Last Movie You Watched

[milk]

Wow.

Well, it's nice to know that telling women how to behave is alive and well.

it's according to the film. Have you seen it?

[Madiel]

it's according to the film. Have you seen it?

Some time ago.

What, precisely, about her reaction is immoral? And who says it is immoral?

You're being as clear as mud about your judgements versus the judgements of characters. Noting that there are several distinct claims about what the wife actually did.

Noting the characters are in feudal Japan.

[NikF]

Excellent! 

The temporal context is everything: a film from 1950 after World War II about Medieval Japan.  Of course the way violence is viewed will be different from today.  Art often has three temporal dimensions: the time of the art's creation, the time portrayed in the art, and the time of the viewer.  In some cases all three may be nearly simultaneous, but even so, the passage of even a year or two can affect the viewer's/reader's/listener's reaction.   

If Rashomon "could not be made today," then something is seriously wrong with our culture: idiotic thinking and a manic desire for constant painlessness would be the main culprits. 

Perhaps this is being overlooked. Or maybe not. In either case, I just want to highlight it further. 

[Madiel]

Perhaps this is being overlooked. Or maybe not. In either case, I just want to highlight it further. 

I'm certainly not overlooking it. Others will have to speak for themselves.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Yet people complain much less about a much more recent film, Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America (1984) where the protagonist brutally rapes Deborah yet in one of the later scenes of the movie Deborah chats with him like there had happened absolutely nothing.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

My bad, I didn't read closely enough what Milk wrote.

[milk]

Some time ago.

What, precisely, about her reaction is immoral? And who says it is immoral?

In the movie, one version of events has her shaming the two men into fighting for her. This is the woodcutter's version. I think it's obvious that this is the most plausible version of events as everyone comes out looking shameful and pathetic. It leads to the ending in which the priest and woodcutter show compassion for a baby. This is a postwar film that focuses on inhumanity. This is pretty clear in the film. My reading is mainstream.

[Cato]

Excellent! 

The temporal context is everything: a film from 1950 after World War II about Medieval Japan.  Of course the way violence is viewed will be different from today.  Art often has three temporal dimensions: the time of the art's creation, the time portrayed in the art, and the time of the viewer.  In some cases all three may be nearly simultaneous, but even so, the passage of even a year or two can affect the viewer's/reader's/listener's reaction.   

Perhaps this is being overlooked. Or maybe not. In either case, I just want to highlight it further. 

Thank you!   

One quick comment, as we are about to leave:

I just think you've got it all backwards. My issue is not avoiding showing rape. It's the opposite: showing rape really.

I have not seen the movie in decades, but is not the issue reality itself, i.e. 4 different stories with four different "realities" ?  If you fault the reactions for not being realistic, is that not - perhaps - because the reactions are being filtered by the psyches of the characters?

And I would think it is well nigh impossible to know how what kind of a reaction to rape would be in the Middle Ages in Japan!   Sigrid Undset, following the blithe, casual violence detailed in Scandinavian sagas, has a rape at the center of her novel Gunnar's Daughter (which novel I heartily recommend reading).  Following that tradition, she shows how a young medieval woman reacts to her rape (by a man she did want to love), which attack produces a child, and continues to build a life for herself.  Certainly, Gunnar's daughter shows that she will not be victimized, and that life must go on.  Is her story, her reaction, "real" ?

Would that not depend on the reader?  I think Undset does quite well in showing that - for a medieval woman - this was quite  a real reaction.

[Madiel]

In the movie, one version of events has her shaming the two men into fighting for her. This is the woodcutter's version. I think it's obvious that this is the most plausible version of events as everyone comes out looking shameful and pathetic. It leads to the ending in which the priest and woodcutter show compassion for a baby. This is a postwar film that focuses on inhumanity. This is pretty clear in the film. My reading is mainstream.

You think it's obvious. Okay then.

So again to clarify: WHO is saying the wife's actions are immoral (assuming these are actually the wife's actions): you, or a character?

If you could just try answering that this time.

[milk]

Yet people complain much less about a much more recent film, Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America (1984) where the protagonist brutally rapes Deborah yet in one of the later scenes of the movie Deborah chats with him like there had happened absolutely nothing.

I don't see why people should be defensive about critiquing any film. And I don't think you have to be a feminist to see how the "male gaze" exists. There's a joke in Animal Crackers about "darkies." Is it politically correct to find it offensive? No way. I love the Marx Brothers but I cringe when I hear the joke.

[milk]

Thank you!   

One quick comment, as we are about to leave:

I have not seen the movie in decades, but is not the issue reality itself, i.e. 4 different stories with four different "realities" ?  If you fault the reactions for not being realistic, is that not - perhaps - because the reactions are being filtered by the psyches of the characters?

And I would think it is well nigh impossible to know how what kind of a reaction to rape would be in the Middle Ages in Japan!   Sigrid Undset, following the blithe, casual violence detailed in Scandinavian sagas, has a rape at the center of her novel Gunnar's Daughter (which novel I heartily recommend reading).  Following that tradition, she shows how a young medieval woman reacts to her rape (by a man she did want to love), which attack produces a child, and continues to build a life for herself.  Certainly, Gunnar's daughter shows that she will not be victimized, and that life must go on.  Is her story, her reaction, "real" ?

Would that not depend on the reader?  I think Undset does quite well in showing that - for a medieval woman - this was quite  a real reaction.

no. The movie is not about four different realities. It's about obvious lies (and, arguably one plausible reality). The movie is about morality and compassion NOT about relativism. My view is not eccentric on this point. It just isn't.
You're welcome to take the movie as a plausible comment on medieval sensibilities - of course. Personally, I think the movie says a lot about 1951 as well.

[milk]

You think it's obvious. Okay then.

So again to clarify: WHO is saying the wife's actions are immoral (assuming these are actually the wife's actions): you, or a character?

If you could just try answering that this time.

I'm not sure if I answered directly enough but she herself lies about her reaction out of shame. All the character do. So one answer is according to herself. They're all shameful according to the woodcutters view - which is the one we live with at the end. They almost lose all hope reflecting on the immorality of all of the three but find compassion for a baby and, thus, hope for humanity. This is the point of the film. Not mine. ETA: she provokes the murder of her husband in the most trustworthy version of events. This is one of what the characters at the end see as immoral.

[Madiel]

I'm not sure if I answered directly enough but she herself lies about her reaction out of shame. All the character do. So one answer is according to herself. They're all shameful according to the woodcutters view - which is the one we live with at the end. They almost lose all hope reflecting on the immorality of all of the three but find compassion for a baby and, thus, hope for humanity. This is the point of the film. Not mine. ETA: she provokes the murder of her husband in the most trustworthy version of events. This is one of what the characters at the end see as immoral.

No, you still haven't answered. Do you say her action was immoral, or does a character say it was immoral.

You keep describing what people do as if you expect me to just infer what is immoral. As if you now expect me to sit in judgement of a rape victim, when my whole point is that I have a problem with sitting in judgement about how a rape victim is supposed to behave. Especially if that involves a 21st century American judging the actions of a character from a thousand years earlier and an entirely different culture. But more generally not recognising all the ways that women still have to deal with the reality of men being in power. Otherwise MeToo would never have happened. Women wouldn't be speaking up YEARS later.

I note that this interesting article, which succeeds in saying far better than you have what the woodcutter thinks of the other characters, also points out that the woodcutter is the character who has most clearly lied about something.

https://infoh.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Rashomon.pdf

[Madiel]

It is perhaps worth mentioning at this point in the conversation that I've just watched the season finale of The Handmaid's Tale. A show that not infrequently shows women talking politely with their captors and rapists because the alternative is being murdered.

[milk]

No, you still haven't answered. Do you say her action was immoral, or does a character say it was immoral.

You keep describing what people do as if you expect me to just infer what is immoral. As if you now expect me to sit in judgement of a rape victim, when my whole point is that I have a problem with sitting in judgement about how a rape victim is supposed to behave. Especially if that involves a 21st century American judging the actions of a character from a thousand years earlier and an entirely different culture. But more generally not recognising all the ways that women still have to deal with the reality of men being in power. Otherwise MeToo would never have happened. Women wouldn't be speaking up YEARS later.

I note that this interesting article, which succeeds in saying far better than you have what the woodcutter thinks of the other characters, also points out that the woodcutter is the character who has most clearly lied about something.

https://infoh.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Rashomon.pdf

"...this one rape (or is it seduction?)"
Yeah...I don't find this review very insightful.
I'm glad you think it's far better than me. Why don't you stick with it then? I've no need to insult you over this nor have I written here with any pretension of being some great writer.

[Karl Henning]

Yet people complain much less about a much more recent film, Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America (1984) where the protagonist brutally rapes Deborah yet in one of the later scenes of the movie Deborah chats with him like there had happened absolutely nothing.

I never watched to that point, the rape scene sent me packing.

[NikF]

Watched Rashomon today. I hadn't remembered that this movie turns on a rape. In fact, I couldn't enjoy this that much because of the way the rape is treated. Mifune plays the rapist and is the most magnetic performer here. His character is even the most likable at times, which left me pretty disgusted. It's magnificently filmed to be sure, but obviously for another time when women were treated non-seriously and as somewhat less than human. It's not just the way the characters are; to me, it's the perspective of the film itself which trivializes the rape and the significance of the woman's reality as well. Just my impression.

BS. And don't you ever again send me an unsolicited PM dictating which messages I'm allowed to reply to.

Admin, if you're reading this and want to know more, hit me up and I'll forward the message in question. But the next thing you'll see is the line I've drawn under it.
_______________________

Tonight we went to see Mildred Pierce, directed by Michael Curtiz.  Michael Curtiz

Anyone have anything they would like to say about it? On any level? I'm all ears - and that comes with the bonus of me not getting hysterical if you disagree with anything I write

What we watched was newly restored and as such took my aging eyes a few moments to adjust. But the work of Ernest Haller was revealed in fine fashion. I suppose to many he's known for his Oscar winning 3 strip Technicolour photography in Gone with the Wind (although much later his career ended with a famous and bizarre final frontier) but IMO he's great at taking advantage of how black and white can be used subtly manipulate the viewer.

He has a task and the order of the day is consistency. And here he uses - and gets away with - employing light throughout in a manner that's less clumsy than Charlie bars but also less flattering than them.





No matter what other elements are in the scene or anything the dialogue imparts, he's steady and maintains his discipline. 'It's a stylistic decision, typical of noir' - bollocks, it's more than that because here the changes are subtle. He's leaning heavily on it but gets away without it ever appearing as a gimmick; What's the light source where is it coming from how near/far is it? Who cares because I'm that good I can make it work every single time.





So, a fine career indeed. And at the end of it, what was his last gig?



Anyway, there's another (and trivial) thing that popped into my head while watching. The wardrobe of Crawford (and Blyth too) with the earrings is sometimes like a heavy handed example of why outside of work you'll often see models and dancers wearing studs in their ears, because they serve to throw a little light around the face in a way that can be flattering. Problem is, it's one of those effects that's hard to perceive until it's removed. But look close and maybe you'll see it and then never be able to unsee it.

Okay, that's it, I brought some noodles in and they'll be getting cold. Spicy chicken chow mein after a cool old film. Good stuff.

[milk]

BS. And don't you ever again send me an unsolicited PM dictating which messages I'm allowed to reply to.

Admin, if you're reading this and want to know more, hit me up and I'll forward the message in question. But the next thing you'll see is the line I've drawn under it.
_______________________

Anyone have anything they would like to say about it? On any level? I'm all ears - and that comes with the bonus of me not getting hysterical if you disagree with anything I write

you're on my ignore list because you're a bully.

[SimonNZ]

Yet people complain much less about a much more recent film, Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America (1984) where the protagonist brutally rapes Deborah yet in one of the later scenes of the movie Deborah chats with him like there had happened absolutely nothing.

See also: Saturday Night Fever. Or better yet, don't.


watched last night:



Following Samantha Power, John Kerry and Ben Rhodes at work and talking about their efforts in diplomatic problem solving around the globe through 2016, up to, and including Trumps depressing win and the knowledge that all their efforts will be undone.

Watchable but a missed opportunity as it never trusts the viewer to get into a deep discussion of each issue, instead bouncing around and going seldom beyond the superficial. With its quick edits, snappy soundbites and constant music what it most resembles is a trailer for itself.

Pity, because on the cutting room floor must be the footage for a really great documentary.

[Madiel]

See also: Saturday Night Fever. Or better yet, don't.

I say do, but don't assume that the Bee Gees soundtrack is an indication of a light and happy film. It's not really a film about fun disco dancing and people tend to THINK it is because they had fun dancing to the disco music.