MovieChat Forums > Econ211 > Replies
Econ211's Replies
It reminded me a lot of Robert Bresson's films; particularly Au Hasard Balthazar and Mouchette.
Thanks for your valuable insight into the film. However it seems that you meant to reply to a comment above mine.
https://www.thecinetourist.net/ceacuteline-et-julie-whats-the-address-of-that-house.html
But WHY do they act that way? The film wants to to get the viewer thinking about why these people can sometimes be so crude, violent and confrontational. The mother and daughter are shown having loving, tender moments throughout the film. So why can't they always be like that? Constantly living on the brink of homelessness can bring out the worst in people. The mother has the potential to be a great mother to Moon, but the poverty that she finds herself trapped in strips away her comfort and security. Imagine having a young daughter, and also having to struggle every day to make enough money to keep a roof over your head. That must be incredibly stressful. It's understandable that she sometimes does stuff that we consider to be reckless or antisocial.
The Florida Project does a fantastic job at showing characters living in poverty, and actually presenting them in a realistic way that shows both their flaws and strengths. It's really uncommon for a film to do such a good job of characterisation. I hope more people see it because I think it's a really empathetic film that shows the way poverty can dehumanise people who have the potential to live normal, happy lives.
It is not contrived at all. The whole film is about how the Indian Reservation and the FBI 'letter of the law' are two very different worlds. That scene is when Olsen's character suddenly realises this. It is a big turning point for her character.
I don't think the other 'bad guys' knew he was going to shoot through the door. The guy in the trailer was either panicking or drunk. They had clearly planned ahead. e.g. their excuse for having bruises. The line about their boss down in texas not understanding the conditions in wyoming was a very smooth lie. Once Olsen's character got shot through the door they had no choice but to start shooting.
The village and it's people are quite interesting, but the married couple and their conversations tested my patience at times. Two very different story lines. I think Varda might have been trying to draw a contrast between the highfalutin musings of the Parisian couple and the more down-to-earth drama and people of the fishing village.
It's a stylistic choice. The whole film is full of unrealistic bursts of vibrant colour. The viewer knows that all the death and blood in the film isn't real, so why not make the blood vividly bright red? On a visual level, it looks incredible.
Wait, why are you so sure she can see through the cat's eyes??
Just watched the doc and it definitely is mentioned. It's talked about by some of the interviewees and newspaper clippings are shown. It doesn't go into all the details, but that's understandable.
I really liked that it was shot on 16mm. The aesthetic really complemented the film. Reminded me a lot of Altman's California Split, which is one of his best. Mid 70s vibes in general. The narrative is fairly standard but it still kept me engaged and the acting was nice from everyone. And yeh I agree that Jake Johnson is great. He has a lot of natural charm. 8/10