Cameron H.

Hey! I just found out it was Ben Mendelsohn’s birthday today! Happy Birthday you sexy mustachioed cuckold!

And I never said that I didn't get that, nor have I tried to convince you to feel otherwise. In fact, I've agreed with you quite a bit. I'm not trying to change your opinion. Lord knows mine hasn't. I'm just offering an opposing perspective for the purpose of a friendly, intellectual debate. As the warm waters of New South Wales. ...my own as well. I'm not judging. Here's the 1 1/2 star Letterboxd review I wrote immediately after finishing the movie: "This movie proves that your characters don’t actually have to have sex for a scene to seem incestuous and weird...and then it adds weird, incestuous sex."

Yes, aside from "trashy" and "satirical" your other approaches were to have the characters "called out for their BS" or that their actions should "lead to some kind of pathetic result." My point from the beginning has been that all four of your "or" statements *only* work if the movie is taking a moral stance, one that is fundamentally *against* the characters, and, one - which I can only assume - reflects your own moral stance. Your statements suggest that in order for this movie about "horrid people" to work, the relationships had to be either tawdry, laughable, called out, and/or punished. And that is totally fine! That's exactly why the director didn't take a side. She didn't try to manipulate you into feeling one way or the other. She presented you with a narrative without comment and allowed you to make up your own mind about how it made you feel.

I know you provided other examples in other posts, but this is the post to which I was responding. What I'm saying is, while your version of the movie *would* probably be more satisfying, it's also not the movie the Director wanted to make. You can think this movie is boring, or garbage, or stupid, or gross, or whatever, that's 100% your right. But if you are making suggestions to "make it better" - that don't take into account the filmmaker's intent - then you're just talking about a completely different movie. Which brings me back to something I said a few pages ago. By virtue of the fact that the Director wasn't trying to make moral judgements, there's no catharsis. They are, as Director Krennic says in the film, simply "plodding along as best they can." And because these people don't, as you say above, get called out "on their BS" and don't suffer any negative repercussions, there's no release. And because of this, the movie ends up feeling incomplete or unsatisfying (i.e. bad). Which all leads to a new conundrum. If someone is consciously making an artistic decision that deliberately leaves the audience feeling dissatisfied, can you still judge it as either "good" or "bad?" You can like it, love it, or hate it, but to say, "It would be better if it were more like this other thing that I like" is to completely dismiss the thing that's in front of you. It would be like saying ee cumming's "R-P-O-P-H-E-S-S-A-G-R" would be a good poem if it were like Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken." This is just another reason I try to limit my interpretations to the text before me.

It's Guys and Dolls and multiple, extended Dance Sequences! We watched:

That wasn't really my intention either. This all started because you said that the movie should have been "over-the top trashy" or "satirical" to make its point. My argument was that would only apply if the movie was taking a moral stance on the characters' behavior. If the movie doesn't feel like what the characters are doing is morally wrong - or isn't taking sides - then it has no reason to present the movie as trashy or satirical.

double post!

I get that. I didn't feel comfortable posting at first until I got caught up (sometime around the first Howdies). I just don't want you to feel like you have to have listened to every episode in order to keep current. We have a lot of fun conversations that you you might enjoy. And don't worry about posting on dead threads, sometimes you've got to purge these movies out of your system. I get it - lol

I mean, I’ve *tried* to argue that it has a point, but you don’t agree with me. And that’s fine. Perhaps it’s just an Aesthetic film? “L’art pour l’art” and all that. That would certainly agree with my take of the film reserving its own judgement and the Director/Writer not taking a moral stance. Or, as Oscar Wilde’s put it, an Artist shouldn’t have “ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.” It is what it is by it’s own merits. Its point is that exists and nothing more. Either that’s enough for you or it isn’t.

Welcome to the boards! Great insights! Also, I’m pretty sure we’re best friends now. I hope you’re cool with that

Congratulations on the new job! Glad to have you back!

Oh, I agree, but only if your intention is to explain to others (and/or yourself) why something does or doesn’t work - which isn’t really what I’ve been trying to do. I already get that this movie is bad. You don’t need to convince me otherwise. Believe it or not, I have seen good movies before. I know what they look like. Maybe think of it this way. You and I walk into an insane asylum and are talking to the patients. I’m trying to find meaning in the madness while you’re busy diagnosing it. (And if Grudlian’s there, he’s probably standing in the corner jingling his keys and telling us we’re both wasting our time because he’s seen saner people do crazier things ) Each of those viewpoints is valid, although they might work at cross purposes. So, while what you’re saying might actually be more useful from an academic standpoint, if I’m trying to decipher the insane gibberish some crazy person is spewing, explaining to that me the person is mad isn’t really telling me anything I don’t already know. And, of course, vice versa.

What makes you assume that I don’t question other films...all the time...whenever I watch them...whether I like them or not? It’s kind of what I do. I mean, if you’re wondering why I’m questioning this particular movie, at this specific time, well, it’s because it’s the subject of the most recent episode of this podcast. If it weren’t, I wouldn’t be talking about it at all. And, in a couple more days, I probably won’t ever again. I mean, yes, the movie’s not good. No question. And, if it doesn’t raise any questions for you, then I guess all I can say is: cool. But as I was saying to Sy above, I watch bad movies because I like to watch them. And while I think comparing them to other movies that might have succeeded in doing the same thing is a valid way to view and critique them, I personally find that kind of limiting. It’s sort of like saying, “Mac and Me is a terrible movie about a boy and an alien. You know what isn’t? E.T.” I mean, well, yeah...

...Which is why this is being covered on HDTGM and Brokeback Mountain isn’t. I’m just saying I *think* I get what the filmmakers were going for. I also think the questions the movie raises are worthy of discussion. The more my thoughts dwell on it, the more my feelings about it evolve. I’m just trying to be receptive to it. What I’m not saying, however, is that this is a superlative film or that it compares to a film that won an Academy Award for Direction and Writing. I’m just viewing it on its own merits and muddling through as best I can like i do with all the films they discuss. I like it; it’s also bad. No one’s arguing against that.

Well, they say it was when she would be away on a job. Lil also says they would go weeks or months without doing anything. It wasn’t an all the time thing. Also, I don’t know that we need to accuse the victim of infidelity of not being smart enough to figure out it was going on. They were apparently discreet enough to hide it from the two people closest to them in the whole world for ~5 years. That should be enough. Saying she has an “arc” is being generous. I’m not saying this is the case, but it’s almost as if we’re meant to feel as apathetic of her as Ian does...

Well, you know I’m just going to ask you the same thing that I asked Sycasey. Honestly, what’s so bad about their behavior in the first ten minutes? When do they “cross the line?” When Tom dances (badly) with Lil? When Roz bums a smoke? Is their behavior actually bad or does it just make you (I.e. people) uncomfortable? I don’t “like” this movie exactly, but I do think it raises interesting questions.

That’s sucks, for sure, and I felt terribly for their wives and kids. Although, technically, Tom is the only one who has engaged in any “bad” behavior because he’s the only one who cheated on his wife. What did Ian do? Have a relationship with Tom’s mother? Still having feelings for her? For that matter, what did Roz do? Why should she lose her grandchild? Your example also happens at the very end of the movie and those kids are immediately taken away from *all* of them. Shit, most people who cheat on their spouses at least get visitation rights. What would have been a more suitable repercussion? There *are* consequences, it’s just that the characters don’t really seem to care. Because, like you said, they’re assholes. Again, the point of the movie - for me - is about living the life you want to lead even if that means engaging in behavior that society considers “deviant.” And sometimes, in order to lead the life you want to live, you have to be selfish. You have to be an asshole. A lot of people have said that there’s “no point” to the movie, but I disagree. The antagonist in this movie is societal norms and these characters are doing all the can to fight against it. All these people want to do is lay on their raft and get a tan without judgement. But because they’re so scared of what people will think if they’re open about what’s going on, they end up making bad decisions. But bad decisions don’t necessarily mean bad behavior. People make mistakes, and sometimes, those mistakes are catastrophic. You say they shouldn’t have had kids, but what were they supposed to do? Everyone was telling them that them leaving Roz and Li was “normal” and “inevitable.” Tom ends up with Mary because, on paper, that’s who he’s “supposed” to be with. She’s his age and in his field. It’s only after the fact that he realizes that she's not what he wants. Ian has children because Roz breaks up with him and tells him to go find somebody younger. And he does so - reluctantly. So Ian was “bad” because he got someone he didn’t love pregnant and married her in an attempt to “make it right?” Was Tom bad because he started to believe what Lil was telling him? Everywhere they turn, they are faced with the specter of society’s judgement - and that judgement isn’t entirely coming from characters in the movie. And *that’s* the point. People on these boards have commented derisivly about their wealth and life of luxury as if money and comfort are in and of themselves moral failings. We talk about how creepy their relationships are (myself included), but they’re only having sex with who they want to have sex with. Honestly, what’s wrong with that? But for some reason we still feel the need to judge and label them “bad.” And for what exactly? Making mistakes? Being jerks? If that’s the case, well, then I guess we’re all doomed.

But that’s the thing, what exactly is their “bad behavior” and why do you feel like it’s “bad?” Roz is already emotionally distant from her husband at the start of the film and Lil is a widow. Both are (relatively) free to pursue (or are at least open to) new relationships. And, at least as far I’m concerned, divorce isn’t a moral failing. We’ve already gone over that the relationships are merely incest adjacent, so there’s nothing really to comment on there. They’re not overtly rude to creep-o Saul. Ian is forced into a loveless marriage. Tom cheats on Lil, but mostly from the feeling societal pressure (partially coming from Roz and Lil) to be with someone closer to his own age. Nothing about any of that is “bad.” Selfish and asshole-y, maybe, but not “bad.” Aside from hurting some people’s feelings, I don’t know that they’ve done anything really to be punished for. Which leads me back to my initial point. The movie isn’t saying whether they’re good or bad. It’s leaving it for the audience to decide.

I guess I don’t get your position then. You say the movie is about “assholes” but it doesn’t push you to feel “one way or another about them.” It has, though, hasn’t it? They’re assholes. I don’t think anyone here has argued otherwise. So the movie *has* pushed you to feel something. It seems to me that your issue isn’t so much that they’re assholes, but since they don’t feel any remorse, the repercussions they face don’t adequately “punish” them. But, again, this is a movie about narcissists and sociopaths. They don’t care about anyone but themselves. It simply wouldn’t make sense for Ian to suddenly put on sackcloth and ashes because his wife (that he didn’t want) took away the child (that he didn’t want). Even before anything happens, Director Krennic complains about how he feels pushed to the side. These aren’t people who give a fuck about anyone else’s feelings. They are - in the literary sense - Romantic Heroes. The only true punishment they could face is to be separated from one another. All they want is to be isolated from the rest of the world so they can spend the rest of their lives in the resplendent glow of one another’s company. And, in the end, they achieve that. They win - whether we like it or not. That being said, I still don’t think the movie is trying to judge them for their actions. It’s more, “These people are objectively assholes, but I still like them. Let’s watch...” It’s all about their journey to earn that final sunbath on the sin raft.

I can’t say that I agree with you. Why does it have to do any of those things? For one thing, I think it depends on the filmmaker’s intentions. If they’re trying to tell us that what the characters are doing is wrong, then maybe what you’re saying is true. But does the movie actually feel like what they’re doing is wrong? And if it *doesn’t* feel like they’re wrong, then we can’t very well expect it to be presented in an “over-the-top trashy” or “satirical” way. Personally, I think the movie tries to remain impartial. It’s not trying to convince us of anything. It simply shows us these characters for who they are - warts and all. That’s what makes it a challenging. It’s not making any judgements. It’s not telling us what to think. It pushes us to the edge of our comfort zone and forces us to reevaluate what *we* feel is “acceptable.” For my part, I never felt like the movie was trying to judge or punish these people. And of course, this all goes the same for it having to have a “pathetic result.” Although, I would argue that infidelity, grievous personal injury, losing their children, and three divorces during the course of the movie shows that their actions aren’t entirely without their consequences. It just doesn’t necessarily provide the catharsis that an audience might want or expect. (P.S. I think I might be starting to like this movie.)

Ummmm...you've been gone for awhile, huh? (Cakebug already picked this as his second pick )

I just thought it was because they were immature doofuses... ;)/> I can’t remember exactly, but isn’t that when Tom tells Ian that he is fucking his mother? Even if that’s not the exact moment, I think Ian feels like he and Roz are “in love” and assumes that Tom is just playing around and will eventually hurt his mother. And, of course, from his perspective, Tom feels like Ian is just fooling around - little suspecting that his friend is actually “madly in love” with his mother. In all honesty, it might have just been that Tom made a dumb joke about the situation that Ian didn’t like. It’s about intentions and hypocrisy. I feel like it’s also about juxtaposing their mothers’ oblivious complacency with their emotional turmoil (I.e. quietly laying on the beach while their sons fight in a raging sea). Just because something you do isn’t - in the strictest sense - wrong, doesn’t mean there aren’t, or won’t be, repercussions. Even though everything seems alright, these relationships are taking an invisible toll and forcing character relationships to evolve. This is why the movie resets so often. Every time things get settled and the characters reach some level of homeostasis, a new complication arises and everyone is forced to - once again - reassess and change. The end of the movie is the culmination of this evolution. However, ultimately, like a lot of the movie, I feel like that scene is left deliberately vague so the audience can make their own assumptions. Of course, this is just what I personally got out of it, I could be wrong.

Yeah, I didn’t get that they were going for titillating at all. If that were the goal, I feel like the movie would have involved only one son, the sex would have been much more frequent and explicit, and there would have been far less personal hand-wringing over whether their relationship was appropriate or not. The conflict would have also been something external rather than internal (e.g. making sure the husband/friend/mother doesn’t find out) This movie is about feeling guilty about something that makes you feel good. Don’t they even say something like, “I feel bad because I’ve never felt so good?” For me, the crux of the movie is exactly what we’re discussing here. Technically, there’s nothing “wrong” with their relationships, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t still *feel* wrong - at least for some of us. That’s what the characters are struggling with throughout the course of the movie. For me, it’s all tied up in the final shot. It’s the big question. It’s not a huge optimistic happy ending full of hugs and kisses and tearful reunions. It’s a tension sting and a slow pull out on our characters on their dock of isolation. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I would also like to point out that the final line of the movie is a greeting. Ian swims out to them on the metaphor raft by says “Morning.” This is significant because the movie ends with a new beginning. I think it’s also important that the movie never tells us whether it’s a “good” morning or not. At that point, the movie has made it’s case and it’s up to the audience to decide for themselves how they feel. Are we happy for them? Upset? Do we embrace these characters or do we push them away? Personally, I feel like they’re all a bunch of narcissistic sociopaths that couldn’t give a shit about the emotional wreckage they wreak, and are so infatuated with themselves, that the only thing that seems logical is to literally be in love with one another.

I will say this...I didn’t like this movie, but I don’t exactly think it’s a bad movie. I definitely *felt* something (discomfort mainly) so it didn’t exactly fail artistically - at least not for me. Now, would I watch it again? Oh, God no.