MovieChat Forums > Starman > Replies
Starman's Replies
The inserted message is what keeps me away from films like this, when the film feels so self conscious that it tries to give some message, any message, that is not what I love about films, when some message is found by me just randomly, that can differ from the message someone else finds, then it trusts the intelligence of an audience, it means the film does not give any clear answers, any social statements that are not at least a little bit ambigious and open to various interpretations. One could say this film is a propaganda in that purest sense, and I would understand them.
All ratings are a form of fear and opression coming out of the sense of lack within us.
All people are different, all children are different with different ancestral traumas.
Interesting, how this is the only Indiana Jones film that tends to be the most relatable to little children, at least in my experience, stories of sacrifices or witches eating little children have been in old literary Soviet fairytales I grew up on as well, children were meant to be scared, not to be sheltered from our natural emotions, however everyone has different traumas, thus then different levels of sensitivity.
The darker the better for children to appreciate, I grew up on dark Russian fairytales about devils (old scratch) and terrfying witches, they were meant for children, not adults, there is a difference between dark and corrupted, in terms of morals.
People have to understand that not all women have the same organs let alone biology, and neither every woman has maternal instincts, that's why they tend to join army sometimes, or do more manly stuff, which is natural for them, modern films just show this truth, truth of the variety of life that people have been ignoring for a long time, and considering our genes change throughout our lifetime and the IQ of our population is neither as low as a few decades ago, at least based on some scientific studies, it's understandable why movies portray men and women behaving differently than 100 years ago, or are being so sophisticated these days and why some people seem to overthink things so much. Although, in this film Ripley's story is really subtle exploration of finding a new family, a child she couldn't have.
It has no relevance, whether the whole film is animated, or just partially, what matters is how emotional it makes me, and that's what I care about. Their imagination and my spirited state of being can make this a wonderful film for me, I'll do my best to make it so for myself. Chris Sanders is a great talent, and a favorite filmmaker, and him being a pisces, it can be a wild ride indeed, perfect story for him to film.
I would love to see as many films in b/w as they're in color. Cinema needs some balance. It's one of the reasons why I watch films or listen to songs that are far from my taste, so when I get to things suited to my kind of taste it is more impactful. The same is true about genres, horror is never as good if there's no humour for instance, or action without drama, slow and fast pace inter-changing in one film. Contrast in life is important, in every aspect. However in this case I love b/w films, often more than color films, which sometimes can take away the magic of cinema.
The way I would put it, I am just being myself, and what is a man with no self introspection, a narcissist? No film, no art can be evaluated more than ourselves through it, that's how I've always seen the purpose of any "thing" in life, I believe quite a few filmmakers like Claire Denis tend to engage a similar frame of mind when making such films, what's the purpose of art if not to ask us what we can bring into it, instead of us arrogantly asking it or filmmakers what it can bring to us instead, and if it can't bring what we demand, it fails, instead of us, aren't we supposed to be as much artists as them participating on the other receiving end? Nonetheless, any review of a film is vapid distraction to me if it can't reveal the reviewer more than the film itself anyway.
There's so much more to this film than what others see, if there's more to us without being like others..
Tim Robbins part is certainly the most powerful and realistic part of the film, it finally slows down and goes into deeper atmosphere and feelings of what's really going on, it's less about aliens now and more about people going mad. This part is one of the main reasons why I can't watch the film again, too disturbing and frightening.
It's a funny notion that the acting and casting of Tom Cruise would make it seem sci-fi long before the alien invasion itself.
I hold to the belief that every actor has to reflect the psychology or background on some level of the character they play. Clint Eastwood, Gary Cooper, Burt Reynolds, John Wayne, Chuck Norris are some of the best examples when actors don't even seem like they play a character, some people say such people are bad actors, but the missed point is often how much they actually blend in without even trying that much. We have to believe, stretching the range of an actor is good, but if the casting itself doesn't match from the beginning it's a futile vanity in the casting style of Orson Welles in Lady From Shanghai.
Although sometimes Jeff Bridges, Kurt Russell and Tom Hanks can reflect the characters well by having the same interests and experiences like them.
The film with similar situation, Shing Through from 1992 has managed to show a much deeper relationship and the end feels more emotional as a result.
Psychoanalysis in the case of this film takes sometimes only a few MINUTES to cure a patient, it is all about going back to the first trauma and make peace with it, it can happen immediately when that trauma gets healed. It depends fully on the patient how efficient they are in their forgiveness for themselves and closing the cycle. I'm speaking from experience, it comes back to traditional healing procedures like shadow work which a lot of people do on their own. Once the trauma is identified, you're halfway done, some people have to repeat the practice a couple of times, some do it immediately through self hypnosis as well. PTSD gets cured the same way, hours, days, weeks, years, it all depends on severity. Obviously in this film it was very realistic, cause it was all about discovery and identifying, it was not necessary to show how severe it was in the film, or how much he later on needed to go back to the past of the trauma and repeat the procedure. It served the plot.
How could the last film be a sci-fi, what constitutes that genre? The majority of the populace are aware of the existence of ETs, and interdimensional beings are around us all the time, which some of us communicate with as well, as long as you're familiar with inter-dimensional astral travelling. Lucas has been obviously familiar with such communities, as well as the whistleblowers coming out since the Roswell. However I can see the point by trying to define genres there based on tradition (that is the 1950's which that film reflects), no matter how outdated it may seem. All of them are horror, comedy, sci-fi, action and adventure in a way.
I can't imagine many parents would be forbidding a film to a child because of a naked body, certainly not these days, the more they see it the better for them. Innocence is not meant to be hidden.
Do you like them as films? Or only their look?
Some of the most beautiful looking films I dont like much at all, only the way they look. That's what the topic is about.
I love how the music always fits the scenes, especially heavy metal, very fitting and important to the magical tone of the film, completely subverting human preconceptions what should be or shouldn't be, some moments come and one feels uneasy of how unprepared they've been, many layers of cinema speaks their own language here. The scene you describe is just one of them. The film I return to the most in memories, even though I prefer his later films more often as his craft got more refined and expressive of his true intentions.
For me, a big cult classic. Only Wes Craven could have given it this tone.