MovieChat Forums > Youth (2015) Discussion > Hollow + ultimately PRETENTIOUS !!!

Hollow + ultimately PRETENTIOUS !!!


I just saw this film last night and I really enjoy the cinematography, and this was the only reason that I didn't walk out before it ended. Yes the acting was superb as well as the editing; however, the stories put together were atrocious that made me cringe and grin, especially when I saw what happened to Harvey Keitel and the reason behind it. ( no spoiler here, but what I could say about this part of film was : this is downright stupid I felt like shaking my head out of disbelief ).
This film's subject was mainly about aging and though this film was a complete waste of time like The Tree Of Life, I did get one thing out of this film was: Make Sure I Don't End Up Like Any Of These Characters Here, Please Please Please!!!
I can also give you an idea of what this film felt like ---lf the National Enquirer + Hello + Photo, these 3 magazine were to collaborate together to put out a coffee-table book with high gloss best quality papers and hi-definition printing and beautiful package box. This would be the production equivalent to this film !

reply

This film's subject was mainly about aging and though this film was a complete waste of time like The Tree Of Life, I did get one thing out of this film was: Make Sure I Don't End Up Like Any Of These Characters Here, Please Please Please!!!

Let me guess: you're 15?

reply

Doesn't matter how old, your reply fully displays you are the immature one, DeDouche, though I can sense that you are getting close to " departing ".

reply

I'm 22, I guess young adult cant really enjoy this movie because its an.... art house with dialogue?

THRILLER IS MY FOOD!

reply

I'm 18 and this film moved me to tears

reply

yeah, it do works for some people, just not really my taste.

THRILLER IS MY FOOD!

reply

You mean it do work for some people? Just not you.

reply

I'm the only one in the world who doesn't like this movie?!
I cant believe it?!

THRILLER IS MY FOOD!

reply

Well... For people who cannot enjoy superb acting, photography, edition, music, emotion for what they're worth, they can always go and watch a James Bond flick!

As a sum of what the twilight of can be, the film reaches its goal. Scenes like the shots of Caine standing at the bridge in Venice and Melanie looking (or not!) out the window are true virtuosism!

I can agree with some posters about the pace and the loose script but same as in painting there are Rembrandts, Van Goghs and Mirós, or in music you can enjoy Mozart or Stravinsky --or even Led Zeppelin- in cinema there are styles, rithms and purposes. For the right audience, this film is great. To each his/her own!

reply

Yes, well said.

With all of the posed frames I had thought it was like leafing through the adverts in Condé Nast. Pretty, but yet generic.

Of the few reviews already written, that by 'nelsonrowe' is spot on.

reply

I have to agree there really wasn't anything substantial, a lot of reminiscing but nothing really resonating, perhaps I just didn't care enough for any of them to really appreciate their problems with life.

to be a true artist is to suffer but with this film you only see a two dimensional representation.

reply

Sorrentino generally creates visual films, not story or character focused films. He is an aestheticist, not a conventional story teller. Aesthetics is art/beauty for art/beauty's sake, so it can lack story substance or character depth. And this film is even more visuals focused than La Grande Belezza so yes, it often feels like a glossy magazine.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply

Americans need to spend some time learning English language. You guys don't seem to know what pretentious is, yet you use this word on a daily basis to avoid admitting that you're simply too dumb for something.

"Wait, I don't understand this, it must be pretentious."

reply

I am into any kind of movie and I do find sorrentino to be hollow (no emotions but violent ones; composing sequences that are not natural at all and ridiculous sometimes, like the musical scene with the cows);

and he is pretentious for trying (and really failing) to be the new Fellini in "the great beauty"...

Now if anyone would explain why the maestro changed his mind about conducting for the Queen or why he was rubbing that candy wrap to the Queen´s men? Was he 14 years old? was that the point of the movie? A famed, talented maestro has the mindset of a 14 old boy?

I might be into something here.... :)

Just because it´s art, desn´t mean you can´t think about it in a rational way, IMO...

reply

The candy wrapper was a very funny joke....what is an annoying sound to a conductor? He's using what he thinks to be the most disruptive device to get this guy to stop talking....he also lied about the no smoking...all alerting the other guy he is the one that is acting like a 14 year old by not accepting, "no" as an answer.

The suicide (among other things) inspired him to rediscover his emotions and come to terms his wife...









reply

The candy wrapper was used at least one other time in the movie with no purpose so I don´t think your theory holds up that well...
And big lol at you saying a Queen´s sent should just take a no and get back home...

And respecting his wife´s state of not singing was not very emotional when he reproached
the same guy?

Did you not see how crudely the director filmes her lifeless eyes almost at the very end?
Was that an emotional turn too? No, it wasn´t, for the simple reason Sorrentino puts style before emotions or any coherence...

This is a movie from a director so past characters and so much into showing off tecnique...

It´s my opinion of course, but, where I live, critics are giving it the lowest ranking possible and I believe they are disappointed with how manipulative he has become and how hollow the story becomes when all is said and done...

It just makes no sense at all...

reply

You asked two specific questions that I answered.

The wrapper was used to annoy the queen's liaison in that particular scene. Of course the liaison shouldn't accept "no", I answered your question that he was using it as a device to point out his rudeness, to reformat the conversation to the truth of what it was...

As for his change, it's not going to read on his face as monumental, as in life, the only truth is in people's action, words and "looks" always deceive....

The mud bath scene revealed him to be a rather loathsome husband and father. His rise to fame and fortune was greatly aided by his wife's money and voice, he repaid her with infidelity and family neglect....not exactly I character I root for...

I usually am not a fan of films like this, but I actually enjoyed it a lot. All the characters were flawed (who isn't ), some in their youth others quite old and contemplating their final chapters and legacy...
Our main character was trying to end his story by fleetingly recapturing his youth through his music while trying to come to terms with his wife and daughter

The movie rings hollow for you, for me, it kind of reminded me of a Anton Chekhov short story, not really about much, just a painting of a mood or feeling that allows the reader to create off of it......

The question you may ask yourself, why does this movie bother you so much? If it's a financial one, I'd say it was obvious what you were buying.

reply

You keep from saying anything about direction because you probably didn´t give it any thought and possibly never saw any other movie by sorrentino...

And that´s all right: just don´t expect anyone to be coming from the same place... Some people are into good cinema, wherever it may be, and this is hollow cinema...

One gets the feeling this is trying to be arty without being arty the way others are...

As a genre experiment, this is too manipulative of the viewer, imo...

and lol at the financial remark... :)

reply

Well I answered your two questions (you're welcome), now I'll answer your direction question: it was great :-)

reply

[deleted]

OK, we get it: you didn't get it. If everything needs explaining to you maybe you should just play it safe and stick to Transformers.

reply

I am into any kind of movie and I do find sorrentino to be hollow (no emotions but violent ones; composing sequences that are not natural at all and ridiculous sometimes, like the musical scene with the cows);

and he is pretentious for trying (and really failing) to be the new Fellini in "the great beauty"...

Now if anyone would explain why the maestro changed his mind about conducting for the Queen or why he was rubbing that candy wrap to the Queen´s men? Was he 14 years old? was that the point of the movie? A famed, talented maestro has the mindset of a 14 old boy?

I might be into something here.... :)

Just because it´s art, desn´t mean you can´t think about it in a rational way, IMO...

I think all of those things you mention were tied to revealing a specific truth about the character: that in spite of professing himself to be finished with and having no more interest in conducting/composing (and in a larger sense life itself) this was really a pretense or self-deception.

The candy wrapper was a recurring device that demonstrated he still heard musical rhythms in his head that demanded expression, even if only in that mundane form.

The scene where he "conducted" the countryside showed through his mind's eye how he perceived even the simple sounds of nature to be a symphony, and his continued desire to be an active part in shaping the musical order and structure of it. We saw that the conductor/composer in him was not dead but very much alive, even though he kept it a private secret unto himself.

Given that this is the truth of the character, OF COURSE he was ultimately going to change his mind and conduct his compositions for the Queen. Think back to what he and his daughter said to each other when they talked about how music had always been the only thing he really understood, and that for better or worse (actually for BOTH throughout his life) it was always more important to him than anything else, including his obligations to his family. Which, you'll note, is the very reason he cited for having initially refused the Queen's request: a duty to honor his disabled wife. But by the end when he talked to his wife in her hospital room he had come to the realization that she had always known this about him and had sought to help and support him in his musical pursuits, accepting his nature, and so he should do the same instead of wasting any more time pretending he was doing her or himself any good by hiding from it. The character spent most of the movie in RETREAT, both in terms of his physical location and emotional state, but came out of it at the end and back onto the stage—not merely the literal one where the performance was held, but the metaphorical stage of life. (Think of Shakespeare: "all the world's a stage...")

reply

Nice analysis.

*Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance*

reply

I guess we all have different tastes, views and needs. For me, this was one of the most beautiful films I've EVER seen. And I'm a person that enjoy watching Extendable and the likes. So it's not like I'm into artistic films or so.

Some films need patience to be fully enjoyed. Even as aging is a big part of this film, there is a lot more going on. For those nuances to be seen, one simply need different viewing glasses. And those glasses can be a bit hard to come by.

reply

Every art seems pretentious when it goes WAY over your head.

reply

Then don't hold you head so high.

reply

I agree. It felt like it was mostly about two seniors talking about their piss. But the cinematography was really good and beautiful to watch.

reply

"Hollow + ultimately PRETENTIOUS !!!" it's more or less the most accurate description for the vast majority of Sorrentino's movies.

VIVA LA VINYL

reply

Yeah, it's terrible when a film consists of beautiful cinematic pictures instead of a comic book story-line and lots of action and CGI explosions.

If you don't like it, you don't like it, but it's a little, uh, pretentious the way everybody on the IMDB uses the word "pretentious" to describe every film that doesn't appeal to them. Do you kind of understand any other big words?

I'm unconvinced about "hollow" as well. Just because a movie is slow and beautiful and meditative doesn't necessarily make it any more empty than a fast-moving, melodramatic movie full of over-written dialogue and the shameless scenery-chewing that often passes as Hollywood acting. It kind sounds like the rather ignorant. cliched criticism about a movie being "style with no substance". But many times style IS substance. I think that is the case with Sorriento.

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

reply

Thank goodness most people don't agree with you, on IMBD at the very least. I saw nothing pretentious about this movie. Maybe an exploding tree would have helped? Caine could have composed with a gun instead of a composer baton. Never mind. I don't know what you're talking about.

reply