows what to say to persuade him, but that she knows that he's more likely to appreciate her both as a virgin/pseudo-virgin and as someone who might have gawked at her pubescently for the better part of a decade.  So I don't think their relationship is at all gross, although it was preceded by a gross act (the flashing scene) and followed by a gross act (the rape accusation).

    But that's my opinion as someone who mostly agreed with Amy in this episode and who largely agreed with Roger Ebert's re-review, so I might be a Mrs. Robinson apologist.  (Part of it may be my annoyance that 34-36 year old Anne Bancroft doesn't get enough credit for plausibly playing 10-15 years above her own age better than Dustin Hoffman could play 6-8 years below his own age.  Bancroft's performance truly blew me away on this rewatch.)

    I think she's doing grooming behavior that a lot of child molesters do. Ask for something innocent like a ride home, then up the stakes a bit every time they finally agree.

    I admit that Ben is old enough and intelligent enough. But I think he's not emotionally intelligent enough. Maybe he's just socially awkward but he seemed emotionally stunted to me (not that I have any credentials to dismiss that).

    I don't like getting too far into the gender reversal since it's 1. a reliable dog whistle for men's rights activists and 2. ignoring the difference in power dynamics between the genders. So, there isn't a 1:1 comparison in my mind but, as Cameron has said and you've acknowledged, we probably would react differently if they were reversed.

    Despite all that, I also think the movie wants the audience to think this is initially what Benjamin wants and is good for him. Mrs. Robinson is a matronly version of a manic pixie dream girl. Benjamin secretly wants a woman, any woman, to come on to him because he's incapable of being the man he wants to be. So, even though he verbally says no, I think he wants it to happen (and I'm very aware of how dangerous this all is but I think the movie intends us to think it).

    • Like 4

  23. Posted

    34 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    But we seem to have flipped places from Letterboxd. How do you like the movie so much if it's all based around unaddressed sexual predation?  What comment is it making? If it's simply "embrace the moments" -- does sexual predation count?  What makes this story good? 

    Keeping in mind I don't particularly like this movie, I think what is here in the movie is interesting. I don't know that it needs to pick a side to come down on. I don't think it needs to comment on anything. I think it has some great character moments and the way characters clash whether that's generation, society, gender, experienced/naive, etc. I think it's presenting a lot of good stuff. I don't think it needs to judge the characters or their actions. I think the is enough here to enjoy even if it's not explicitly condemning the characters.

    • Like 2

  24. Posted

    16 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Well as the person who asked 'why Ben?' (along with Amy), it's not because 'only certain people get assaulted' that led me to ask that. I wrote on Letterboxd how I didn't particularly love the film, but I will defend the initial relationship with Mrs. Robinson. I think they're two depressed people, and I can get that they would fall into a connectionless sexual relationship, so I guess I've answered my own question. But it was a bit of a comment on how hollow he is, how bland, rude, mechanical, dry. The character gives us so very little. Anyway, he's using her too! I don't think it's all one direction to be honest. So maybe I'm awful, but I actually see it as a relationship and somewhat less predatory than you guys; that's why I was like 'why choose Ben?'

    But then on the other hand, we can't not talk about Ben's predatory nature towards Elaine -- a much more problematic situation, though I guess maybe it is all just a vicious cycle. But I agree with Taylor that isn't the film's point either, so I dunno.  The whole movie feels like a mess to me because of all this.

    I don't have an inherent problem with "why him" being asked. I agree with you about them having shared emotions and being kind of rudderless. That's a perfectly fine reason to make a film about two broken people finding each other. But their commonalities would only be apparent to either of them after the relationship started. They definitely didn't know that before they start having sex.

    I think the "why Benjamin?" is answered the same way most sexual assaults can be answered:  they thought they could. Mrs. Robinson might have wanted a dozen better looking guys. She knew she could get Benjamin whereas she might think Benjamin's more desirable peers were more likely to rebuff her advances.

    Again, I don't have an issue with a movie addressing any of these things. I have an issue with why didn't Amy and Paul discuss the sexual assault in this at any length. And it seems like no criticism I've ever seen of this movie ever brings it up. And I know Paul knows better because stuff he's said in HDTGM episodes. I'm sure Amy knows better (and I think that's part of the stuff she's hinted at by having problems with the movie) but I'm only familiar with her work on Unspooled. So, it's disappointing.

    • Like 3

  25. Posted

    17 minutes ago, taylorannephoto said:

    "An eventual yes is not what someone should be striving for"

    I have to quote myself real quick, because this is exactly what Benjamin does to Elaine too. He is the prey that eventually becomes the predator and maybe this whole thing is really a commentary on how people that go through traumatic events themselves think of that as normal and reproduce the scenario with someone else.

    I think this is an interesting take I that thought of. I don't think the movie intends it but the most beneficial reading.

    I should say I don't have an issue with sexual assault in a movie (depending on how it's handled and I think it's handled fine here). I just think it's gross and disappointing that anyone's going "why him? what's so great about Benjamin" with this movie when, in many other movies, we wouldn't attempt to justify a sexual predator's actions with how sad they are with their lot in life.

    • Like 2
×