Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on January 24, 2007 at 17:35:27

In Reply to: Why do I get the impression you're reading yourself into this film? posted by tinear on January 24, 2007 at 15:53:55:

"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.