Episode 185 - Adore

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

Well, I offered that as one of several paths the movie could have followed. I didn't say that trashy/satirical was the only way to handle this material.

 

I know you provided other examples in other posts, but this is the post to which I was responding.

 

 

This is the reason that I think it's a bad movie. These are horrid people. You can make a good movie about horrid people, but there needs to be some self-awareness of what they are. It needs to be satirical or over-the-top trashy, or there needs to be at least one character who recognizes their bullshit and calls it out, or the ending needs to make clear that their actions led to some kind of pathetic result.

Adore doesn't do any of that. It's treated as a straightforward relationship drama and very prettily filmed, which makes it seem like the filmmakers are trying to get you to sympathize with with the plight of these selfish rich twats. No thanks.

 

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.

 

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

 

I know you provided other examples in other posts, but this is the post to which I was responding.

Yeah, there are a couple of "or" clauses in that original post so I think I'll stand by my claim that I offered "satiric/trashy" as one of many approaches.

 

But anyway, this tangent isn't important. Hopefully my meaning has been made clear over the course of this entire discussion.

 

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.

interesting question. First of all, my comments are always only going to be about my interpretation of how a movie works or doesn't work and why. So to say "It would be better if . . ." is just to provide context for what kind of approaches I think WOULD work for similar material, and to demonstrate that I'm not dismissing this one just out of discomfort. I don't feel the need to stamp "just my opinion" on every post because I assume that's understood. Of course there's no such thing as universally "good" or "bad" art.

 

I see and acknowledge the idea that a work of art just needs to be internally consistent unto itself, but on the other hand . . . most art is made for an audience. The artist doesn't just keep it in a box. If people who watch your movie keep missing the point of the movie or find it less than engaging, then maybe there is also value to those judgments? Much as the audience can take or leave the work, the artist can also take or leave the response. But I would say there is value in the dialogue between the two.

[Cameron H. 23786]

Yeah, there are a couple of "or" clauses in that original post so I think I'll stand by my claim that I offered "satiric/trashy" as one of many approaches.

 

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.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

 

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.

 

Yes, and I think that approach is inadequate. I hope that is clear.

 

I will also stipulate that my reaction is based on moral precepts that I brought into the movie, as I presume are many people's. And?

[Cameron H. 23786]

Yes, and I think that approach is inadequate.

 

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.

 

I hope that is clear.

 

As the warm waters of New South Wales.

 

I will also stipulate that my reaction is based on moral precepts that I brought into the movie, as I presume are many people's. And?

 

...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."

[Cameron H. 23786]

Hey! I just found out it was Ben Mendelsohn’s birthday today!

 

Happy Birthday you sexy mustachioed cuckold!

 

[taylor anne photo 11311]

Hey! I just found out it was Ben Mendelsohn’s birthday today!

 

Happy Birthday you sexy mustachioed cuckold!

I have to write a formal apology to Mr. Mendelsohn because I legit thought he was 10 years older than IMDB told me he was.

[Korben Dallas Page 7]

Tom: Oh hey how's it going with Hannah?

 

Ian: It's going. Nowhere. She's great, She couldn't be nicer. I just.... You know.

 

Tom: Yeah

 

Ian: Pretty soon I'm going to have to give her the elbow.

 

[gigi-tastic 2322]

 

I think the fact that the sons wind up having wives and children of their own moves this into "bad" territory. Those kids don't deserve to be put through this.

 

 

To be fair the one son did not plan to have his child. From my understanding his child and eventual wife is the result of an unplanned pregnancy. I will personally never understand why people feel like they need to get married and have a child in those situations. There are a variety of options to that kind of thing. Like even if you both decide to keep and raise the child you don't HAVE to be married. A family friend's son had this happen and instead of getting married they decided to just keep going like they were and have been together for like 10 years or something. Also does any child really deserve to be put in the situation of their parents cheating?

[gigi-tastic 2322]

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...

 

 

Also going from your point about not blaming someone for not being "smart" enough ... like this is his best friends mother and the women he has told his wife is like a second mother to him. I would NEVER in a million years think m partner was cheating on me with the person they call their second mother.

[iamSGA 21]

How I imagine the sign-on pitch went for Robin and Naomi:

 

Director: "Thanks for coming in today Robin and Naomi."

 

Robin: "thanks"

 

Naomi: "yes, thanks for bringing us in...we're def excited to hear what you have for us"

 

Director: "Ok, well, I'll jump right into it. What would you say to shooting on the Australian coast for two months and making out/having sex with 21 y/o studs?

 

*Robin and Naomi stare at each other with smirkish, hidden grins*

 

Robin/Naomi: "yes....yes, we can definitely do that"

[gigi-tastic 2322]

I have to write a formal apology to Mr. Mendelsohn because I legit thought he was 10 years older than IMDB told me he was.

 

 

 

Make sure you mention his cuckold status. Men love that from my experience. Also full disclosure I misread IMDB as IBS and was very concerned and confused that somehow IBS either ages you or that it's become so evil it now forces your bowels to snitch on you. The last thing I need is my persnickety intestines and other organs giving out secret information.

[gigi-tastic 2322]

 

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."

 

 

It's like the stripper sloth shower curtain debacle all all over again.

 

The shower curtain in question. It has been pointed out during a skype chat with a group of friends the only way to make this shower curtain actually seem sexy/ obscene is by giving the sloth clothes like a pair of short shorts , a pair of heels maybe some fishnets and bra or something. The fact the sloth is naked makes it actually seem more wholesome. Either way now the world knows a sloth stripper shower curtain is a thing and it's GLORIOUS.

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

 

 

It's like the stripper sloth shower curtain debacle all all over again.

 

The shower curtain in question. It has been pointed out during a skype chat with a group of friends the only way to make this shower curtain actually seem sexy/ obscene is by giving the sloth clothes like a pair of short shorts , a pair of heels maybe some fishnets and bra or something. The fact the sloth is naked makes it actually seem more wholesome. Either way now the world knows a sloth stripper shower curtain is a thing and it's GLORIOUS.

 

You might have a point...

 

 

 

[joel_rosenbaum 1269]

The Search Party guys described this movie as "Travel Channel" and, subtracting the annoying overdubs, that feels exactly right. It's the movie version of Chillout Sessions.

[gigi-tastic 2322]

Just found out Robin Wright may have gotten married over Christmas to her boyfriend. This is somewhat interesting because he's apparently at least 20 years younger than her according to another podcast I listen to that's dedicated to interesting women ages 50 and over. According to Lady Watch I guess Robin has a Thing for hot younger men . Which like... Get. It. Girl. Maybe she felt drawn to the script because I'm sure she's felt disapproval from some people in the public or maybe even in her family? Maybe she just wanted to go lie on a raft for a while. God knows I would.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

 

 

To be fair the one son did not plan to have his child. From my understanding his child and eventual wife is the result of an unplanned pregnancy. I will personally never understand why people feel like they need to get married and have a child in those situations. There are a variety of options to that kind of thing. Like even if you both decide to keep and raise the child you don't HAVE to be married. A family friend's son had this happen and instead of getting married they decided to just keep going like they were and have been together for like 10 years or something. Also does any child really deserve to be put in the situation of their parents cheating?

Though from the little time we see them together, he seems to treat his wife pretty poorly. And I get it, he felt trapped into the marriage. But it's as you say, just don't get married! If this movie took place in the 1950s I'd understand the heavy social pressure to get married, but in 2013?

[taylor anne photo 11311]

Though from the little time we see them together, he seems to treat his wife pretty poorly. And I get it, he felt trapped into the marriage. But it's as you say, just don't get married! If this movie took place in the 1950s I'd understand the heavy social pressure to get married, but in 2013?

We don't really know what Australian culture is like though. We also don't really know how he was raised. If he was convinced that's what he was supposed to do then he kept that up. Also, I know people still after 2013 that got pregnant and boom they're suddenly engaged. One couple fell apart before the wedding even happened and the other are still together. I feel like with every marriage it's really the luck of the draw.

[Cameron H. 23786]

So, I *finally* had a chance to finish the episode and I thought it was fantastic! Great job!

 

That being said, I do have a couple of observations...

 

In the episode, the gang seemed to blame Roz and Ian's relationship for the dissolution of her marriage, but prior to anything happening between them, the movie does make a point of showing us that they were already growing apart. Her husband accuses her of pushing him out of their little friendship circle, and without running it past his wife first, we find out that he has applied, interviewed, and accepted a job that would require her to move away from her beloved childhood home. Her affair with Ian, with all the attention he showered upon her, seems to be less the cause of their separation and more a consequence of their growing discontent.

 

The gang also seemed confused by where these people made their money, but since we see the Roz and Lil on the beach as little girls, I don't think it's too much of an intuitive leap to assume that they've probably inherited both their money and their houses. If nothing else, we see that Lil gives Ian, a 20-year-old man with presumably no college experience, a high level position at her Yacht company. I think this suggests that it's probably a family business that Lil inherited from her parents and one she intends to pass down to her son.

 

My final observation is that there seemed to be some concern that the woman weren't being responsible parents for allowing their sons to "smoke and drink," but...their sons are adults. According to Associate Professor Wikipedia, the drinking age in New South Wales is 18 - which also happens to be the legal age to smoke cigarettes there. It's not like Roz and Lil are corrupting them or encouraging them to break any laws. If your kid is 18 and wants to smoke, what are you supposed to do? Nag at them? It’s important to point out, that everything in the movie is kept above board. No laws are ever broken. Hell, Ian even volunteers to be the designated driver. Everyone is well within their rights to do everything that happens in this movie. Ultimately, like I've said in too many times at this point, the movie is challenging its audience. It's saying, "If the characters aren’t doing anything technically 'wrong,' what's the big deal? If it bothers you, why?"

[tomspanks 9039]

Hey! I just found out it was Ben Mendelsohn’s birthday today!

 

Happy Birthday you sexy mustachioed cuckold!

 

 

WTF at this photo they use on his wikipedia page! It's like those pics of pandas without their black eye circles.

 

[joel_rosenbaum 1269]

 

WTF at this photo they use on his wikipedia page! It's like those pics of pandas without their black eye circles.

 

 

Looks like Danny from Bloodline to meL:

 

[gigi-tastic 2322]

Though from the little time we see them together, he seems to treat his wife pretty poorly. And I get it, he felt trapped into the marriage. But it's as you say, just don't get married! If this movie took place in the 1950s I'd understand the heavy social pressure to get married, but in 2013?

Oh no I fully feel they should NOT have married

I just helped slap together a shotgun wedding for a poor 17 year old I didn't know (without knowing said person was 17 and pregnant until AFTER the wedding when I really put my foot in it) Why they had to get married I will never know. I did think it was a weird crazy shit show that only my two friends showed up to decorate the church and this bride didn't know how to hold a bouquet , and the "best man" wore fucking baggy jeans and a hoodie. But knowing it was a shotgun wedding everything makes sense now. A sad depressing kind of sense but sense.

[Cam Bert 8145]

 

WTF at this photo they use on his wikipedia page! It's like those pics of pandas without their black eye circles.

 

 

It is very upsetting.

[taylor anne photo 11311]

Oh no I fully feel they should NOT have married

I just helped slap together a shotgun wedding for a poor 17 year old I didn't know (without knowing said person was 17 and pregnant until AFTER the wedding when I really put my foot in it) Why they had to get married I will never know. I did think it was a weird crazy shit show that only my two friends showed up to decorate the church and this bride didn't know how to hold a bouquet , and the "best man" wore fucking baggy jeans and a hoodie. But knowing it was a shotgun wedding everything makes sense now. A sad depressing kind of sense but sense.

Omg my cousin and her BF of 5 years just got married this month and my uncle wanted to do some "shotgun" photos for fun and as I was taking them I could hear my aunt yelling in the background, "We're regressing here!"

[tomspanks 9039]

Omg my cousin and her BF of 5 years just got married this month and my uncle wanted to do some "shotgun" photos for fun and as I was taking them I could hear my aunt yelling in the background, "We're regressing here!"

 

Like with actual shotguns?