MovieChat Forums > Starman > Replies
Starman's Replies
Kubrick with this film perfectly demonstrated the true meaning of cinema for me, which means the director is staying out of the way as much as possible, leaving a lot of space to the imagination of the viewer, viewers are co-authors of the film. The best films for me do that, avoiding specificity, less showing and explaining the better the film, rarity perhaps in todays commercial cinema, with all the backstories, exposition, and details on everything what's happening, the audience ends up numb from all the informational overload. Kurosawa is another director very good at the non-specificity approach towards open space or vagueness in cinema, the same Tsui Hark, Paul Thomas Anderson, Luis Bunuel, Mikhalkov, Konchalovsky, Polanski, Truffaut, etc... They often rely on the viewer's contribution to finish the films in their head. Whereas on the other side I find Hickcock's films probably very easy for modern viewers who love more details handed to them.
Some of the best films of my life I don't need to watch over and over again as they are too powerful or memorable enough. Avatar is part of the modern language amongst people, in my experience among scientists and in spiritual communities, often it's part of a conversation, using it as an example for the depictions of the morals or behaviour and portrayed ideas, which have never been done before, I see some of those things in Avatar as a template for the future of mankind. It is just one of those movies that transcend cinema and become an experience that's formative - one doesn't have to return to it again, it's already changed them. Whereas Star Wars I would watch more times, even though I don't like it as much as Avatar, the difference between a pop song and an opera, easy vs challenging for the senses.
If people focus more on the surface of life, it's bound to perish with transience of time before their eyes, if they focus on and live by the hidden truth the life is driven by, they're in the hands of eternity.
Another example why I love films like Escape From L.A. the film that makes a commentary on the superficiality of people, nicely making it clear with the effects intentionally looking cheap to fool the shallowness of an audience.
I am not attracted to tattoos myself, can't have them myself, yet I know some men and women don't look as good without tattoos at a certain point in their lives, she's one of them, it's part of her nature and adds to who she is. She is becoming more beautiful more and more.
The age gap of the film is exactly one of the reasons why the film is so beautiful, it makes you feel that love has no boundaries, relationships with huge age gap are very often the most beautiful and deepest in life, because in those cases t signifies how much love goes far beyond the body or culture between those people, it goes for the eternity of the soul. And that's what this film has emphasized in my eyes as well. Fleming knew what he was doing. Spielberg's version was much more safe and conventional, not just by avoiding the age gap, which I find quite important aspect of the story, but because when it was made, in the 80's, when fantasy films like this, Made In Heaven or Ghost were much more common, in 1943 it was strikingly unique.
I believe that saying something like "fucking dirty Muslims" would not get you fired in most jobs around the world, as long as it is outside the west, and it's not around customers, but among co-workers in private, you always tend to have freedom of speech, no matter what high places you occupy, I'm sure that is not the case the further west we go. Interesting is that there is nothing racist in that statement in and of itself either, and even if there was in the eyes of insecure men, for me it always demads to be respected no matter what, as everyone deserves to be who they are or choose to be, whether they are pedophiles, racists, murderers, doesn't matter. I would welcome more political incorrectness in Hollywood films though, for more people to face their darkness and true freedom of letting go, emotionally.
It is a matter of time before producers realize James Bond as an idea is very 50's/60's, not fully timeless unless it gets constantly updated, even beyond recognition, What makes me wonder why they haven't made James Bond stories set on other planets, other worlds, exploring completely uncharted territories and themes. It may take the next posterity that is the children of these producers perhaps, to realize how stuck in the past their ancestors have been all along. DanielCraid, although never seen any of his Bond films, not planning to, he is certainly a reflection of the time, like the others, the era of everything needing to be serious, dark and realistic + emotionless. A quite cynical era, if I may say so, in my view reaching its gradual end, I think the next Bond is going to be a quite drastic turn to something more emotionally expressive and authentic without wearing a mask of insecure masculinity hiding those emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if his latter Bond films have already went more in that direction anyway. It's just Daniel Craig himself is by nature the way he is, the casting itself is the key to how Bond films turn out to be, the tone and nature of them. Many people have never watched some Bond films only because of the Bond actors themselves. I've never seen any films from the last 3 Bonds myself. I believe this franchise has been far more popular, with the wider demographics, in the 60's and 70's than anytime since then.
In my own view and experience, children today are not the same as 40 years ago, such reactions are becoming rarer, at least in more developed countries. I believe most children before reaching age of 5 sense love between people no matter what sexual orientation, understandably we are genetically influenced since birth by carrying lots of ancestral trauma, very often related to sexuality, that doesn't mean that children need to be sheltered. For those kids who don't get it, there are also parents who can have a great opportunity to talk to them about such or other various diversities existing in nature. It would not only be very appropriate for children movies to have characters of different orientations, but also realistic. I'm sure most homosexual children could relate to heterosexual love in children films, theres been a few scenes in some children films where they kissed an animal, I'm sure they could relate or understand too.
Agreed, children would greatly benefit psychologically by seeing in these movies a reflection of the reality where all kinds of people exist in. I'm sure lots of filmmakers and studios are aware of that. What is the art if not a mirror of the world we live in at a particular time.
Big Sky (1952)
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Big Bad Mama (1974)
The Arena (1974)
Some of these filmmakers know when the customers, that is especially the fan base (the most inclined towards love/hate attachments), who are not meant to watch it let alone enjoy it turn out to be toxic, by the law of attraction healthy people don't attract experiences they would hate, however it is unwise to say it to them directly unless they're ready to change based on it by seeing that what they hate in those films is the hidden side of them they can't face within themselves, nontheless each film is meant to attract viewers the film is intended for, including sequels. I applaud musicians who dare to alienate old fans in order to create something for new fans, new generations, and I always applaud filmmakers who are re-writing history or destroy what was established, there's no other way how to start anew and educate children of new generations with new principles and conceptions of history, past can be changed only from the present, however as the saying goes the mind of a woke man can seem like madness to those deep in a sleep, it is wise not to preach and just share your worldviews in your art silently. In my view, critisizing to express our complaints instead of intending it to help someone else may not make anyone truly awaken or woke anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbrr61ezP3g
The original The Thing From Another World is registered in the film registry of Congress, I feel like it deserves to be there as it was possibly the first 50's sci-fi film ever made that had an impact on culture in the same sense as Jurrasic Park, Easy Rider or Rambo, no one has made a sci-fi like that before, to me it's certainly more intelligent as a film than the remakes, not just a horror, it deserves a respect for its intellectual and emotional value, more than technical, its social commentary nontwithstanding. I think King Kong And Star Wars would be sci-fi for many people, it seems to fit the meaning of the term science fiction well.
Very good conversation, these posters are already out, only putting emphasis on these shared viewpoints. Yes although there are two ways to this, humans still need to evolve enough to change the course on their own without the fear, but with natural passion and excitement. What ETs can do to prevent the damage humanity is causing is only to interefere covertly without most of our knowledge (and I know that's how they've actually been doing it in real life for decades), so I believe the change has to come without the outside threat, at least not a direct threat from ETs, but a threat to our lives from natural occurances in cosmos or on Earth, that is a better impulse towards change, humans tend to make an enemy out of other intelligence, not so out of natural disasters, as we believe we can be in control, and prevent that.
Agreed on that. There are indeed always exceptions when some DC versions become more satisfying experience, even though they're less likely to become trend setters, they could perhaps only enhance the quality of the original version that was already big enough with the audience.
The power of this show is how they developed beloved characters to speak about todays social issues, I know all shows and films do that, as nothing stays removed from the reflections of the modern social concerns and sensibilities, but there's a link between the old days and new days that really surprised me in this show, sort of helping us to contemplate how much has changed and how much stayed the same, there's a reason why this show was made, Anne herself was a feminist, as were Rilla and Emily, and yet there's lots of changes of what was in the novel, which is what I like about adaptations, not copying the novel, instead merely basing on it, and giving it a new perspective and interpretation that resonates with our times. The original novel full of ideas of innocence was good for brainwashing at the time of its creation, the fiction being made nowadays is at least courageous enough to re-write the history and depicting more self empowered ideals and goals, in the old days even the experience and openness of sex was not throught of as innocent, mainly due to the influence of religions at the time, how many people at that time period knew how harmful it could have been, the concept of what it means being innocent has been largely changing since then. Often it also helps when the filmmakers of new versions don't like the material they're adapting.
Wasn't the first film in the trilogy the most popular in the 60's? I think it was the most iconic, Eastwood's character seemed more defined in his uniqueness in that one, later films gave him more nuances and that reduced its essence of being a mysterious man. The simplicity is very powerful, in music score, storytelling, tight editing and pacing, and especially the length of the film.
When I watched it in my teens its themes resonated with me, it meant something to me, yet 20 years later it means a lot to me just the same, only because of my new interpretation of those themes, the power of this film is that there's no clear social commentary, everyone can take something different from it. There is no clear message in this film, its symbolical nature allows for different ways of interepretation and therefore resonance. Palanuik's novel works on many levels. If there was a theme that everyone should see, then Palanuik's intentions would be contradictory, being a slave in this film does not only mean feeding off advertising, it means being a slave to the physical reality itself, that can be even your body, people, their beliefs, their actions to the point of being offended, anxious or hurt, and that is important. It speaks to the power of an individual, inner truth, not a sheep mentality that follows what is followed by others. Find the truth within yourself, including yourself, your creativity, imagination, self will, individual thought, that is what I take from this film.
Beautiful scene, very ambiguous and clearly shows the intended interpretation that she asked for that fobidden fruit and then enjoyed it, as a hidden defiance against her husband, which I feel is what the filmmaker wanted for the audience to consider, she loved the guy who raped her in a way, and yet no asnwers are given of what she really feels and wishes, not what she says, the film is essentially an exploration of what happens when people don't express what they feel, never say what they mean, inauthenticity, lack of communication, the emotional outburst at the end is that repressed energy coming out like an explosion, mainly refering to Dustin's character, the truth in the form of released pent up anger was all that was needed, no answers needed.