Matt Wilson wrote:If you were still coherent after an hour my respect for you would be so immense I wouldn't give a fuck what you thought of the film.
You should host film appreciation salons, Matt.
Matt Wilson wrote:We'd stay up late with a few good bowls of weed, a twelve pack of some fancy imported beer and a few lines for when we get sleepy. Every time somebody does something outstanding in the acting department (about every two minutes--and every time Brando is on screen) I'd tell you to take a shot (of whatever is in front of you).
If you were still coherent after an hour my respect for you would be so immense I wouldn't give a fuck what you thought of the film.
Marios In Black wrote:snarfyguy wrote:Matt Wilson wrote:If you were still coherent after an hour my respect for you would be so immense I wouldn't give a fuck what you thought of the film.
You should host film appreciation salons, Matt.
Sounds expensive.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
Diamond Dog wrote:Right - I watched "Once Upon A time In America" over the weekend (the proper version) and, I have to say, it's better than I remembered. Magnificent. But the two rape scenes (particularly the second one, in the back of the car) are really vile and (unnecessarily) gratuitous, aren't they? They really did make me feel terribly uncomfortable - they almost seem to relish in the violence - which is shameful, really. Without those scenes, I think this film could have been right up there with the best - but they do detract from the films brilliance, don't you think?
Diamond Dog wrote:Right - I watched "Once Upon A time In America" over the weekend (the proper version) and, I have to say, it's better than I remembered. Magnificent. But the two rape scenes (particularly the second one, in the back of the car) are really vile and (unnecessarily) gratuitous, aren't they? They really did make me feel terribly uncomfortable - they almost seem to relish in the violence - which is shameful, really. Without those scenes, I think this film could have been right up there with the best - but they do detract from the films brilliance, don't you think?
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.
I´m so excited.
Diamond Dog wrote:Ced, I know it's not meant to be nice. But I think it could have been made just as despicable without seeming to revel in the graphic brutality quite as much. Just a thought. Great, great film though.
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.
I´m so excited.
Diamond Dog wrote:Moralise/intellectualise it all you like Ced, it's still a brutal rape (is there any other type?) and unnecessarily graphic. But that's just my opinion, and what do I know about cinema?
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.
I´m so excited.
Cédric wrote:Diamond Dog wrote:Moralise/intellectualise it all you like Ced, it's still a brutal rape (is there any other type?) and unnecessarily graphic. But that's just my opinion, and what do I know about cinema?
Did you read what I wrote ? I didn't say that it wasn't brutal. I said that it was and that there was a reason for that. The question here is not to understand cinema in general, but to understand the story you're watching. So stop reacting like a pc priest and watch that story for what it is rather than for what you'd like it to be.
Diamond Dog wrote:I did read what you wrote. And I responded accordingly. I ain't the PC priest - but I do think it's morally reprehensible to have two rape sequences in one film. If the reasons you gave for the second scene were okay for the reasons stated, does that mean the same reasons apply to the first rape scene?
If so, is the repetition necessary?
morally reprehensible
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.
I´m so excited.
The Right Summery Profile wrote:Cédric wrote:Diamond Dog wrote:Moralise/intellectualise it all you like Ced, it's still a brutal rape (is there any other type?) and unnecessarily graphic. But that's just my opinion, and what do I know about cinema?
Did you read what I wrote ? I didn't say that it wasn't brutal. I said that it was and that there was a reason for that. The question here is not to understand cinema in general, but to understand the story you're watching. So stop reacting like a pc priest and watch that story for what it is rather than for what you'd like it to be.
Not that I really want to talk about rape scenes on film, but have you seen Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs?
The equivalent scene in that is just as horrible and, also contentious because the woman first starts enjoying it (she's obviously climaxing off her own accord)...and then it spiralls into the hate filled segment where the hick friend comes in the door and finishes her off. Up until that part of the film, it's been entirely about closed tension. You know Dustin Hoffman's character is falling away from his wife, and you know he's become overly protective (and it's safe to say, patronising). And yet the moment he goes out of the house for reinforcements we get that scene. Peckinpah is a prick, no doubt, but it's utterly necessary in terms of how the film is weighted.
There's a strong argument that Nikki G once posited that Michael Douglas' character in Falling Down was based entirely on the last 10 minutes of Straw Dogs--before then he had been an uptight, submissive, nerd, which was just as ugly.
I really appreciate nathan's point of view and agree with 90% of it. Gratuitous violence for the sake of it, is of course, unnecessary, but then those filmmakers aren't worth watching anyway.
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.
I´m so excited.
Diamond Dog wrote:Ced - there are other ways of depicting emotions without resorting to defiling women, you know. Sorry that it appears to have slipped both yours and Leone's mind, but it's true.
Captain Spaulding wrote:I sent my list already! It´s shit.
I´m so excited.
Cédric wrote:Diamond Dog wrote:Ced - there are other ways of depicting emotions without resorting to defiling women, you know. Sorry that it appears to have slipped both yours and Leone's mind, but it's true.
What are you talking about ? Did you understood that films were not reality, etc... ? Are you aware of the fact that the people in Leone's movie are the characters of a story, which works under a certain logic, etc... ?
Are you also against the killing of the Indians in Hollywood's classical westerns ? Because, when you think about it, it's not fair either !