 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.176.121
In Reply to: Disagree, JG. The detective in L'Humanite was a dullard, to the posted by tinear on January 23, 2007 at 14:57:09:
"You may wish to listen to what the director said about the copulation scene: he felt both experienced great pleasure."I am not sure how the director knows what pleasure the horses received. Certainly, horses, or any animals, are not known to engage in sexual activity for the sake of engaging in sexual activity. Rather, it is for pro-creation. If you are referring to both human participants, again, I am not sure what he is referring to. Certainly pleasure takes many forms. Did she receive sexual pleasure? Or the pleasure of knowing that she was helping him to achieve whatever goals he was attempting to achieve?
I do not know whether our subject experienced pleasure, and neither does the director, although he certainly knows what he intended. I do know that the artist weeps at the end of the act because he cannot "seal the deal." He propositions her for sex, with no foreplay. She agrees, I suspect, because she senses he is desperate. Is he attracted to her, physically? He certainly cares for her, but I am not sure that this is the same as him being attracted to her. His proposition of sex was certainly not for her benefit, but his. The act which follows simply has him taking care of the plumbing. He certainly was not concerned with how she felt (shall we change positions, dear?)
"point of Inspector Cloueau-clone. Indeed, he was so mule-like one couldn't imagine him being even a "meter-maid." Attempt to awaken their emotions?"
The point is that he has never experienced life (love, hate, lust, etc.), that his only knowledge of those things comes from living vicariously through others. He is certainly capable of such emotions, I presume all humans are. In Japon, remember, this man was looking for this little town because this former artist wanted to commit suicide. I suspect the director made him a former artist because I presume it would be easier for an artist to become detached from life - so much energy expended to viewing and drawing other people' their lives, and their scenes, that they stop to actually live their own lives. Or become envious of those lives they watch.
As a result, he wants to commit suicide. Why? He has been a spectator in life, much as the detective in L'Humanite was a spectator. They may have traveled different roads, but they wound up in the same place - no emotional involvement or attachment with anyone. I think that he feels he is done spectating, and death is the next logical step.
"The artist became deeply attracted to the woman. She brought him back, literally and figuratively, from the edge."
Sort of what I wrote before. He objects to her family dismantling her building. But was this because of love? Because he felt she was being taken advantage of? Which does not require love, only sympathy. Because he dislikes her family? He certainly did not risk life and limb to intercede.
"The act of life-giving is an affirmation, after all, and it "created" something in him."
I am not sure what "life giving" you are referring to. He certainly did not commit suicide. I suspect his feeling were more paternalistic. Which is certainly an improvement from where he came, and I do not think I wrote otherwise.
"There was plenty of emotion in his plaintive request and in her response. The sex scene is one of the most tender possible, with her demure acquiescence and patience and his surprising difficulties and gentleness."
Perhaps our experiences in this regard are different. He asks her for sex, clearly for his purposes, not hers, and clearly because it is the last stop on his train of life. That she agrees says more about her than him. But she is not a participant beyond making herself available to him. She spreads, he plops on top, and tries to finalize their arrangement. Anything but tender. I do not mean slobbering on each other, but some communication beyond him working on her plumbing. I dunno' bout you, but I am usually interested if my signifcant other got anything out of the transaction.
I found the scene treating sex as an exercise, which is not a comment on the scene itself. I think it is a perfectly logical scene in light of what has come before, and why he finds himself in this town. Any other depiction of that scene would have been illogical. But tender it ain't. Unless shedding tears because he, and not her, was unable to get his rocks off is "tender."
Follow Ups:
The artist is STILL an artist, not former: you missed him painting?
Also, I know you forgot the very rapid scene with that stunninly beautiful woman at the beach: it certainly was a former wife/lover of the principal.
One more point: the final scene is that of a master, hardly of a novice.
The large house stones cast alongside the smaller ones which form the railroad bed... not accidental. Mexican farmers have seen their rural lives devastated by modern developments, like the railroad, which crushes them and uses them as foundations upon which to build.
"Also, I know you forgot the very rapid scene with that stunninly beautiful woman at the beach: it certainly was a former wife/lover of the principal."I did not forget. The operative word here is "former." In other words, the only connection he has with her is in his mind. I accept that at one time he had emotional attachments. I never argued that he was born this way. On the contrary, I hypothesized that his being an artist caused his situation. Unless he was an artist at birth, I think the clear import is that he was not born into this state. Only that in the here and now when the film takes place, something has happened to him to where he is dead of emotion, seeking a small town to commit suicide.
The point of the scene was to show that while he is here now, without any such attachments, he was not always in this place. I never argued that he was always in this state. I hypothesized that his being an artist is what brought him here. Who knows? Perhaps the woman died a tragic death that sent him into turmoil. The film does not tell us why or what happened.
But is it "brilliant" that in order to show this man had a "life" in the past the director provide a flashback of a vixen on the beach? Is such a technique the tools of a "master"?
"The artist is STILL an artist, not former: you missed him painting?"
No. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I presume that he made his livelihood as an artist. He clearly does not do so anymore. The "former" to which I referred was this change.
"One more point: the final scene is that of a master, hardly of a novice.
The large house stones cast alongside the smaller ones which form the railroad bed... not accidental. Mexican farmers have seen their rural lives devastated by modern developments, like the railroad, which crushes them and uses them as foundations upon which to build."You should re-read (or read) my review of the film from November. I recommend the film. Although I think in that scene you are perhaps substituting your political/social viewpoint for the merit of the scene. I thought the scene was a nice ending scene, but seeing the remnants of a train having struck a wagon full of workers, with bodies and blocks strewn about may be making a statement about Mexican society, but brilliant it ain't. And not particularly original, in the "masters" sense, given that the entire film was pretty much non-political. The scene may have been masterful had the film been about the plight of the Mexican peasant, and this scene brings into focus a climax as to what came before, or where the sociery is going.
So we have a story which is 99% about this subject, and then an ending scene making a political statement. Brilliant? Then we have the scene in which numerous highly intoxicated peasants are "singing", with absolutely no development, and no connection with anything else in the film. Almost as though we were at intermission. What was the lesson learned here? That Mexican peasant men are getting drunk in the middle of the day because they have no work? Deep.
This is what I meant by knowing the notes, not the music. The technique is there. The context is not.
Kind of reminds me of the scene from Murphy Brown when Elden the painter has an exhibition in an art gallery, and the art fans (dressed all in black, nat) enter the room and go gaga over the canvas covering the painting and the light bulb hanging from the ceiling and the switch on the wall, ascribing many deep meanings to both, all the while never looking at the art. Of couse, Elden just stood there calling them idiots, telling them they were looking at a light bulb and switch, informing them they were missing the art in the room. What did he know, they were the experts.
Maybe the director simply was reminding you that these workers, who you previously (I assume) critised for dismantling this poor ladies' building, were now getting their "what for." But now, they are symbols of an advancing society. It seems they are pawns to express what you need them to express.
"Why do I get the impression you're reading yourself into this film?"
I do not know. You start this as the tag line to your post, then add nothing to it, providing no support or explanation. Perhaps you cannot have a civil discourse without resorting to personal attacks. Shame. I guess class is out.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
