MovieChat Forums > Starman > Replies
Starman's Replies
Yes from my experience it is absolutely correct, almost every single human being on the planet is basically born with some trauma, what happens in childhood and war is another thing, it's just adding on to what was already there. Most people are just not aware of this understandably, especially psychologists, yet it has been talked about for decades. It depends what truth people choose to believe, I understand. Not many of us are even aware of the ancestral traumas that people have been healing from, and which drive our reactions in the body, instincts or decisions throughout our lives.
The Phantom of the Opera
Cousins
Dying Young
Flatliners
A Time To Kill
A lot of things I say in life are often said intentionally in such a way so it could help either open the mind or lose the mind. I must admit though, I love your response, it cracked me up honestly, hopefully not completely. :)
It was all part of the agenda at the time when lots of films coming out represented a female emancipation. Todays films depicting women beating bigger guys is doing the same, by reflecting a different society, when such women are capable to do so, as witnessed in real life more and more, simply because male and female look and act different than 40 years ago with different characteristics and physical development, you got lots of women that look more male than some males that look more like women, that gender reversal was not as pronounced in the 70's, these days films all over the world merely reflect that in atistic ways which was about time. Of course in fantasy films they're allowed to exeggerate the same like Spagetti westerns did for example, even though all art is always grounded by observations of a real life, some of those characters in fantasy films work because audience is not supposed to relate to them, but to be inspired by them or aspire to be like them, they function as a symbolism rather than a personality, which I think was always the case with comic book characters anyway.
With the inevitable technology progress to replicate actors, face, body, voice, it could get sequels, if the money is no longer an issue in that possible future too, you can only pray you'll still be alive when such progress arrives though.
This might be the first Batman film that goes into the darker corners of authentic mystery and frightening gothic horror in the vein of Universal monster movies, all carried by the grace of german expressionism and stylized campiness, the notion all the more supported by this being set in the 40's, the factors are there for this type of direction.
The less physically looking like a great athlete the better Batman character for me, what always worked about the character is its split nature, the notion of the unexpected, the great reveal, meaning the Bruce side being almost the exact opposite side of Batman, the man of the dark, that change is what forms the mystery and beauty of his soul, Pattinson might be at last the first Batman that could take the Batman myth to its greatest potential by embodying that mystery, so far I've not found Batman film that would go that far, that would resonate with me deeply. I've not seen Nolan's versions, though I know they're the furthest from that resonance, as they don't seem to respect the campiness necessary to take them seriously as creations of altered reality, they're not for me. This Reeves' version is looming up to be the first Batman film to be very excited about. I also think Batman is first and foremost a romantic hero, in the sense of living a romanticized way of life, a hero with a sexual appeal and charm that encapsulates the desire for the forbidden, dark, hidden, mystery, etc. I don't think any adaptation since 1989 has ever truly captured the romance and mystery to appeal equally to both men and women and children. I think Jean Marais would have been the best possible Batman, but Pattinson could best represent that journey into the unknown that audience is subconsciously looking for.
I find this in the league of classic comedies like Men At Work or Mousehunt... the films you could watch over and over again. Considering how IMDb rates such films low, it's a challenge to discover similar small films, since they can be easily lost among so many less enjoyable comedies.
All Carpenter's films have comic relief, especially The Thing. which I think has been part of his long lasting philosophy in his approach towards genre dynamics. I find those mentioned scenes in Seven a comic relief as well. Comic relief is not meant to be necessarily funny, it's meant to create a relaxing mood, the same happens in Commando or in all Rambo films, they're classic examples of those reliefs. Terminator, Alien, Blade Runner, all of them have that, otherwise they would not be as popular, imo. I believe the horror in films is always diminished with less of those reliefs, as they create more intensity in the mood. Some people say those are not comical, but then again there are people who don't find funny anything in some comedies either, as I said, comic relief is a filmmaking approach to create a dynamics, the mood, in order to escalate the intensity.
The truth for me is the more versions the better, everyone who's been inspired by the novel is already a director of a potential new version, always deserving to make a movie based on it, cause everyone sees the same thing differently. The same is true about any good film or story, it deserves infinite number of versions or remakes, not stories that dont work. That's why we have 100s of reworkings of great theatrical plays or symphonies. That is a natural way of life, no one owns anything, all things are done based on pre-existing things, which is true about every single thing in the universe, we use existing things to make something out of it to be original. Campbell's story was already based on stories made before it, it's an ancient myth, just like Lovecraft's Mountain of Madness or Bram Stoker's Dracula, it's all based on ancient myths. Carpenter's film and 2011 version received a very limited number of fans, cult audience, the only film that has received the mainstream wider audience is the original, I think the novella has a lot to offer to new visions and talents. Paradox is that if Carpenter's version was the ultimate take on it, then it means the film's story has nothing to say to anyone anymore at this time, when I think it has, think about how many ways you could portray the paranoia, the characters trapped in those situations, how many ways you could do it, it's an incredible wealth of creativity waiting there.
Only campy films have a way to create the most powerful experience by aiming for the infinite depth of senses instead of being kept in check by limitations of reality. It makes sense why some people would call it campy then, it always had such a profound impact, definitely a life alterning film for me in the late 80's.
Imdb votes don't exactly represent votes by all kinds of people, which is quite obvious. Just like everything in life, it is reduced to a specific mindset of people, the energy that propels people to vote, the reason to be on that webpage, dozens of factors come into it, it mostly picks up a certain kind of people whose mindset very very much resembles the mindset of professional critics, which is not surprising, it attracts this. If you did polls somewhere on the street some people here would be probably utterly shocked. There is a reason why cultural landmark franchises like Twilight make millions while it is voted so low on here, why so few women vote in general, let alone go on this page. It all comes down to the demographics, the type of people, not all kinds of people, it will never be diverse enough to get a balanced view of reality. To get that one has to unplug and go out there and start asking people in all kinds of contrasting places, cultures and communities on our own, no authoritarian system can beat the power of subjective experience to get an objective insight.
I feel like I've been gifted with great senses to feel into things, including movies and the dimensions they attract into reality, which is why some films can be beneficial and some very dangerous without our own protection, in that way, I can watch Night from 1968 and feel the time it came out as if I am there, and it is more powerful as an experience than Dawn in 78 when the public has been less innocent, so in terms of power itself, the first is stronger, in terms of capturing the late 70's atmosphere the 78 film is stronger. The Night is more allegorical, The Dawn is more documentary-like capturing the pop culture more openly, considering the tastes of todays public, Dawn seems to have more appeal to a rather lower vibrational section of society today, there's less artistic surrealism for the audience to bend their senses. The Night goes to higher notes, the same like the music, it demands to get deeper into psychedelic overtone of the late 60's that seeped into it. Night feels like a knife into the belly preceded with a kiss and a lovely smile, The Dawn like a slaughterhouse during a christmas dinner. What is more striking?
Even as an adult I prefer this film over any Star Wars films, to this day I can rarely watch films made by huge corporations, as a kid it was even harder, as they were always less relatable or too bloated, this film is so raw one can feel the spontaneity that came into it, I loved it in the 80's and love it even more now. It is perfect, what filmmakewrs considered the imperfections is probably what actually made it such a great film for me. I would have loved it even if I saw it for the first time these days, considering that I still prefer mostly B films, low budget or independent art films made these days over the huge blockbusters lots of people like, that includes John Wick and the like. One has to have a certain degree of sheep mentality to regularly watch films that make millions of money, bascially following the high standard set up by culture we're surrounded by instead of our own independent inner voice very separated from most people that does not seek validation. Both ways are valid though.
It is beautiful, however I prefer animated version from 1997, it was kind of an answer to Hark's The Lovers, rather than this film from 87. .