Will there ever be an indie comedy that doesn't glorify weed? - Celeste & Jesse Forever (2012) Discussion

[–] yoo 12 years ago

Not if they keep to the truth.

reply

[–] DnB614 12 years ago

Really? Because I haven't known anyone who smokes weed on a regular basis since I was 16 and I live in California. /)_-

reply

[–] Fallingforletters 12 years ago

Please tell us more about your life and the answers to the universe

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chris_mcsweeney 11 years ago

Let's not be snobbish, everyone. They don't call it Cans of Bliss for no reason...

reply

[–] Aldo-9 12 years ago

Last year I lived with a guy for a year who did nothing but smoke weed (when he wasn't working that is). We were both in our 30s. It happens more often than you might think.

So I hear Dads dead, hey is that eggnog?
-Dave Foley

reply

[–] ralph-80 12 years ago

Maybe that's why it needs some glorifying...;-)

reply

[–] danae_lawson8 12 years ago

NOPE!

reply

[–] gb321 12 years ago

500 Days of Summer? Don't remember any weed in that one. Also, Silver Linings Playbook was technically an indie and I don't think there was any weed in it. Lars and the Real girl is another, and Napoleon Dynamite and Little Miss Sunshine, although they do hard drugs in that last one. Hard to think of others but they are out there.

My film blog:
http://gabrielbruskoff.wordpress.com

reply

[–] j324 11 years ago

how the hell was silver linings playbook "technically an indie"? it was made for 20 million starring the leads from the hangover/hunger games series. It's so annoying how people will consider big studio films "independent" just because they're more character based rather than plot/special effects

and for that matter little miss sunshine and 500 days of summer weren't indie either. it's like the term independent film doesn't even have a real meaning anymore. it now means "small to medium studio films with a quirky sense of humor that don't star george clooney/brad pitt"

reply

[–] gb321 11 years ago

Technically an indie film is any American film made outside of the big 6 (7 if you include MGM) studios. It has nothing to do with budget, talent involved, or subject matter. It is possible to make a $100M star laden plot driven explosion fest independent from the studios, and technically that film would be and independent film.

However, I agree with you in that with the large budgets and mini-major status, many of these films do not represent the true spirit of independent film, which is why I said they were only "technically" indies. That of course does not preclude them from playing at indie focused film festivals or from being nominated in the Independent Spirit Awards, both of which are dedicated to independent film (at least in theory).

My film blog:
http://gabrielbruskoff.wordpress.com

reply

[–] penkwin 12 years ago

I don't think it really "glorified" weed... Celeste, unshowered with messed up hair, and the dealer friend sitting on the couch eating from a humungous thing of cheeseballs and smoking a huge bong is hardly an attractive scenario. I mean maybe some people aspire to that but... not most. The characters discuss how Celeste never even really smoked weed til Jesse left; the weed in this case is part of her downward spiral.

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with smoking weed. Hopefully it'll be legal soon! :)

reply

[–] CountChoculitis 11 years ago

I agree with Penkwin, this movie did the furthest thing from glorifying weed. When Jesse finds out Celeste is smoking, he's surprised and says Celeste doesn't smoke pot. The impression that we get at the beginning of the film is that she's always been the composed one in the relationship who had her life together (while not smoking weed) and Jesse was the one who was lazy and unsuccessful (and most likely smoking weed). When their break up finally hits home for Celeste, Jesse's getting his life together and Celeste's life is seemingly falling apart (and during all this she starts smoking pot). When we see her getting her life back together, we don't see her smoking anymore.

And like others pointed out, you got upset about her smoking but made no acknowledgement of her drinking.

Overall, if you're watching movies and the mere presence of people smoking weed is "glorifying" it in your mind, that says more about you than what's actually going on in the film.

"The guy we're meeting with can't even grow his own hair?!? COME ON!!!" -Gob

reply

[–] Void-face 12 years ago

This film is catering to it's target demographic, and it's not a terrible film, so I won't hold the weed use against. If it was a bad film, trying to use the substance as a crutch, then maybe attacking that choice is warranted. And I hate to bring up the comparison, but she drank quite a bit in the film, and yet you didn't choose to identify that as glorification...

reply

[–] chicago85 12 years ago

She smoked a lot while hanging out with the dealer. But in social situations like the wedding at the end she was knocking back a lot of alcohol.

reply

[–] Xeque 12 years ago

Many people smoke weed, so why wouldn't it be in movies? Besides, how many movies "glorify" alcohol?

reply

[–] surf-10 11 years ago

You do realize that it is grammatically impossible to use indie in a sentence without the word weed as well.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheLightFantastic 11 years ago

I think you need to look up the word "glorify" because you obviously have no idea what it means. Showing a character in a film doing something doesn't mean that the filmmaker is advocating said act. That's like saying Schindler's List advocates genocide.

I don't smoke weed but it certainly doesn't bother me if others do or if I see it in a movie. If I didn't want to see the things grown ups do, I'd watch Disney movies all the time. It's weed for cryin' out loud. There are much worse things people could be doing in films to get your panties up in a twist over.

reply