MovieChat Forums > Possession (1983) Discussion > Why? Just why?

Why? Just why?

posted 13 years ago by fmshaw1971
27 replies | jump to latest

I should probably start off by saying that I loathed this film. Detested it! Despised it with every ounce of vitriolic hatred that I could muster! I appreciate a good art film, but ones that aren't so idiotically presented. I like some (but not all) Bergman. I love Kiarostami and Kurosawa. I am by no means a slave to Hollywood convention, but this film defies all logic.

I just want to know why. Why present this film in such an idiotic way? Why have characters act like idiots? Why introduce characters for no purpose? This could have been an enjoyable film to me. I just want to know why the director ruined an interesting concept with such stupidity.

Here is one example. Why is the P.I. "chase" scene so idiotically unbelievable? She is consumed with passion and probably wouldn't notice the P.I. following her, so why is he more inept than Inspector Clouseau? Someone please tell me why they think this adds one iota to the film. It's mindlessly stupid. Why not have a realistic P.I.? What the hell possessed the director to think this sort of comic relief would add to his film? I could delve into an entire barrel of 'whys,' but there will be no answers forthcoming.

My main problem with this film is that I am sitting here asking the question, why. Seriously, many of the scenes in this movie make as much sense as Sam Mendes having the Purina Chuck Wagon come out from under the bed and circle around the room in the love scene from American Beauty. That's how idiotic this movie is to me. It's not that I have a problem with the concept, but rather ruining the concept behind a bunch of pointless nonsense.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BG43214 13 years ago

I agree with you 1 million percent!!!!!!!

to think that I wasted the time I spent on this piece of junk!!

time that I, or anyone else for that matter, will NEVER get back

the director and author of this mess should be tarred and feathered, to say the least!!!!!!

[–] DrLovehate 13 years ago

I just watched this recently, based on some positive reviews here and several other sites. I have to say that this film is the perfect example of pretentious film making. Every emotion is overwrought and physically acted out with copious amounts of arm flailing and twitching and a bunch of other silly histrionics. I like art house movies, but this one just didn't move me. Never seen this directors other stuff but if it's anything like this I'll be staying far away.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yfguitarist 10 years ago

It might be the most annoyingly pretentious film I've seen. It's a shame because I really wanted to like this film. I love David Lynch's films but the dialogue and overacting in this was unbearable.

[–] Sandoz 12 years ago

Total agreement. I'm glad others saw through this great symbolic piece of art for the pretentious crapfest that it was. Took a big effort on my part to finally track down a copy of this film on dvd to see, too...thank god I didn't pay for it!

Never would have thought I'd dislike a film so much that stars Isabelle Adjani and Sam Neill, two actors I love watching on screen. I guess that's what a pretentious, artsy-fartsy director can accomplish, though.

This is very hard to read, isn't it?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tanishal22 12 years ago

I find it funny the OP deleted all comments that don't agree with him. That's more crap-filled than anything an director could put into a movie.

[–] timlin-4 12 years ago

The OP is not Mr. Bezos, and can't delete others' comments. This movie does seem a little out-of-control and could have been better, though I think it's interesting enough

[–] Tony_Silvio 12 years ago

The movie's old as hell. All the acting was bad; even the ones who had good performances also had some tragically bad scenes. That said, I didn't expect much to begin with, and I loved the movie. You have to look at it as a whole; if you think the PI scene (being the worst offender) and a few other ridiculous happenings totally ruined the movie, you are one sad person. The movie doesn't have to be Shawshank to be entertaining or unique or funny or dramatic.

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"The movie´s old as hell".

Since when is 32 years "old as hell"?

"The movie doesn´t have to be Shawshank to be entertaining or unique or funny or dramatic".

Come again?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Tony_Silvio 12 years ago

I didn't think I needed to explain the glaring differences between movies nowadays and movies 30 years ago. My bad, was definitely an oversight thinking you were remotely intelligent.

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

You were thinking of ME while writing that stuff? That´s of course mighty flattering and all... and would likely be even more flattering if any of it made any sense.

Ditto the most recent squeak about some "glaring differences" between movies of today and those of 1981 you seem to be... umm... envisioning there. But since you refuse to elaborate, I guess no one will ever know what are these radical film theoretical concepts that rattle around in that tiny little head of yours. Pity, innit?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Tony_Silvio 12 years ago

I was thinking of whoever might read the post. As for elaborating, take a look at your initial response. What I mean is, I've been catching up on and re-watching movies, many of them from the 80's. I notice, in general, the scripts and individual scenes can be much more outlandish (not in the fantasy sense; I mean the little things and lack of attention to detail that make it not as believable); the acting is down a peg from what we expect now and many of the actors are also inconsistent, even throughout a single movie; the special effects are obviously worse, but it's more than that: sometimes they're almost comically bad, and the director must have REALLY wanted to use whatever monster or explosion.

It was a different era and I think many of the critiques people make on this forum are unfair and rather pointless. It's been awhile since I read this movie's forum, so I don't have any specific examples. I hope that was more clear.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

I agree that the quality of the films in general - at least as far as Hollywood production is concerned - has gotten weaker than it used to be 30 years ago, acting is the one aspect that has ´not´ declined since then; in fact, I´d almost say there has never been quite as much great acting talent around as there is currently. It strikes me as kind of disingenious to base this argument on people like those James Franco, Seth Rogan and Chris Hemsworth whom I´ve personally never even heard of (the "Twilight git" being probably this Pattinson guy... well I´ve heard of him; he did more or less okay in Cosmopolis) and who hardly constitute today´s cream of the crop as it were. On the other hand, we DO have the vast and versatile talents of people like Day-Lewis, P.S.Hoffman, Sean Penn, Michael Shannon, Javier Bardem, Gary Oldman etc around and in their prime. Guys who seem to be able to do just about anything. Also, of the old-timers you listed, Mitchum, Cassavetes & Ryan in particular weren´t exactly the "rangiest" of performers.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

Interesting, at least as far as the looks are concerned, I thought Penn only started to appear tolerable (ie not like such an arrogant, obnoxious prick) when he was nearing 40. Hardly seen a bad performance from him, even though he´s given several fairly unremarkable ones lately. And Oldman has really always had this taste for ham, something he´s sometimes capable of reigning in though; incidentally, in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy he´s at his most quiet, understated & low-key.

As for the appreciation for the acting of decades past in general, I think too many young viewers are simply unable to see merit in more classically stylized acting, obsessed with this supposed naturalism or realism as today´s cinema is when it comes to performances (as well as pretty much everything else). Even yours truly had to on this stuff for quite a while in order to adapt to the styles and vibes of classic Hollywood where people often speak in the way no one does, or ever did, irl.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] offyerswod 9 years ago

What the *beep* are you talking about ???

I thought the effects in this movie were great and kinda disturbing ( though the car explosions were kinda poor )

But there is NO way CGI of today is in anyway better than the practical effects of the 80's , 90's ...absolutely no chance ..cant you see that CGI looks comically bad yet or are you going to wait 30 years ??
I also think todays crop of actors are a most unlikeable, untalented bunch and the fact your saying the acting is better now ..depresses me, its bleaker than this movie.

That being said .... I did not like the acting , screaming and shouting in "possession" i couldn't even understand some of the accents in this....but this is that arty european foreign style aimed at much cleverer people than myself.

[–] Gus-69 9 years ago

I wonder what's in the mind of a person who thinks a 1981 movie is "old as hell" and Adjani's performance is bad.

----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/

[–] paguy27 12 years ago

I've realized people who hate Possession typically have a dull, terrible taste in film.

[–] ethermusic1981 11 years ago

I've realized people who hate Possession typically have a dull, terrible taste in film.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh man...thanks for the laugh, guy. I needed it!

[–] cookiela2001 11 years ago

This film seems to be inspired by the Theatre of the Absurd style, in which stories were presented enigmatically or nonsensically...I guess in an attempt to reflect the chaos and randomness of life itself.

It is my LEAST favorite theatrical style. The artists don't have to take responsibility for anything...rather, it's all just served up as a cloaked mishmash for the audience to...ponder. If someone doesn't have anything coherent to say...why don't they just shut the hell up, rather than make confusing movies? It's very very irritating.

The two leads in this are very good and commit %100, and the premise of a spouse having an obsessive affair with a monstrous, inhuman thing is kind of gripping. But this film seems to be enjoyed more in discussion than in the actual viewing experience.

AND I DON'T CARE ! ! ! (Though Adjani looks more naturally, yet rapturously, beautiful than ever in several shots.)
.

[–] fourballoons 11 years ago

THIS. THIS. THIS!

Your post is EXACTLY what I am thinking right now (just finished watching it). The film had SO much potential, if it would have kept a serious tone throughout. Why the stupid music, poor attempts at "comic relief" (which really weren't funny or effective, just stupid and sabotaging to the rest of the film) and the silly/unbelievable crap stuffed into it for no good reason.

I WANTED to like this film (and I did like SOME of it). Isabelle played her role VERY well. But the husband and her lover? The FBI agents/cops/whatever they were near the end?? PURE TACKY *beep*...