MovieChat Forums > chrichrichri > Replies
chrichrichri's Replies
... Albert not being Nazi? For him the worst horror were jews, only topped by black jews
I have seen both and I have to say I am impressed how close the remake is to Godard’s original - straight to parts of the dialogue - and still it manages to give the story a totally different character.
Godard version: I saw a modern young woman, who tries do be independent and wants to find out if her attraction to this man is justifiable for her. He on the other hand is a sexist asshole, who doesn't care and would probably dump her after having sex. It is not really a love story - he just wanted to have sex and she was rather in search how to represent the modern woman in society. I felt a constant distance between him and her. Godard works very much on a rational level (key elements are transported by philosophical dialogue). I saw his social critique this way: he stands for the old system, which is rotten and dies, she for the new modern world, which has no identity and is absurd in its own way ("you are like the one who sleeps with every man except the man you love, because you love him").
The remake on the other hand is a love story, the two really fall for each other. She is a stiff pretty cow that follows the rules he destroys and by this he opens an adventurous alternative way of life, she is intrigued to. He is the one who doesn't care about conventions and does only what is fun, everything he does is done in affect. The social critique in this movie: he is an asshole from the start and still he gets the sympathy of the audience, because many do what he is expected and follow rules, but deep inside long for true affection, free expression and adventure.
I like both films, the remake is more fun to watch + has more hart and soul, Godard’s version has a more complex social critique embedded, some great details and I also like the way it is cut.
This film is so french
If this were a hollywood movie, it would end with Willy getting rich by inheriting Ben's money. They move to a big fancy villa, where you see Happy's huge dream wedding, which Biff attends last minute, just in time for the kissing scene, coming home late from from a stepped-in-father's-footstep Brooklyn trip, which by the way made him salesman of the month.
Yet Elizabeth holds her back, as if she would say in a benign way, don’t go, although you are different, you can stay. And there is the famous same eye-line. Dido’s left eye is exactly at the same height as Elisabeth’s eyes and she is looking streight in your eyes. These are the only elements that clearly show: no she is not just a servant. These are the elements making this painting one of its kind. But it definitely is not an equal visualization of two cousins. The painting rather shows the conflict: bloodline vs acceptable appearance
I think its great that the film tells the story of a painting. There is few historical evidence of Dido beside of this picture and probably the film would not exist without it. I liked the film and how it dealt with the topic of slave trade in a rather subtly way. But I think they just should have used the original painting. Such paintings are stylized and not photorealistic anyways. In the new painting, the exotic turban and the coquettish gesture is gone. Dido’s head is upright now, causing Dido’s eyes to be higher than Elizabeth’. Remember: The amazing thing was the same eye-line, which gave them at least some equality. And this is missing, which is a shame.
original
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido_Elizabeth_Belle#/media/File:Dido_Elizabeth_Belle.jpg
movie version:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BPbX-ItF1kA/?taken-by=dnanigo
It certainly does give Belle a subservient role, and even more so in the original painting:
Elisabeth sits upright on a bench with a book in her hand, nearly like on a throne and the book is like a proof of her wisdom and intelligence. Contrary, Dido is not sitting and has a tray with fruits in her left hand. Dido’s upper body bows front. Those are quite strong signs for servantry. Her right hand points to her face. This is a playful, cheeky expression. It also highlights her difference. Her cloth: A turban and the transparent scarf moved by the wind underline her exoticness even further.
Elisabeth sits on the right side of Dido, exactly in the golden ratio. Dido appears on the left side of the painting, in the golden ratio between Elisabeth’ head and the left border of the painting, giving her a clear second rate in the painting’s hierachy. Then, Elizabeth sits in the middle of the bench, rather more on the left side. Dido wouldn’t really have space to sit down left of her. Dido’s tray hides parts of her body, the leaves on it resemble the trees behind the bench. At first glance, it appears as if Dido would jump form behind the bushes from the back of the bench, bringing Elizabeth fruits. At second glance it is left open if Dido was sitting next to Elizabeth, or if she just passed by to offer fruits to Elizabeth and now rushes away as someone is approaching, causing her to be out of place. The upright Elizabeth holds Dido: They are not hands in hands like equal cousins, they are not turning towards each other either. For the fact that their cloth touch at the lower part of their bodies, their heads could not be further away from each other. Elizabeth rather holds her like a child or a toy.
sure - but belle as poetic version for Bell was a decision and not the true story, so who knows if it was just a coincidence. But the way it is, yeah, Belle is a bit random as title.
What's really confusing:
Dido Elizabeth Bell - ok, she is the belle of the title, its a game of words, understood. So far I can follow and its ok.
But here Cousin Lady Elizabeth Murray is called with the nickname Beth. But why?
"la belle et la bête" (the Beauty and the Beast) - everybody knows this.
But nothing about Beth was ugly, they were friends and soulmates from the beginning.
Why are there two? This is one of the core questions this movie asks. Anomality is a strong part of the movie, so is symmetry. Whatching the moviw, you will find out there is just one o, but they were seperated.
Omega by the way is the Z of the greek alphabet.
And a zoo certainly is the end of evolution.
I thought exactly the same!
perfect symmetry in images, unique, rich and very detailed designed scenes, dysfunctional relationships, grown ups, who behave like children, animals as important elements, a very theatrical style, sets overloaded with artifacts, color aesthetics more important then a logical continuity in the narration, scientific fragments set in a bizarre context. Wes Anderson even uses a very 80s style (everything neat and clean, doll house-like)
The main difference is the humor. Both use bizarre humor. I also laughed a lot at „A Zed and two Noughts“, but the humor is really dry, and you get some of the absurdity not before watching it again.
Wes Anderson movies focus more on a continous narration, they tell a more linear story, while „A Zed and two Noughts“ is like a poem. What happens and which scene follows next is less important for telling a tale then for drawing (random) connections and producing messages (which tend towards the absurd).
The humor and story-telling makes Wes Anderson movies much more suitable for a mainstream audience, including childen, most of whom probably find „A Zed and two Noughts“ just boring. For me its actually rather the opposite.
you forgot that bringing home a bacteria tooth is not such a nice present
its free advertising for them
"Also environmental damage caused by the oil spill was largely overestimated. Oceans are naturally resistant to oil spills."
You are for sure the expert to judge this.
sure, water does not care, it just destroyed ecosystems down to the bacteria. And local (e.g. fishing) economy with it.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/trco-twd042406.php
makes not much sense: we know it did not explode and a bomb does not secretly disappear and fly away to outer space, so it must be intact. Its true, earth does not know if it explodes or not. So why setting the timer for the bomb for Freedom? If the Independence bomb exploded earth knows surface explosions is useless. So they just have to try immediate detonation of the Independence bomb, then they know the bomb must be exploded. Then if it did not work, the surviving Freedom team can try it the drilling way.
65 Detonating the bomb too early because everybody will die is not so much an issue, the issue is BUT IT IS MY FAMILY UP THERE
66 Some people have not understood that the section ‘what I learnt from this movie‘ is there to make fun of a film (OK, this I learnt afterwards).
67 The secret of drilling is: you do not drill straight down, but 45 degree sidewards
68 Training, health and discipline are way overrated (and boring), being proud American on the other hand is not!
69 If the American president speaks - the whole world listens.
70 You need an armadillo for an armageddon.
rather: the space shuttle crashes - and a bomb inside does not explode ? From earth the timer is reset and nobody cuts its "red or blue" cable - and the bomb does not explode ?
[spoilers ahead]
53 Armageddon is the event of saving earth by destroying an asteroid
54 Armageddon is also the event when a father in the moment of his chosen death accepts his un-wanted son-in-law as husband of his only daughter
55 A woman on a space shuttle is totally out of place, especially in case of a technical issue. When the engine does not start you need a crazy Russian, kicking her away and wildly strike a machine with a wrench. By the way, the machine is Asian, so anyways nobody can know how it works.
56 There is a blue and a red cable inside a timer and you need to cut the right one to stop it.
57 Greenpeace boats are at oil platform so
1 that oil workers can make fun of them
2 you are reminded that a quick armageddon from an asteroid will not be necessary,
as we brave oil men anyways will destroy earth slowly from within
58 If you want to be a real hero, be an assholes, egocentric and a criminal, make fun of everything, save the world by exploding a nuclear bomb, and your achievement: you will never pay taxes again.
59 NASA cannot even assemble a drilling machine right, so stupid.
60 When a spaceship with a nuclear weapon onboard crashes, it does not explode. If it explodes because its timer is reset forward and not re-reset - who cares
61 Always make sure: do it last second, otherwise it will be boring for the audience. It does not really matter what you do as long as you know random deadlines and measures. Its ONE MINUTE LEFT and 800 METERS deep, now 10 MINUTES left to save earth, so better start a long talk with your daughter.
62 You need a cool gun in space, because its fun to shoot around madly at your companions
63 What will everybody do when its known, there is only one day left until death: go to temples and churches and pray.
64 Everybody on an oil platform is like a big family, so everybody besides her real father will know that the daughter has become a chick and of course slept with her.
Besides this gravity issue - it seems really stupid to me that these "drilling experts" drill at a 45 degree angle...
The book needs changes to make a movie out of it. Its great how many details are kept 1:1. But I think the changes to the storyline were not really successful. One key element in the book, which the movie immensely blurs and softens are sexual incidents, ironically even the ones towards women. K kisses Bürstner from top to bottom in the first chapter. Dressing and undressing, nakedness are important in nearly all parts. Instead we get a super-computer who would know all answers, which is definitely not in the book.