Last Movie You Watched

[milk]

My response to you was not gracious?

I thought you could have considered my point more rather than saying that I had just boiled it down to a weak reading. I think the film is fascinating. But don't mind my oversensitivity. I'm sure you meant well.

[NikF]

I thought you could have considered my point more rather than saying that I had just boiled it down to a weak reading. I think the film is fascinating. But don't mind my oversensitivity. I'm sure you meant well.

You okay babe?

[LKB]

Amen!  0:)

Not to be forgotten: Lonesome Dove!   0:)

Indeed! Possibly my favorite performance from Duvall, and l can hardly believe l failed to include it in the earlier post. ( l am heavily distracted this week, on the brink of having a roof over my head once again. My normal life, and the return to composing, is nearly within reach...  )

Also, his work in Open Range showed his abilities in a supporting role. He is solid,  but avoids anything which would detract from Costner's performance, a very admirable effort.

Galloping,

LKB

[aligreto]

The Glass Castle





An engrossing story of the development of a family and in particular the relationship between a father and daughter.

[Karl Henning]

How do you name your child after a cheese?

(Sorry—could not help myself.)

[aligreto]

How do you name your child after a cheese?

(Sorry—could not help myself.)

[SonicMan46]

How do you name your child after a cheese?

After seeing the film Room (her Oscar performance), I was curious about her name which she changed (see quote below from Wiki) - assume she just took the 'ann' out her given first name, which became 'Brie'; now French was her first language -     Dave

Larson was born Brianne Sidonie Desaulniers - Larson spoke French as her first language - as her last name was difficult to pronounce, she adopted the stage name Larson from her Swedish great-grandmother and a doll named Kirsten Larson (Source)

[milk]

You okay babe?

I'm ok my love.

[NikF]

I'm ok my love.

Good stuff.

[Karl Henning]

So says I.

[milk]

Still a great time. I rewatched this and Killing of a Chinese Bookie recently.

I should go back and see Love Streams and Woman Under the Influence but I may need a break first. Ben Gazarra gives an effortlessly powerful performance in Killing. This is really a character study with organized crime as the background. Of course Rowlands is a marvel in Gloria: a goddess of a woman! "Go ahead! I'd love it"..."You sissy!"

[Cato]

How do you name your child after a cheese?

(Sorry—could not help myself.)

If you were a mouse, I might understand it!      "Meet my daughters: Brie, Bleu, and Camembert!"   

[Abuelo Igor]

I find it a fascinating question of exactly why this film could not be made today. I think "political correctness" is the lazy answer.

Maybe it would get made, but filmmakers would be asked to do "a major rethink" before the shooting. I remember an argument I had with someone about a fact-based screenplay we had read, in which rape was a major plot point. She complained that women were seen only as victims and that the only thing that mattered was how weird, strange and cool was the protagonist's madness. She seemed to imply that every time rape appears in a story, immediately the plight of the victims has to take center stage, because if you don't make the women protagonists, you are kind of downplaying their suffering. As I countered that it would change the film completely and what happened if the filmmakers just wanted to do a study of the crazy guy, the lady countered that in that case the best thing would be to edit out the subject of rape altogether and replace it for some other form of violent behaviour, which I disagreed with because it was supposed to be "true crime" stuff and the theme of sexual violence was all over the plot since the rapist was supposed to have been abused as a child.

When I read your original post about the Kurosawa film, I was reminded of this conversation as I thought that your point was very similar. I think it is respectable and well-argued, but I can see very well how such feelings, as in the case I have referred to, can lead into a will to smooth out the rough edges and deal with unpleasant issues by avoiding to deal with them in the first place. I didn't object to your cringing over a depiction of rape, but rather to the implication that, because of that, Rashomon was no longer valid for our times and that the view of sexual poltics expressed by a 1950s Japanese male sort of overrode the whole experience and lessened its overall value.

I cannot say that it would necessarily be your opinion, but I can very well picture the lady I was speaking about, faced with the Kurosawa script before the shooting, and saying "do away with the rape", which in my opinion is not a good idea because, in a film that deals with the value of being decent and human in a metaphorically depicted postwar Japan where faith in moral values had been eroded by all that had happened, including all kinds of shameful conduct prompted by the need to survive, it would be difficult to find a more powerful way of symbolizing the loss of personal dignity. But if you are afraid of hurting sensitivities with a subject matter that will always offend someone no matter how it is handled and agree to do away with what might cause trouble, maybe the film will come out all right or even achieve classic status, but for me it's the Hays Code or Franco's censorship all over again. As a grown up viewer, I am perfectly aware of when a work of the imagination is less than exemplary in treating the relationship between the sexes, but I think that, in material aimed at adults, I prefer to be offended on my own rather than have someone else decide what is good or bad for me.

I have spent quite a long time with this reply, so I just hope that I won't be accused of laziness. The ungraciousness, alas, could not be helped. 

[Cato]

Maybe it would get made, but filmmakers would be asked to do "a major rethink" before the shooting. I remember an argument I had with someone about a fact-based screenplay we had read, in which rape was a major plot point. She complained that women were seen only as victims and that the only thing that mattered was how weird, strange and cool was the protagonist's madness. She seemed to imply that every time rape appears in a story, immediately the plight of the victims has to take center stage, because if you don't make the women protagonists, you are kind of downplaying their suffering. As I countered that it would change the film completely and what happened if the filmmakers just wanted to do a study of the crazy guy, the lady countered that in that case the best thing would be to edit out the subject of rape altogether and replace it for some other form of violent behaviour, which I disagreed with because it was supposed to be "true crime" stuff and the theme of sexual violence was all over the plot since the rapist was supposed to have been abused as a child.

When I read your original post about the Kurosawa film, I was reminded of this conversation as I thought that your point was very similar. I think it is respectable and well-argued, but I can see very well how such feelings, as in the case I have referred to, can lead into a will to smooth out the rough edges and deal with unpleasant issues by avoiding to deal with them in the first place. I didn't object to your cringing over a depiction of rape, but rather to the implication that, because of that, Rashomon was no longer valid for our times and that the view of sexual poltics expressed by a 1950s Japanese male sort of overrode the whole experience and lessened its overall value.

I cannot say that it would necessarily be your opinion, but I can very well picture the lady I was speaking about, faced with the Kurosawa script before the shooting, and saying "do away with the rape", which in my opinion is not a good idea because, in a film that deals with the value of being decent and human in a metaphorically depicted postwar Japan where faith in moral values had been eroded by all that had happened, including all kinds of shameful conduct prompted by the need to survive, it would be difficult to find a more powerful way of symbolizing the loss of personal dignity. But if you are afraid of hurting sensitivities with a subject matter that will always offend someone no matter how it is handled and agree to do away with what might cause trouble, maybe the film will come out all right or even achieve classic status, but for me it's the Hays Code or Franco's censorship all over again. As a grown up viewer, I am perfectly aware of when a work of the imagination is less than exemplary in treating the relationship between the sexes, but I think that, in material aimed at adults, I prefer to be offended on my own rather than have someone else decide what is good or bad for me.

I have spent quite a long time with this reply, so I just hope that I won't be accused of laziness. The ungraciousness, alas, could not be helped. 

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. 

[André]

Isn't « idiotic thinking » a bit harsh? Or is my desire for constant painlessness asserting itself ?

Anyhow, Abuelo Igor has it right 100%. Women never had it easy in Japan, even in our own modern times.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/tokyo-medical-school-changed-test-scores-to-keep-women-out

[Cato]

Isn't « idiotic thinking » a bit harsh? Or is my desire for constant painlessness asserting itself ?

Anyhow, Abuelo Igor has it right 100%. Women never had it easy in Japan, even in our own modern times.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/tokyo-medical-school-changed-test-scores-to-keep-women-out

  Possibly harsh,     a bit.   0:)   The virtue of pain, of course, is that we can more easily recognize and appreciate its absence.

But yes, again, Igor has it right 100%!

[milk]

Maybe it would get made, but filmmakers would be asked to do "a major rethink" before the shooting. I remember an argument I had with someone about a fact-based screenplay we had read, in which rape was a major plot point. She complained that women were seen only as victims and that the only thing that mattered was how weird, strange and cool was the protagonist's madness. She seemed to imply that every time rape appears in a story, immediately the plight of the victims has to take center stage, because if you don't make the women protagonists, you are kind of downplaying their suffering. As I countered that it would change the film completely and what happened if the filmmakers just wanted to do a study of the crazy guy, the lady countered that in that case the best thing would be to edit out the subject of rape altogether and replace it for some other form of violent behaviour, which I disagreed with because it was supposed to be "true crime" stuff and the theme of sexual violence was all over the plot since the rapist was supposed to have been abused as a child.

When I read your original post about the Kurosawa film, I was reminded of this conversation as I thought that your point was very similar. I think it is respectable and well-argued, but I can see very well how such feelings, as in the case I have referred to, can lead into a will to smooth out the rough edges and deal with unpleasant issues by avoiding to deal with them in the first place. I didn't object to your cringing over a depiction of rape, but rather to the implication that, because of that, Rashomon was no longer valid for our times and that the view of sexual poltics expressed by a 1950s Japanese male sort of overrode the whole experience and lessened its overall value.

I cannot say that it would necessarily be your opinion, but I can very well picture the lady I was speaking about, faced with the Kurosawa script before the shooting, and saying "do away with the rape", which in my opinion is not a good idea because, in a film that deals with the value of being decent and human in a metaphorically depicted postwar Japan where faith in moral values had been eroded by all that had happened, including all kinds of shameful conduct prompted by the need to survive, it would be difficult to find a more powerful way of symbolizing the loss of personal dignity. But if you are afraid of hurting sensitivities with a subject matter that will always offend someone no matter how it is handled and agree to do away with what might cause trouble, maybe the film will come out all right or even achieve classic status, but for me it's the Hays Code or Franco's censorship all over again. As a grown up viewer, I am perfectly aware of when a work of the imagination is less than exemplary in treating the relationship between the sexes, but I think that, in material aimed at adults, I prefer to be offended on my own rather than have someone else decide what is good or bad for me.

I have spent quite a long time with this reply, so I just hope that I won't be accused of laziness. The ungraciousness, alas, could not be helped. 

It's a well thought out reply and I thank you for taking my point seriously. I like having a serious discussion about film especially with disagreement which can be fun and lead to insight. I actually don't think there's any way to make this film without rape because there wouldn't be any crime serious enough to affect honor in this way. I guess the reason I think it couldn't be made today, assuming none of us care about political correctness, is because the point of the film is to show three villains and that the men at the end reach the answer of compassion when they confront the inhumanity that all three characters display. So, right away, a raped woman is shown to act on the same equally low moral plane as her rapist and husband. Is that impossible? Well, it's hard to convey this to people who haven't seen it but rape as an actual violence is completely absent and unconsidered. It's NOT the point. There's a real ambivalence toward rape. It's a discontinuity that the film is both necessarily about rape and totally uninterested in rape. That should make anybody cringe. Today, you'd have to explain how you get to the point of having a rape victim become a villain. Her reaction to her own rape is immoral. Her own rape is not a debilitating violence either. Her rapist also happens to be pretty entertaining and when the tables are turned on the men, we even sympathize with them as her victims. And this is also happens to be the story that, if we really pay attention, is the true one, the one that causes the men at the end to lose lose hope in, and finally gain compassion for, humanity. I think the problem with Rashomon is that it is and isn't about rape. I will add something here (that already has been used as a straw man - because you can disregard everything else I've said and focus on this): I DO think this is a film obviously made by a man in a very misogynistic society. I could be wrong and it's a bit besides the point BUT I get the feeling that only a man could treat rape in such a silly way. As a student, I didn't give it a second thought. As an adult, I watched the rape scenes in Rashomon and thought they were ridiculous.

[milk]

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. 

I just think you've got it all backwards. My issue is not avoiding showing rape. It's the opposite: showing rape really. I don't see why this is so tough to understand. Rashomon doesn't care about rape or depict it. It uses a watered down, rape-light, silly rape-pantomime, to present "man's inhumanity." That inhumanity includes the rape victim's inhumanity to the others. And we can answer with compassion for all: rapist, rape victim, husband. You want to show it today with pain? Well, you're going to have to go a long distance from Kurosawa. So now you've done that and shown rape REALLY. Now what? How are you going to set up the audience to view the rape victim as a villain too? Well, you could do it but I'm afraid you have a different film. Will your film be good? Um, it's a pretty weird premise.

[milk]

Isn't « idiotic thinking » a bit harsh? Or is my desire for constant painlessness asserting itself ?

Anyhow, Abuelo Igor has it right 100%. Women never had it easy in Japan, even in our own modern times.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/tokyo-medical-school-changed-test-scores-to-keep-women-out

Rashomon is pretty painless when it comes to rape. The pain is in the reactions, which are not realistic. Sorry but it strikes me as very silly to think that Rashomon presents the pain of rape (Probably only men would think so). ETA: Rashomon is a moral film trying to make a serious moral point. It's a post-war film. This is some thing to respect in Kurosawa who was a great filmmaker. The people who've reacted negatively here, imho, are drawing all the wrong conclusions about Rashomon. The film is trying to make a serious point about human inhumanity and about compassion. That's a laudable theme to hit. The problem is that HE uses rape as a device to make his point without showing the pain of rape. He can't show it - both because it's 1951 Japan and because he's doesn't understand or care about rape and because if he did REALLY show rape, the film would no longer be about general philosophical inhumanity.

[Madiel]

Her reaction to her own rape is immoral.

Wow.

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