MovieChat Forums > Todo sobre mi madre (2000) Discussion > why is it a masterpiece?

why is it a masterpiece?

posted 21 years ago by sofiebock
30 replies | jump to latest

I have seen lots of good movies... and I don't see why this is a masterpiece.

Of course the photography is good, and the actors are great... but

i don't think the story is good. It's rather boring. It's slow in its narrating, though there is obviously a lot of themes. Because of the many themes, I feel that the movie never ends perfectly (not that I want a perfectly good ending.) But the things just happens to quickly, we never see the real moaning, we just see happiness, happiness and happiness... It is seriously sad that her boy dies, the story just seems to svup over the part where she is sorry. And Penelopes character just dies... and it happens so suddenly, that we never ever can feel anything about it. And when the mom gets to Barcelona and meets Algrada , does Algrada suddenly stop as a hucker... how the hell does she survive without any job??? This story just made the life to easy...

It's not that I only like realistic film, i enjoy cartoons as well, but what I don't like, is when you are making a movie, and it pertends to be realistic, but never really gets real! I will never call it a masterpiece!!!!

[–] cleanyoungbob 21 years ago

"It's slow in its narrating"

so a slow moving film cant be a masterpiece? obviously the films you put to the word are different from a lot of other peoples, mine included

"But the things just happens to quickly, we never see the real moaning, we just see happiness, happiness and happiness.... It is seriously sad that her boy dies, the story just seems to svup over the part where she is sorry"

first of all, i thought you said this was a slow film? second of all, we dont just see happiness happiness, did you actually see the scene with Manuella in the theatre alone? the fact that we dont see much of that side of Manuella is indicative of her nature as a person - shes an instinctively helpful person, and when she sees someone in need she does all she can to help them. It was in Esteban that she found her purpose, a child she devoted her whole life to bringing up, and this was lost upon his death, so when oportunity arises to help others in need she hides her emotions so to allow herself to again feel a sense of purpose. only when alone and unoccupied do we see the real Manuella, as in the theatre. her constant, silent pain over Estebans death is shown in the bombardment we recieve of certain images - his picture, his diary, the play Streetcar Named Desire - he was killed by a streetcar, after watching the play, and it is used as a metaphor for Manuellas life as a whole. the whole purpose of Manuella going to Barcelona was because of Esteban, to tie up loose ends and to try and get over his death

"Penelopes character just dies... and it happens so suddenly, that we never ever can feel anything about it."

she was HIV positive, i thought that was made pretty clear

"when the mom gets to Barcelona and meets Algrada , does Algrada suddenly stop as a hucker... how the hell does she survive without any job???"

the whole point of them going to meet Sister Rosa was that it was her job to get hookers and suchlike off the streets and into jobs, were you actually paying any attention?

sorry if this post has been rather incoherant, but its 2am

[–] Darkmire 21 years ago

First of all , as someone who did not like the movie , my biggest problem with the movie was it's over-predictable. Dont you understand who is going to die? At the moment you see Cruz's character you understand she is going to straight hell. I saw the end from miles. It happened to me in Mystic River too , another film i hated.

Sure , direction and cinematography is okay , acting is good , but come on story is over-cliched and predictable. Plus , i actually did not catch the jokes. Maybe it's because of cultural differences...Who knows...

A true masterpiece should be another Almadovar film , Talk to Her. Now , thats a damn good one.

Silence, is the sound of nature.

[–] Zoroxeus 19 years ago

The important is not to "see" the end "miles away" sometimes, but to understand that end that you see miles away.
A movie is not a guess game.

[–] dokken 19 years ago

Good point. However, it seems that people don't like a movie that's predictable. I know I don't. When you make a film that relys heavily on narrative, keeping the audience guessing seems to become more and more of an obligation.

[–] sincere16uk 21 years ago

I have to admit I adore this film and totally see why it's a masterpiece. The characters are really great. Algrada being my favourite, her character is so moving; she is both hilarious and quite sad. It's a REAL film, and it's not rushed at all, and the fact you do not call it a masterpiece or even recognise its depth or reality shows that maybe you need to pay more attention. It's not just happiness, happiness and happiness-you just have to look beyond the obvious and actually maybe use your brain whilst watching. A bad film would have shown lots of moaning, but less happiness, how many people do you know who moan all the time. It is rather a tendency of human nature to cover up insecurities and sadness in anyway physically possible, so in that respect it is very realistic because the directors target audience are intelligent people who understand that, and do not need everything to be blatant and spelled out to them. Although it isn't one of his best, I can appreciate the beauty of this film.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bajcsi 21 years ago

Eat me? No thank you...

However, just a comment about what movies are made for or not made for. Movies are not made for everyone. They aren't necessarily made for anyone. They are an art form, like any other. Not everyone is going to connect with every artistic message available and you should not expect that to be the case.

To state that "This is not what cinema was made for.....understand" because YOU didn't understand what was going on is, at least, completely ridiculous. To state that the film did nothing for you, but still have respect for an art piece is much better.

Here is a parallel... I was an atonal music composition major in college years ago. I have particular tastes in music, and there are certainly forms of music that I do not find asthetically appealing. However, can I say it sucks because I don't understand what there getting at? That is my failing,not their's, if I don't get, and I must still respect what they are doing? Can I do the same thing? Probably not... I really don't like rap, mostly because of what they have to say most of the time. However, I have respect for what they are doing. I firmly believe that until you are a master of something, you cannot say that thing sucks. You can certainly not find it pleasing, but you can't say it sucks. That simply shows closemindedness.

I can tell you for sure that plenty of people in the world did not understand what I was doing with music? Do I care? Not really. I was happy with what I composed, any many people were intrigued by it. I saw no reason to try and imitate every other pop artist out there if I had a different interest or calling. Was I a failure? Nope. Is my music widely well received? No! Of course not, however, what I am/was doing is everything that film, music, art, etc were made for...

Expression.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zoroxeus 19 years ago

It tries to be a movie about everyday life, but who meets hookers, star-actors, HIV-positive rich girls and so on and so forth in real life?? I know I don't.

Get out of your house... drive a bite around ... travel a bit, abd you will see that you are one lucky pimpled faced teen to be able to post here your ignorance.

[–] drewjoana 20 years ago

the film is excellent!!!Almodovar is the best european director,the actors were all great and the story is very good!!!
[email protected]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jordilosabe 20 years ago

You have to think that Almodovar has a very personal style. All his characters are people special and refused by society in most of his movies. But yes, I think this is a masterpiece, Cecilia Roth is awesome, one of the best actress for me, and the complete cast and script is great.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] signice 20 years ago

i can see where ya coming from. but the cinematography, direction, acting, characters, music were all great, as far as the story and characters are concerned, i liked them as well but the movie IS definitely not attractive as a product that a normal consumer would be satisfied with after the purchase. peace

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] capataz_de_cargadores 20 years ago

this film raises the fact that you're parents were different people before they had you. that really struck a chord with me. Overall, this is a brilliant film, though it wasn't quite as poignant as Almodovar's follow-up Talk to Her. Still, this film is in my top 50 and deserves its status as a masterpiece

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] debra-savoff 19 years ago

Hi Juan,
I am guessing that you're Spanish. I am desperately trying to find the name and artist singing the moving song in 'All about my mother'...when the mother is in the back of the taxi,driving in a circle in the outskirts or the country, where all the prostitutes are. Can you answer this for me. The credits on the video were unusual and sadly...unreadable.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chris-palencia 18 years ago

The song is called Tajabone and is by Senegalese artist Ismael Lo. If you still need help finding it, I can send you the song file over email.

[–] dolunay 19 years ago

why is it a masterpiece? because there is a "sister" ?#!$ed by a travesty/weirdo. That's it. If a European director puts all kinds of weirdos in a movie, it's a good film, what's better is this, man. It ends up as a masterpiece.

[–] conny_71-1 19 years ago

To answer the question why this movie is a masterpiece is simple. It transgresses the borders of the so called sexes. According to Judith Butler (a queer theoretician), whom I find very inspiring, there really are no sexes, just our constructions, and these constructions can be dissolved by means of something called subversitivity (Butler's expression).

By transgressing the so called gender borders, we can see that there really are no stable genders, or sexes. In order for us to view them as solid and unbreakable, they need to be repeated (as we do in everyday life by dressing and speaking in certain manners for example), and by being subversive (men dressing as women as an example which can be seen in the movie), we dissolve them.

Butler even questions the existence of biology, and I agree with her. There is of course, "something", out there, but what is it before we use language to give it a name, before putting a label on it? For example, without us calling a penis a penis, what is it? Is there a reality out there beyond language? This film raises such questions, and for people who have studied Butler at a university, it does present an insight, at least it did for me.

[–] dalback.maria 19 years ago

To answer to this (my good old friend) You know I don't really agree with all of your theories, or to what Butler says about there not really being any real biological differences between the two genders. You know I think that there is of course as you say, the so called social gender, that we get socialized into being different from one another because of our gender. This because our society says (boys should be in one way and girls another way). I do however also believe that there are some biological differences within us too. Something I have seen in little boys and girls, who are not yet aware of Butlers theories...

[–] conny_71-1 19 years ago

Well, what you state is not really a direct reply to what I wrote. Butler questions if there is any biology beyond language, because the language "creates" the biology. She does not deny that something exists out there, but she maintains that this "something" is hard to grasp and when we try to do that by giving things a name, then we have created biology.

I do also think that when children are socialized into a gender, that they respond, on a subconscious level I admit, to expectations from their surroundings, and this goes on all the time without them having any knowledge of Butler's theories, in accordance with your statements. My point is that images of gender are being performed all the time without the actors, i.e. us, necessarily being aware of it or contemplating what we are doing. You do not have to be aware of what you do when you "perform" your gender, but you still do it, constantly, all the time.

[–] darkangel1980 19 years ago

To answer the question why this movie is a masterpiece is simple. It transgresses the borders of the so called sexes.

and that makes a film a masterpiece? so it has nothing to do with cinema....I don´t get it....sorry

[–] pbsutton1234 19 years ago

It does more than trangress the borders of the so called sexes. It works within the genre of melodrama using a number of Douglas Sirk's techniques as well as psycholoanalytic feminism of Mulvey to try and deconstruct the standard film representation of women. The fact that it is connected with "All About Eve" further brings into focus the difference between his representaiton of women and that of standard Hollywood. The absurd plot twists and turns are part of the genre and lends itself to distance for the audience rather than complete identification, allowing them to think of the movie as a construction and realize the formation of representations that are taking place. The commentary is also on a post-Franco Spain and the excesses that flooded from it, namely drug use, unhealthy sexual practices and AIDS that resulted from both, but mainly from heroin. The reference to Argentian situation which was trying the human rights violators'of the military junta, makes this connection clear. Little Estoban is born when the creator of the desparacidos (sp?)is put into jail. The focus should be more about creating a family not in reaction to Franco, but something that does not take him into account. The terrible inheritance is gone from the new Estoban at the end of the movie. The movie serves to not only deconstruct hollywood's representation of women, but to comment on the excesses of post-Franco Spain. That is one of the reasons it is a masterpiece. The mise-en-scene and cinematography of the movie also should be discussed, but dismissing the movie because of its unbelievability and non-hetero-normative characters is missing the point of the movie.

[–] darkangel1980 18 years ago

"to comment on the excesses of post-Franco Spain"

hahaha very funny pal!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rmartel79 18 years ago

I've not bothered to read all the replies to this post, but would like to give my personal opinion. I consider this to be the best of Almodovar's movies and my personal all time favorite movie. The message of the "natural bond" of women is so strong. I don't think that any men (I include myself) could ever attain something of that sort. I think that the dedication at the end of the film where Almodovar acknowledges some of the women who have ifluenced him is great. Especially when he dedicates it to the most important, his mother.