MovieChat Forums > The Secret Life of Bees (2008) Discussion > Overly earnest, obvious and lifeless.

Overly earnest, obvious and lifeless.


I have a special distaste for this sort of film - the "important" novel, written and directed by a virtual novice, slogging along from high-minded cliché to high-minded cliché. A while back I raged on and on that every movie is to be judged by its intention. This is why, saints forgive me, I can endure things like Old Dogs - I know going in that it only wants to trot out a formula, deliver a "trailer" moment or two, then get off screen before the checks are cashed. A movie like Bees, however, pretends to honesty and meaning, yet nothing in it feels real or alive. This is the kind of movie I like least. It's like Gandhi winning the Oscar. People judge these movies on what they're "about," not how they're realized as art. The movie wants to teach us obvious lessons. Bigotry is bad - wow, what a revelation.

reply

your an idiot

reply

It's "you're" an idiot, Einstein

reply

People judge these movies on what they're "about," not how they're realized as art.


Well put.

All I can think about are dudes.

reply

You are spot on, filmwatcher-2. Good intentions matter more than success.

reply

Because you stated you're opinion, I won't knock you for it because I felt the same way about "The Pianist" you know the one, with Adrian "Big Nose" Brody. But I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed TSLOB. The atrocities of racism weren't really being shoved down out throats and it didn't really overshadow/overpower the Lily's story, moreso than it added to it.

"Adultery makes a party go such a swing!" Naomi——Skins.

reply

Exactly. The movie wasn't about racism. It was about Lily and what happened to her mother and her dealing with that and being comforted by these powerfully loving women.

reply

I can understand that sentiment in a generic kind of way, and in that sense I agree, but I didn't feel that this movie embodied that. A movie that does embody that, IMHO, is Crash (which oddly enough I think won best picture that year). This movie's message seemed to be less about bigotry being bad and more about needing to find all the pieces of yourself in order to find peace. I think it just so happens that the time period and the black women sort of make the movie take on a different tone. But Sue Monk Kidd was a white woman; it's not like she was some angry black feminist pushing an agenda. Plus I do judge the movie based on how it translates into art as well as what it's "about." And I thought it translated beautifully. Plus, I think that whenever a movie deals heavily with race there is always the cognitive leap that it's making some grand message about life. I thought this movie was great because for me its message was more subtle. It didn't scream in my ear what and how I was "supposed to" feel.



------
These are just my opinions. And opinions are just onions with pi.

reply

Bigotry is bad - wow, what a revelation.

but since we live in a world were bigotry is quite rampant, don't you think that this "revelation" (i doubt the author or any of the filmmakers would have claimed the so-called lesson of the story was a revelation though, sorry), is quite relevant? don't you think that there are still people who can be touched by it (and in this case, many people obviously were)?


"Well!!! Since when did you become the physical type?"

reply

[deleted]

But it was well-realised. None of the depictions of bigotry were implausible or heavy-handed. As some have pointed out, the story really centres on Lily and her relationship to her mother, and it doesn't derail from this in pursuit of any issue. It's clearly contrived to evoke emotional reaction, but that's what movies do. And it succeeds.

I do agree with you that movies are often given too much credit for what they're about, and Gandhi is a perfect example. If this was awarded best picture it would be a joke. But it wasn't. It's just a good movie.


"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

reply