MovieChat Forums > Affliction (1999) Discussion > This movie is an affliction...

This movie is an affliction...

posted 17 years ago by Mccadoo
20 replies | jump to latest

My god, this had to be the most depressing piece of crap I've ever seen, but unlike movies like "Leaving Las Vegas" which at least has some redeeming qualities, this movie is just a black hole.

I wouldn't have a thing to do with any of the characters in this movie. And yes, I know such people exist but the rest of us usually spend our lives avoiding them. Why in the world would I want to watch a movie about them.

A total piece of crap.

And if anyone out there is reading this and rushing to their key board to tell me that I've missed the "message" this movie puts forth don't bother, because I didn't because there isn't one. And besides, if you're looking for life messages in a movie starring Nick Nolte then you need to GET a life.

The title says it all.

And it's two hours of my life that I'll never get back.

[–] lewisherschell 17 years ago

It's funny, but I felt the same way about 'Leaving Las Vegas', which to me was sentimental nonsense. I also remember thinking that thanks to its slick Hollywood sheen and the fact that Cage and Shue rarely look any less than immaculately 'ruffled'--not to mention the fact that they both look far too healthy for the roles they are playing (although their actual performances were both great)--'Leaving Las Vegas' actually glamourised the life of an alcoholic. (However, I haven't seen 'Leaving Las Vegas' since its cinema release, so I don't know how I would respond to it now; but I have a feeling that it would make me more angry than it did in 1996.)

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy 'Affliction'; but having been on the receiving end of an alcoholic's abuse for a good portion of my childhood, for me, out of the two films, 'Affliction' was the more honest, and less Hollywood-ised (i.e. less bathetic) representation of alcoholism

'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).

[–] HoBopkins 17 years ago

i thought affliction was mediocre, and leaving las vegas was just horrible. cage was bad; shue was good but her story wasn't big enough.

[–] kathykato 16 years ago

This was a very depressing movie, and I can't believe it got a 3 star rating. I really didn't like any of the characters except for Sissy Spacek's character, and got no enjoyment whatsoever by watching this. What made it even more depressing is that in Nick Nolte's mug shot for DUI, he looks even worse than the character he played in this movie.

[–] chertzy 16 years ago

I think it is quite a good movie. Sorry poster that you felt depressed, but that to me is the sign of a good flick if it resonates regardless of whether the mood was upper or downer.

What I enjoy about this movie is Nick nolte's character struggling to function in regular society and I really think it was an excellent performance. You get a great sense of the power of emotional abuse and it speaks a lot about the strenghts and weaknesses of the human spirit. Ultimately you feel pity for his inability to overcome like his brother.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Edward_de_Vere 15 years ago

Just because you find something to be "depressing" doesn't make it "a piece of crap." Not everything in life is happy, fun, or uplifting. Movies don't have to be either.

Leaving Las Vegas" which at least has some redeeming qualities

It might have had redeeming qualities if Nicholas Cage could act. Nick Nolte, in contrast, can act, in spite of his semi B-movie past.

[–] Diss 15 years ago

Just because a movie is depressing doesn't mean it's bad. You people have hilarious ways of rating movies. I suppose all movies should be typical hollywood "popcorn" movies where the good guy always wins. I suppose in the end his father should have gone into AA instead of been killed. BS.

Perhaps this movie really hits a note for those of you (like me) who've had alcoholic fathers. I initially resisted wanting to see this movie as I didn't want to be reminded of my childhood. But it is worth seeing, I don't regret it at all.

[–] Edward_de_Vere 15 years ago

Perhaps this movie really hits a note for those of you (like me) who've had alcoholic fathers. I initially resisted wanting to see this movie as I didn't want to be reminded of my childhood. But it is worth seeing, I don't regret it at all

I loved this film because so many of the characters (and many of the situations) reminded me of people that I've known.

Just because a movie is depressing doesn't mean it's bad. You people have hilarious ways of rating movies. I suppose all movies should be typical hollywood "popcorn" movies where the good guy always wins. I suppose in the end his father should have gone into AA instead of been killed. BS.

The trouble is that for a movie to sell, it has to provide escapist fantasy rather than three dimensional characters or believable, flesh and blood situations.

[–] zurichpoet 15 years ago

There's something amiss in the film.
Something about the judgmental attitude that permeates it; about how the characters feel the wrong things, aren't expressive enough in "good ways", are mean. So what? The film is doing the same thing. It's as if the writer is making a list as to what's wrong with these people. Which is fine, I guess; but not very interesting. And it should be called: "Affectation"

[–] lewisherschell 14 years ago

"Something about the judgmental attitude that permeates it; about how the characters feel the wrong things, aren't expressive enough in "good ways", are mean".

They're not 'mean' or 'wrong': they're suffering from the affliction alluded to in the title.

'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).

[–] zurichpoet 14 years ago

Alluded to in the title...

So: it's about how an innate low IQ gives way because of unthinking to a literalistic and corny way to approach life and people?

[–] lewisherschell 14 years ago

"it's about how an innate low IQ gives way because of unthinking to a literalistic and corny way to approach life and people?"

Can you rephrase that, please? I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Re: 'an innate low IQ'. Who are you referring to? I don't see that in any of the characters in this film or the novel on which it was based. A 'low IQ' isn't the 'affliction' alluded to in the title - unless your post was simply intended as a droll aside.

I don't think the film *is* judgmental about its characters: I think it's far more objective than most Hollywood pictures - which sounds like I'm damning it with faint praise, but so be it... It's less about 'emotional guidance', and the clear delineation between 'good feelings' and 'bad feelings', than most Hollywood films. For example, Coburn's character isn't painted as 'mean' or 'wrong' - or, for that matter, as having a 'low IQ'. Anyway, it's not his film: the film is focalised through Wade. Like most of Schrader's scripts, it's like a novel written in the first person and focalised heavily through its protagonists - so we're bound to share his perspective on the world, at least some of the time.

'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).

[–] zurichpoet 14 years ago

Ah, yeah, I see the first person aspect of it. True. But this isn't a book. And film isn't a first person medium. Well, outside of “Lady in the Lake” it isn't. More than the aesthetic falseness of such a pose, it's a cop-out to disguise a lack of interest or knowledge in the environment which influences if not wholly produces the behavior that's examined. It's him, my protag that doesn't get the world! Not me. Hmmm. Doubtful.

Also, at times, and this isn't just in this film, but in other “character studies” too, it's like the filmmaker—with the audience as a sort of witnesses to the execution—performs some sadistic tests on subjects for the duration of the narrative and notes their response. Test 3a- Give Subject Wade a toothache. Then: “He pulls out his tooth and gulps whiskey. Some blood. Retail $5.99 750 ml. How interesting.” Is scribbled down in a notepad. It's stupid, and inhumane.

[–] lewisherschell 14 years ago

"And film isn't a first person medium"
I can't agree with that at all (entirely respectfully, of course). Many films are told in the first-person: they don't have to be narrated via POV shots (as with LADY IN THE LAKE) to be focalised through one character to the extent that they share that characters' prejudices or worldviews - eg, TAXI DRIVER or the first half of PSYCHO. I would also suggest that AFFLICTION doesn't negate the influence of the characters' environment on their behaviour: to be heavily focalised through one character doesn't always result in a film that neglects or ignores the ways in which character is shaped by its social environment - that's arguably one of the 'big' subjects of Schrader's work, here and elsewhere.

And what is popular cinema if it isn't sadistic spectacle? ;) That's been a cornerstone of narrative cinema since THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY. That's what most Hollywood films, both modern and from the classical period, are built on and largely try to erase/ignore. Even melodramas (a genre which AFFLICTION alludes to, I guess) are sadistic: they're just emotionally sadistic, wallowing in a voyeuristic depiction of their characters' emotional misery and pain, rather than violent.

EDIT: Hope you don't think I'm arguing with you just for the sake of being contrary: this is the first interesting conversation I've had on the IMDb for a *long* time. Mostly, I keep away from here because of the 'trolls' and the 'it sucks'/'it rocks' brigade :)

'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).

[–] zurichpoet 14 years ago

Sorry for the delay in response. Had to battle a hurricane. No. Not contrary! I'm usually relegated with that moniker. ha. That said, I believe they do have to be consistent and just be in that character's POV to be regarded as sincere. But my belief isn't universal. And that's cool! I racked my brain about one I did enjoy and the type I think you're getting at in which there's one where one character's pov is promoted as being the lens in which the story is told. “Fallen Idol”. Seen that? Thoughts? Saw that when it was re-released a couple years ago in theaters. Besides the annoying child's wailing of “Baines!” every two minutes, it was good, albeit a truly a suffocating and yet arbitrary narrative. Took about a week later to realize. Well, that's how childhood was! I guess, Carol Reed did know what he was doing, and felt silly for questioning the man. What are some that you hold in high regard?

As for Shrader. He gets a lifetime award just for Jake's hands monologue in “Raging Bull”; probably the most beautiful and humbling in a humane way about fate, in film. Ever. But “Taxi Driver”. He missed the subway and just by a couple seconds by shading Bickle so dark and so out there, he could be regarded as an anti-hero. That was the most realistic portrayal and humane rendering of the psychological makeup of A Hero in film. Ever. All heroes really are crazy, have super power levels of self-loathing, and their the unequivocal moral goodness is a fiction.

As for sadism in movies, I'm waiting for the day, and I'm sure it will be soon, when Leo the Lion will roar before the start of a flick and then just jump out of the MGM logo and maul people for the duration of the film, and I'm sure people won't have a problem with the mauling of humans, but Leo, and his rights, as a lion! Ha ha.

Also, wouldn't toss that as being just Hollywood, but more American drama hasn't recovered from Arthur Miller, he mauls people for their sins until they crumble. His whole thing was the anti-enlightenment narrative. He actually boasted about this in some Paris Review interview. How can an artist be against enlightenment? Doesn't have to be a positive enlightenment but at least some attempt at The Why. Try! Boggles the mind. This would be like a surgeon boasting about not sanitizing their hands before an operation. But soap, it's just so unnatural!

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

I thought Wade was a pretty complex, well delineated character; but his father was more of a caricature and a cinematic cliche. How many times have we seen the drunken, trash talking old dad with the sons that still resent/fear/love him?

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] Beaubelle 12 years ago

Your point is well-made, Mccadoo, but for me, there lies the power of this movie. Both book and movie speak very plainly to how pointless life seems to some people, and how they self-medicate, they writhe and lash out at the ones they love. And Coburn and Nolte brought it, they pulled no punches in showing the despair of their characters. Wow. Just wow.

[–] Zuider_Zee 11 years ago

Stick to Adam Sandler movies. Those would probably resonate with you.

[–] ibbi 11 years ago

Meh. There's a really good story there, I just think from a writing point of view it's all far too simplistic, and I wish they'd cast someone in the lead role who when flying off the handle was a little less... extreme.

___
http://tinyurl.com/nxthxvx