 
|
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 |
Initial Impression: Overlong and boring in parts; way too talky; short on action, no significant character change; scriptwriter Ball
shot himself in the foot trying write too clever dialogue; waste of
fine acting talent. Lester made an attempt to REALLY change, and
he did partially succeed, but he ultimately floundered, reverting back to his
passive, nice self when he abstained from seducing his daughter's best
friend, thereby, negating his quest of getting something (both a highly literal and symbolic event) his newly emerging self had deeply
craved.
Then he is unceremoniously blown away by the Colonel while sitting
in his own kitchen. In the absence of any dialogue, one is left to
assume that the Colonel shot Lester because he was angry about what he
perceived as a homosexual relationship between Lester and his own son.
However, in the preceding garage scene, it seems fairly evident that the Colonel had already resolved the conflict in his mind when
he tested Lester with a come-on kiss. (There was good opportunity for
dramatic conflict earlier between the Colonel and his two gay neighbors, but this was never developed.) So if the Colonel had resolved the conflict, why did he shoot Lester? It was a cheap, contrived plot device inserted for surprise effect; after all, had we not
seen Lester's wife practicing with a pistol and was there not motive
and opportunity on her part? Nothing wrong with misdirection, just
has to be used correctly; ditto with irony, what's so ironic about about
a loser becoming just more of a loser by being killed? Viewer's intelligence need not be insulted. This film is pointless - just a
portrait of a loser who remains a loser - contrast Travis Bickel in
"Taxi Driver" and Rupert Pupkin in "The King of Comedy", these are
examples of real irony.
Final Verdict: As a reviewer, I give "American Beauty" two thumbs
down, and as a man, I give everyone associated with the making of this
film and everyone who voted for it, one middle finger up. - AH
Follow Ups:
I thought the movie was very well shot with excellent direction.But I saw no redeeming value in it, so I agree with the 2 thumbs down. Reminded me of the movie "Seven" in which my wife and I were speechless for the 15 minute drive home.
AS
> > Reminded me of the movie "Seven" in which my wife and I were speechless for the 15 minute drive home. < <What exactly was it about "Seven" that left you speechless? I would think that any film about a serial killer would have the same effect, if it were any good.
I think we were expecting a nice, neat ending as in most movies, and when that didn't happen, it surprised us.AS
I thought it rather good...
that the Colonel was gay. My interpretation is quite different. I
think we need to thresh this out. - AH
1) His openly hostile reaction to gays
2) His interpretation of the garage dope rolling scene
3) His demeanor entering the garage in the rain
last but not least
4) He f-ing KISSED the guy. He clearly did this because he believed what's-his-face was gay. If he followed the behavior he exhibited during prior exposures to homosexuals the physical contact would probably have been a punch rather than a kiss. Or at the least verbal abuse.I DO NOT agree that this is a "test" of gayness. How about dropping tro and greasing up his rear as a further "test"?
How about "asking" as opposed to physical contact?
Let me respond to your answers ad sertiam:***His openly hostile reaction to gays.***
Understandable for a macho-type. Taken alone, your assertion
doesn't prove his sexual orientation one way or another.***His interpretation of the dope rolling garage scene.***
Same as the above. However, I can understand his overaction. He
had seen Lester working out nude on his own son's camera, then
when he spotted them together with Lester partially unclad, but
with the rest of his body obscured along with his son obscured,
his worst fears were verified, at least in his own mind at that
point.***His demeanor entering the garage in the rain....***
I could clearly see the anguish on his face, as he was suffering
great internal conflict about the ambiguity as he wrestled with
the issue.***He f*cking KISSED the guy. He clearly did this because he believed
whats-his-face was gay.***Nyet! He was just testing. If you noticed, the Colonel
immediately turned and left when he was rejected. If he was gay,
he most likely would have made more overtures. But he didn't.***If he followed the behavior he exhibited during prior exposure
to homosexuals the physical contact would have probably been
a punch rather than a kiss. Or at least verbal abuse.***Neither a punch nor verbal abuse could resolve his internal
conflict about the ambiguity. It was a kiss of desperation,
not lust.***How about asking?***
Once again, not sufficient to resolve his psycho-emotional
conflict.The further question is why did the Colonel kill Lester? Assuming
the Colonel was really gay and indeed thought Lester was gay, it
seems that rejection would be the reason. However, this hardly
seems a valid motive for murder. Assuming that the Colonel was
not gay, and was apparently satisfied that Lester was not gay after rejection, there is
no reason for murder. (Refer to my original post on this point.)
> ***His openly hostile reaction to gays.***
>
> Understandable for a macho-type. Taken alone, your assertion
> doesn't prove his sexual orientation one way or another.
>
The operative phrase being "openly". In public, his public face, decries homosexuality.
> ***His interpretation of the dope rolling garage scene.***
>
> Same as the above. However, I can understand his overaction. He
> had seen Lester working out nude on his own son's camera, then
> when he spotted them together with Lester partially unclad, but
> with the rest of his body obscured along with his son obscured,
> his worst fears were verifiedAgain, "jumping to a conclusion with only circumstantial evidence leads one to believe homosexuality preys strongly on his mind.
> ***He f*cking KISSED the guy. He clearly did this because he believed
> whats-his-face was gay.***
>
> Nyet! He was just testing.Immediately chagrined by the unexpected reaction to the "test" he backs off.
> Neither a punch nor verbal abuse could resolve his internal
> conflict about the ambiguity. It was a kiss of desperation,
> not lust.Couldn't agree more. He was definately conflicted regarding his own sexuality. A wife that was a basket case has left him celibate for years and his sexual desires get the better of him.
> ***How about asking?***
> Once again, not sufficient to resolve his psycho-emotional
> conflict.Asking is a very acceptable method of sexual orientation identification. Haven't you been propositioned by a gay yet?
> The further question is why did the Colonel kill Lester? Assuming
> the Colonel was really gay and indeed thought Lester was gay, it
> seems that rejection would be the reason. However, this hardly
> seems a valid motive for murder. Assuming that the Colonel was
> not gay, and was apparently satisfied that Lester was not gay after > rejection, there is
> no reason for murder. (Refer to my original post on this point.)What better reason to kill someone than to hide a (in your eyes) hideous secret shared?
In LSD and psylocibin experiments in the 1950's and 60's, one of the
primary fears of men taking the drug was the fear of latent homosexuality;
most of the time these fears were found to be just ghosts; cultural
fictions instilled from early childhood drug up from the basement
of their psyches. It's common. Of course, some men are much more
prone to these types of fears, like the Colonel. Guilt is often
associated with fear; it's more probable the Colonel would have
committed suicide than homicide upon being hit with the shock of
discovering that he was really gay himself.
The Colonel literally had his world rocked when he thought his
own son was gay; the question, "where did I go wrong?" probably churned over and over in his mind as he tried to make sense of it.
There are many men who are openly hostile to gays, but that doesn't
necessarily men they are repressed gays. Just doesn't follow.
You say that asking is an acceptable method of sexual orientation
identification. Yes it is in many cases, but not in the context of
this film's plot, the emotional conflict within the Colonel was just too powerful. I
have been propositioned before more than once, easy to brush off, there was no prior established relations; not the case in the film. That you
believe in the frivolous manner the plot was carried out on this issue
makes me think that you want to force fit it into you admirable view
of this film.
Rejection is sometimes a valid reason for murder; however, it
behooves common sense to believe that the Colonel would murder Lester
after rejection. He could have always tried a sexual come-on again later. For Christ's Sake, there are tons of gays running
around available for the Colonel to experience his newly discovered
sexuality. Heck, he had a couple of potential partners living just
next door - the anethesologist and the tax attorney!
No, this contrived mess stinks to High Heaven. - AH
I can't believe we're arguing about this. To me, the Colonel is obviously gay. He seems to me like a catholic school boy who knows that him liking girls is bad, morally wrong, but can't help it, and eventually explodes after a sequence of personal drama, who then feel really really bad after thinking being rejected.If like you said, the Colonel was simply "testing" Lester, then I didn't see it. The Colonel didn't seem to be pretentious at all; he is simply a broken man showing his true self.
***To me the Colonel is obviously gay.***Look a little deeper into the situation and you will discover
that "obviously" is only apparent and not real. Be willing to
shift your viewpoint and a whole new world of insight will be
yours. Then you will shake my hand and thank me! Caa, be more
flexible and I promise you will be rewarded. I feel at this
point I must appeal to your instinct, not logic and common sense,
for anyone can, or rather should, see that it's shallow to believe
that the Colonel would kill Lester after ONE rejection; just downright implausible. The
Colonel was going thru terrible torment from the lingering doubt
after viewing the garage scene with Lester and his own son; the
problem was that there wasn't enough perceptual evidence to 100%
confirm in his mind that a homosexual act actually took place. That's the
whole reason for the test kiss. It's hard to believe you and
certain others can't see that torment literally etched into the
Colonel's face because of this inner turmoil as he entered Lester's
garage.
The Colonel is a fictional character who could easily do anything feeling rejected, or not. Don't underestimate the humiliation of being rejected, especially about something that is identified with being oneself.I've said all I want to say in my other posts, namely it doesn't make sense the Colonel 'was testing', nor did he give any evidence or clue to support your interpretation. It's a probable explanation, but it just isn't convincing to stray away from the simplest and obvious explanation: he's gay. What's so difficult about that? Besides, i can't imagine anyone who's so disgusted with homosexuality could test someone by holding him tightly, wet and kissing him. Yucky!
But this is all beside the point; the Colonel is just a small piece of the whole picture which portrays the tumours that impose upon everyone, Lester, in particular, who thought that he freed from them only to have them come back eventually in other shapes and forms to bite him in the neck. And it puts things into perspective.
I don't understand why you have to take this less probable interpretation to the obvious, and then ask yourself (in your first post) why? To which your only answer is 'a cheapshot at surprise ending'.
***It's a probable explanation, but it just isn't convincing to stray
away from the most simple and obvious explanation: he's gay.***Right about the probable explanation, furthermore, it's the MOST probable explanation; this explanation is
less obvious and more complex - look deeper, ponder more.***The Colonel is a fictional character who could easily do anything
rejected or not."NOT! Even fictional characters are bound by certain rules of
consistency and credibility. Readers and viewers rebel against
gross violations, ask any writer.***Besides, i can't imagine anyone whose so disgusted with
homosexuality could test someone by holding him tightly, wet and
kissing him. Yucky!***You are letting your personal feelings interfere with your
objectivity. Look at the situation in the correct manner and
you will see the rationale behind the kiss.
> > A wife that was a basket case has left him celibate for years and his sexual desires get the better of him. < <Or maybe his sexual desires got the better of him and he left his wife celibate for years which turned her into a basket case.
So you would have us believe that this unmotivated murder was simply > > a cheap, contrived plot device inserted for surprise effect < < rather than admit that the colonel was a latent homosexual who murdered the only witness to this fact?> > Assuming the Colonel was really gay and indeed thought Lester was gay, it seems that rejection would be the reason. However, this hardly
seems a valid motive for murder < <What are > > valid < < motives for murder?
LOOOOOOOOOOL
Parhaps audiohead was recently approached in a similar manner and still isn't sure if he did it or not? :)))))))
Well, redeems is a little strong.But the empty plastic bag, gently floating and swirling, cracked me up entirely. I was the only one laughing in the cinema, but it was from the relief of knowing that Sam Mendes was a very funny man. Suddenly everything made sense, especially the title. Not exactly the most subtle metaphor, but then again you probably won't find a major Hollywood film get away with such implausible stereotypes in a farce of this magnitude ever again.
Yes, redeem is not the word I'd choose. But it is by far the best scene in the movie.I guess that puts the rest of the movie in perspective.
the floating/swirling feather at the end of "Forrest Gump"? - AH
I think you may have missed the point. That the lead character did not undergo some contrived transformation, as is really much more typical in movies, and instead did indeed flounder can be seen as just as strong a statement as it would have been had he gone through the typical two hours and you're a better person transformations so common in movies, yet so uncommon in life. I saw the movie as more reflective of society. Rather than telling us where society should or should not go, it shows us where much of American society is. The fantasies about young girls and the homophobia are two obvious examples of common traits of American society today. Throw in an unhappy marriage, generational misunderstanding, and a love-hate relationship with materialism and you're hitting pretty close to many homes.I do agree that the whole plot with the Colonel wasn't particularly well-developed. Still, I thought the movie was pretty good over-all. If you were looking for more action and something less talky, you were obviously looking in the wrong place.
"This film is pointless - just a
portrait of a loser who remains a loser"
How is that pointless?? You seem to have misinterpreted the whole premise and simplified the plot of this film to fit into your post.
As a reader of your review, I think it reads like an English 101 short essay:) But, hey, my thumbs and middle finger don't go up and down when I watch films, although I do sometimes tap my feet when I listen to music , so don't go by me.
> > he tested Lester with a come-on kissthat's ain't no testing, man!!! ;-)
falling for a stock character cliche, i.e., staunch military man with
repressed homosexual feelings. In actuality,when this type is finally forced to
confront these feelings, he most often finds true homosexual
feelings absent, instead he finds REPRESSED FEAR that he might be
homosexual, which is causing his
internal conflict. This FEAR puts a restriction on such a person's
display of same-gender affection because he always interprets this
as at best, weakness, at worst, outright homosexuality. I think the
Colonel suffered from this type of confusion. - AH
Wow. You watched the movie twice and still missed what was quite obviously the Colonel's repressed homosexuality? Quite a feat.
yup, this is surprising.Personally, I feel it's a good movie, good but not great. It captures some of the contemporary American mentality, a nice reflection of some typical American lives, all of the American tumours coherently packed in one piece. Isn't that a beauty ?
Maybe a bit exagerated, but only because of the theatratical elements of it.
"Maybe a bit exagerated, but only because of the theatratical elements of it."
Bingo, caa, quite brilliant!!! It is a FARCE, with all it's attributes - a somewhat unbelievable story line, unexpected ending, satire, even the title is reminscent of grander things in American literature, like An American Tragedy by Dreiser, etc. Some folks may not like it because it reminds them of themselves, some don't like it as a film, but to dismiss it as a usual Holywood crap is a mistake.
Not the best film on the subject, yet not the worst one, that's for sure. I liked it. Casting was great.
But I think your allusion to Dreiser is well, undeserved.I'd say "American Grafity" would be more appropriate.
"But I think your allusion to Dreiser is well, undeserved."
When did you pick up the old Theo last time, Victor?
Give him a read, you'd be surpised at the number of things that changed in the last 70 years, but what will surprise you even more is the number of things that stayed the same.
Good point on the American Graffiti. It too has it's presense in the American Beauty.
***When did you pick up the old Theo last time, Victor?Oh, that's not a fair question! I know your approximate age - are you trying to make me feel old?
Those teenagers...
But the reason I kind of jumped at this comparisson was that Dreiser's book has the depth and profundity that was obvioulsy not present in the film.
***Give him a read, you'd be surpised at the number of things that changed in the last 70 years, but what will surprise you even more is the number of things that stayed the same.Again, the book is a significant work, and as such timeless, even if it is in my view not at the level of the best world has to offer, but then in the field of fine art what American thing is? America, being late to the party, could never match the finesse of the old world, that takes centuries to develop, so its unmatched avhievemnts lie elsewhere.
I still have a very strong flavor of that book... I think...
Anyway, we are beating an already long-dead horse, we had this film discussed before and to me it remains completely insignificant and what's worse, rather offensive. And I react to the offensive nature far stronger than I do to the lack of imagination, call is a reaction to a horrible sin of commission if you will.
I am perfectly willing to accept many weak movies for what they are, and enjoy them actually.
For instance, "My Cousin Vinny" is a far, far, far better movie than the "Beauty". An unpretensious work with tons of fun...
*** but then in the field of fine art what American thing is? America, being late to the party, could never match the finesse of the old world, that takes centuries to develop, so its unmatched avhievemnts lie elsewhere.Victor, I think I could go along with you regarding music and painting - the best Americans are a cut below history's best. However, in literature I believe there are some American works that can hold their own at the top levels. "Gatsby" would be one of my nominations - not just for the story but also for the beautiful writing. I doubt that a film will ever be able to capture the greatness of this book.
You are certainly right Rick when it comes to modern literature, where the American literature is unique enough to stand on its great own.In the field of movie art unfortunately it appears that the American movie makers used to enjoy early lead, only to let the Hollywood mentality to take over shortly after the WWII. At that time the Great Bifurcation took place, whereupon our guys here concentrated on making more and more obsenely ridiculous Cleopatra's, while overseas the gentle folks like De Sica and Bergman continued they endless study of the human nature.
This of course is somewhat simplystic and only covers the main trends, as there has been overlap on both sides.
When I was replying to your earlier post I started to think about my favorite films. Surely some of them must be American? Well... kind of, but not really. "Vertigo" is an American film made by a native of England. "2001" is a British film made by an American native. "Lawrence of Arabia?" Well, made with American financing but not really an 'American Film.' "M"? Nope. "Metropolis"? Nope. "Anatomy of a Murder"? Well, Preminger wasn't exactly from Iowa. Not that that's what's required for someone to be 'American.' Far from it. But you'd think that there would be a batch of truly great films (insights into human nature, with maybe even a message, cautionary or otherwise) made by American born filmakers financed by American money, produced in America. It really doesn't seem to be the case. We can ride along with 'Citizen Kane,' 'Patton,' and some Bogart film noir for only so long.
If you are going to move on the "born-in-America is THE Amercian and the ones who came here aren't" horse, it's not going to take you far.
I wonder if BAT is an American company and V.Khomenko is an American?:))
I would never argue that you have to be born in America to be 'American.' It's unsupportable. 9.999999999 percent of us (or our parents or their parents etc.) are from somewhere else. I was just pointing out that you'd think there would be more great stuff from the natives. Victor's earlier point was that it takes hundreds of years to develop a truly great culture and I'm agreeing with him.
1.I was just screwing around with ya.
2.This arguement is valid, BUT film these days is more and more universal, or is becoming such, like it or not. There are distinguishing characteristics, of course, but soon enough they will brew down to the subtitles, for the most part. Imho, it's not French Cinema or Mongolian Cinema as an institution, but a handful of visionary directors that make it. I certainly hope these(or coming) directors will always be making good films.
3.The fact that you like non-American cinema doesn't mean anything beyond that; certainly it doesn't mean that American films are worse than the other ones that you do like watching. :)))
Elder Victor isn't discovering any Americas when he talks about decline of Hollywood films after the war. I think that the best American films were made after WWII.
***Elder Victor isn't discovering any Americas when he talks about decline of Hollywood films after the war. I think that the best American films were made after WWII.Isn't there a contradiction between your two sentences?
But anyway, I love good films no matter where they come from. So help me with the list of the best American films made after the WWII - no teasing here.
And as far as having world movies come out of some homogeneous blob of matter, that is simply not true. It would not be possible for something like the "Mozart Brothers" or "Life as a Fatal STD" to be made here, not anymore than the Kurosawa's "Dreams" to be made in Germany.
So you line about French Cinema vs. Mongolian Cinema (shivers and cold down the spine....... ) may be funny but it is dead wrong. It shall remain wrong for the next few hundred years, I am afraid.
But returning to the serious subject, let's build a good American film list.
***Elder Victor isn't discovering any Americas when he talks about decline of Hollywood films after the war. I think that the best American films were made after WWII.
Isn't there a contradiction between your two sentences?
-----------
Arrgh. Come on,Victor, drop the semantics:)))You know perfectly well what I was talking about.
What I meant to say was that indeed, Hollywood took some turns after the WWII, some of them right, some of them u-turns and some of them bad.
Now, my favorite post-WWII American films would be(before 1980s)
A Gentlemen's Agreement
North by Northwest
Chinatown
A Hatful Of Rain
The Hustler
The French Connection
Carmen Jones
The Godfather
The Young Lions
Some like it hot
Easy Rider
Pinky
Spartacus
One flew over the cuckoo's nest
The Taxi Driver
Dr.Strangelove
Three days of the Condor
The Graduate
Raging Bull
On The Waterfront
The Big Heat
Apocalypse Now
Midnight express
Young Frankenstein
Jaws
All The King's Men
Close encounters of the third kind
All That Jazz
Human desire
To kill the mockingbird
and that film with Charleton Heston where he plays a Mexican.These are just the ones that came to my mind while I was typing. I'm sure there are more.
All the other stuff about my being wrong for the next 100 years - I wish you all the health in the world, o sagacious Solomon. :)
...ever so gently slide the "Paths of Glory" in place of Spartacus?Anyway, intersting. I am actually scanning it for holes I need to plug im my education.
On the ones I know I agree with you about 60% - I would never consider the "Condor" anything but another piece of kaka from Redford-the-kaka-man.
And I am eternally grateful to you that there was no Stalag 17 on your list...
I haven't seen the Paths of Glory...but I like Spartacus.
Wow, Victor, don't get too worked up about the caca-man. I liked the Condor, saw it perhaps 3 times since I saw it first when I was about 12 or 13, still like it.
He is an OK guy, Redford. Why dislike him so much? It's the horse film, isn't it? Or his political affiliations maybe? There's got to be something beside the acting...
Stalag 17:))))Time to go home now.
You are lucky man, Dmitry, watching Paths of Glory for the first time - you will not forget it. Simply put - one of five best films ever made, and you know - I don't drop that sort of claims idly.Redford - Mr. Hollywood. A facade man, a Potemkin village, with no substance. I don't think is was the horse movie, I think my dislike of him started with the first his film that I saw - the Bruebaker. That was right as I came here, and I thought highly of American films. Bruebaker struck me as something utterly fake, although it toom me several years to understand what it was.
Victor, you have missed or misinterpreted the point of my first post to caa.
I didn't equate American Beauty with the American Tragedy in any way, but merely stated that its title was a pun of many titles containing the name of our beautiful(!) country...
In my opinion American Beauty is far from being as weak a film as you repeatedly call it. How exactly did it offend you? Do tell, I am really curious.
***Victor, you have missed or misinterpreted the point of my first post to caa.
I didn't equate American Beauty with the American Tragedy in any way, but merely stated that its title was a pun of many titles containing the name of our beautiful(!) country...Yes, I understand.
***In my opinion American Beauty is far from being as weak a film as you repeatedly call it. How exactly did it offend you? Do tell, I am really curious.This is not all that easy to explain. There are things that we feel immediately, but it takes long time to explain clearly.
Perhaps here I shall borrow from Nabokov. In his lectures on Russian literature he tried once to explain to the American students the meaning of the word "poshlost'". There is no equivalent word in English, and it is a VERY important word, as I am sure you know (although due to your rather short term in Russia you perhaps have not had enough chance to trully absorb it - I am guessing here...). That word has many flavors, and the most pedestrian translation would be perhaps just "poor taste", but it is much more than that, of course.
Anyway, Nabokov struggles with that definition for at least a couple of hours. And he too mentions that it is easier to feel than to relate certain things. Needless to say, I am no Nabokov.
So in the nutshell the film is "poshlyi". Very...
I started watching it actually expecting to love it, because so many good words have been spent on it in the press and by some people whom I actually respect. But very quickly my reaction started being that of severe irritation. It is the same irritation at being taken for a fool that I experience when looking at certain artist's work, the ones done by throwing paint from a balcony on the canvas. We all know the name of that highly respected "artist".
In almost every film there will be scenes where you cringe and say to yourself: "I wish that one was not there!" In this one it was scene after scene that left that sensation in me. All the while being done very professionally. Perhaps the most irritating scene was the one where the hero undresses the young girl. I though it was absolutely tasteless, all the irony and satyre of that film not helping it at all. As you know, I am not a prude.
It is that kind of unique "poshlost'" that I think only exists in certain American films of the later years (decades?). At least I don't recall seeing it in any other country's films - but of course my exposure to those is perhaps restricted. In that respect it is, as I said before, VERY American. Unfortunately so.
PS Those lectures are fantastic, and to me they go hand-in-hand with Chukovsky's "Art of Translation".
Well, I wouldn't apply the term poshlost' here. I can understand what you mean by that, and indeed I have seen and felt some of p...t' both here and back there, but I really don't see that in American Beauty.
Strange...I guess it's something on a more personal level than an objective point of view about a movie. My bs meter is working fine, so I guess poshlost' is a term best applied on a more intuitive position.
***Strange...I guess it's something on a more personal level than an objective point of view about a movieIsn't that ALWAYS the case with art? We are not trying to convert each others, we simply expressed why you and I felt the ways you and I felt.
But I am sure you remember the old joke: "Vasilii Ivanovich, look how dirty your neck is, it is evwen dirtier than mine!" "Of course, Pet'ka, because I am older than you..."
...so I can always claim some life experience superiority.
***Strange...I guess it's something on a more personal level than an objective point of view about a movie
Isn't that ALWAYS the case with art?
------------------------------------
You know, I think the correct answer would be yes and no. Always is such an encompassing word...
After all, even if you don't like films of Chaplin, Tarkovsky or Godard, for example, you can still see their merits. That's why I was/am still thinking of your poshlost' comment. I do know a few films I would call poshlyi(for our non-Russian speaking audience - vulgar in an all-inclusive sense of the word, not just in it's sexual disguise; on a more monumental level, I guess), but I'm sorry, I don't see it in American Beauty.
I will accept your age superiority, but like I told you in NY - give it time, I'll be there too:)) Not that I am rushing it...
***After all, even if you don't like films of Chaplin, Tarkovsky or Godard, for example, you can still see their merits.There is definitely some room for that. I could supply many personal examples (Brahms, Rockwell, etc). But all this still stops at some point - such acceptance is NOT unlimited.
For instance, I would not have any works by Rockwell or Parish anywhere near me, but I can understand his attractiveness to some. But take that snow shovel... the one that used to be on display in Philadelphia Museum of art. It was your average Home Depot model, broken in two. One half suspended on a fishing line from the ceiling.
It is in instances like that one that I say - no more, stop.
***I will accept your age superiority, but like I told you in NY - give it time, I'll be there too:)) Not that I am rushing it...
But you remember that old philosophy proof of why the rabbit shall never overtake the turtle? By the time the rabbit gets to where the turtle is now, it will be already gone. And when he gets to where it is later, it is gone from there too...
So even when you catch up with me I shall remain few years older... that is so nice to know.
Not to be a pest, but "poshlost'" is not really vulgarity, it is far more complicated and subtle. The traditional example of elefants on top of a piano is not vulgar. If you have not read it I am sure you will find Nabokov's explanation wonderfully engaging.
Why did you stray away from the films? I purposefully left the conversation within the film boundary...Or you think it'll be easier for the young rabbit to understand what the wise turtle says if he shows the rabbit some pictures and a halved shovel?:)))""So even when you catch up with me I shall remain few years older... that is so nice to know."'
Well, like I said - all the health to you, Victor. Before the mind starts slipping(or clipping), that is. That's worse than anything. I've seen that happen to some people I'd give my right hand to.
Really.
***Why did you stray away from the films? I purposefully left the conversation within the film boundary...Or you think it'll be easier for the young rabbit to understand what the wise turtle says if he shows the rabbit some pictures and a halved shovel?:)))He-he-he, I have here some posters prepared...
I love jumping between my favorite subjects. Be thankful I didn't bring up the virtues of the model 1811 Blucher sword vs. the British 1796 Infantry Officer's one.
But going back to the movies, there is line there too. To me, for instance, Spielberg is beyond that line, he is just a highly professional liar. I would much rather watch Cheech and Chong all day long than his white-wash brain-wash garbage. Oliver Stone is another one I have with passion. And Tarrantino... he contributed a lot to this coutnry's moral decay.
And mention Pasolini to my wife and you go without a dinner.
***Well, like I said - all the health to you, Victor. Before the mind starts slipping(or clipping), that is. That's worse than anything. I've seen that happen to some people I'd give my right hand to.
Really.That's one tough call. Is a sharp mind in a completely paralized body any better?
Though I don't exactly understand "poshlyi", I thought much of American Beauty vulgar- coarse and unrefined- but isn't that the point ie exactly how much "beauty" is there in a modern suburban environment?I'd go a bit further- the "resolution" of the film with a homicide, especially a shooting, is vulgar. The portrayal of women in the film was vulgar. The portrayal of a suburban man's fears- the unfaithful wife- the detached children- the lack of fulfilment in work-the psycho neighbour, were all vulgar.
So there was some nice photography- ok, for some mainstream audiences this may have been wonderful, but if I ever had an epiphany and gave up work- and the best I could come up with was to regain my youth, lust after some girl and buy a muscle car- I'd say that was vulgar.
You see, John, some words are hard to translate into other languages. For example, Japanese have a word for a state of mind, while watching the storks come back after a long winter. One word.
Anyway, if we leave vulgar as a kin of poshlost'(i.e. profane, crude,tactless, gross, cheap, cliche, vile, vane, disgustingly crass,etc - you get the idea), let's play.
I will quote you - "I'd go a bit further- the "resolution" of the film with a homicide, especially a shooting, is vulgar. The portrayal of women in the film was vulgar. The portrayal of a suburban man's fears- the unfaithful wife- the detached children- the lack of fulfilment in work-the psycho neighbour, were all vulgar."
This is just what we need - vulgar, as in a FARCE, a FABLIEU perhaps. that's exactly how I saw the film. I think all the things you mentioned were done on purpose, imho. That is why it may elicit some unpleasant reactions from folks, notwithstanding THE Academy which licked the film's boots without realizing that they were covered with shit.""and the best I could come up with was to regain my youth, lust after some girl and buy a muscle car- I'd say that was vulgar.""
Yes it was. Of course!!! And it was meant to be. No mercy for the killed protagonist, no mercy for the wife, it all goes to the vulgar hell.
I really don't know how else to explain this. I hope you understand what I am saying. Read the thread and look at your vision of the film in a different light.
Yes, it was a farce-"notwithstanding THE Academy which licked the film's boots
without realizing that they were covered with shit."Brilliant ! Quite the best summation of the film and The Academy- you should write reviews!
Thanks Dmitry.This movie reminds me of Pulp Fiction. It seems a bit farfetched and surreal. Is it stereotypical? oh, yes. But not in the sense of polical correctness, it's rather like: "this is you or the average person you know, so deal with it".
In some sense, it's like watching an opera with highly textured and colorful characters. But I think it's slightly more than that. Are the colorful characters an artistic element imposed upon us by the film maker, or is it an internal product within the characters themselves?
Why do they all have to be too colorful? Look at the real estate guy with fancy licence plate ("R.E. King", if I remember correctly), who releases his stress by shooting a few rounds of 45. Look at the high school kid who acts like a weirdo and lights candles on someone else's backyard. Look at Lester throwing dishes at dinner. Is that really necessary? Look at the high school girl who flirts with her best friend's father. Look at the cool one-liners. Are they a product of the screen writers or are they a product of the characters? There are more. I think the recurring theme of the movie lies in the Colonel's wife expression, or the swirling plastic bag: emptiness. I mean whatelse could you make an empty box more interesting other than making its cover a bit more textured and colorful?
The movie is not totally dark and without a sense of positiveness, though. As it turns out, the people who are healthiest, happiest, most successful, and have most sex seem to be the openly gay guys who live down the street.
So is it too far-fetched? Where is the line that separates the artistic elements and the realistic elements of the characters themselves? This is what makes it intersting.
Once again, good points. Although your comparison to Pulp Fiction could be desputed on the simple basis that American Beauty is a better film, in my opinion, whereas Tarantino's film I think can be viewed as "second rate" attempt of copying every twisted reality that he liked, American Beauty is a more daring depiction, in a way that it adheres to the average reality(in the first part, anyway), and is viewed as such by people who call it drek, at the same time is an almost perfect satire, the kind that doesn't get detected by the ones it aims at, but clear to the ones around, who, perhaps notice it on everyday basis.
It reminded me of Chekhov's plays, of all things. Widely staged as dramas, they are to my eyes, amazingly sharp satires.
b
***Final Verdict: As a reviewer, I give "American Beauty" two thumbs
down, and as a man, I give everyone associated with the making of this
film and everyone who voted for it, one middle finger up. - AHI'll drink to that. It is a piece of sugar-coated horseshit. Offensive. Quite "American", unfortunately.
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 ]
