Seen any good films lately? [3]

I suppose I mean cathartic as in having a good old cry.

I know what you mean. I had always wondered why I enjoyed sad movies so much, and then I came across this funky idea of catharsis.

Million Dollar Baby, for example, is one of my comfort films.

I have to admit I've never understood the phenomenon myself. My mother does it- watches some horrendously sad and tragic film and bawls her eyes out at it. Doesn't seem like a way to have a good time to me

Actually now I come to think about it I cant even think when the last time was that I cried out of sadness. Crabbit, frustration, pure anger- I've cried for all these reasons at some point in the last 20 years, but not I think out of sadness.
Not that I don't get sad at times, I just don't cry about it for some reason.
And I definitely don't deliberately watch stuff I think will make me cry.
Maybe its a Scottish thing. (I've only ever seen my father cry in sadness once- and that was, up to that point in my life, one of the most shocking and discombulating things to happen to me).

Im a big blubber, I cry at anything. I cry worst when I hear of animal suffering, I cant watch films with animals in, havent watched "War Horse" because of that. I saw "Two Brothers" about little tiger cubs & that was it !!!!!! I cried a bucket full !

I was kind of like that too, Petty, until about 12 years ago. Then i did 6 months of the hardest chemotherapy they could throw at me. Under the influence of the chemo I'd go through wild mood swings from giddy to angry to sobbing, all for no apparent reason.

Ever since then I'll find that a scene in a movie, or a phrase of music, or a even just a look in an eye or a catch in a voice, and I'll feel myself tearing up in empathy. All I can say is the world looks different to me now.

Better different or just sadder? (And not sure I want the same method of getting to such a point if its better!- there has to be an easier way I hope)

OMG David ! you brave man Im glad your here

Petty wrote:Better different or just sadder?

Interesting question.  In general I'd say 'Better'.  Less tolerant of petty little drama, but more open to honest joy and sadness. I've come to believe that those two emotions are two sides of the same coin. But yeah, I'm sure there are easier paths to enlightenment....

azriel wrote:OMG David ! you brave man Im glad your here

Thanks Az. Me too!

malickfan wrote:Watched Zero Dark Thirty (About a CIA agent reaserching and tracking down the location of Bin Laden) the other day, an enjoyable enough way to pass a few hours I suppose, and Jessica Chastain was solid in the lead role, but it was overlong and rather blandly shot (surprising, given Kstheryn Bigelow's work on The Hurt Locker). Things were cast very much in shades of white and Black, there was little to no character development, and a bunch of people sitting around in offices looking at photographs isn't all that exciting to watch be honest, that's not to say I don't mind 'talky' films, but this just felt like a bunch of scenes stuffed together, it didn't flow entirely naturally, I guess I just found it a bit...boring to be honest...

It's basically a magazine article in movie form.  I admit to thinking of it that way primarily because the screenwriter originally made his name as a magazine journalist, but the way they film is structured (including the "chapter" headings) and the way it follows a character as a window into certain events rather than engaging in a conventional narrative arc feels very much like something out of the "New Journalism" school of writing.  Like, compare Zero Dark Thirty to some of Esquire's best articles (I'd recommend "The School" because of the similar time period and subject matter).  I think the similarities are plenty.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/g114/greatest-stories/
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1173/esq0606beslan-140/

I've read that some took the film's message as promoting the use of Torture in the right circumstances, I'm not going to go into that discussion (though I can understand how they saw things that way), but it did feel kinda jingoistic at points...

The guy who wrote the film is very much not jingoistic if you look at his whole body of work, and I think for the most part Zero Dark Thirty fell victim to the same phenomenon as The Wolf of Wall Street.  Both depicted bad things happening (torture vs fucking people over financially), but because they refrained from explicit moralizing within the film itself, a lot of people took it as an endorsement.  I don't think either film got a fair shake in that respect.  That said, the depiction of torture did contain inaccuracies and ended up implying that it was a useful tool when paired with other methods, which doesn't reflect the process that led to finding bin Laden and can easily become an argument in full blown defense of torture.  But I'm not sure this was entirely intentional as opposed to a misunderstanding by the writer and director, because it doesn't really match the rest of the themes (IMO).

American jingoism and propaganda is typically reluctant to admit misdeeds at all.  I guess that "the ends justify the means" isn't seen as a reliable enough argument, but it's far more common to just deny that stuff ever happened at all as much as possible.  Like with the torture debates, some people were straight up like "yes, it is right and just to torture terrorists in certain circumstances", but the vast majority of defenses were shit like "waterboarding isn't really torture", or "the Geneva convention doesn't apply because they aren't uniformed soldiers", or "the constitution doesn't cover Guantanamo".  Weasel words and loopholes, not an outright rejection of normal standards of decency.  Not that this makes a difference to the people who were tortured, but insofar as we try to recognize propaganda when we see it, I think that it's worth discussing its typical forms.

5/10 Not a 'bad' film per se, I just don't think it was all that exciting or morally murky for a film about such important events.

I don't think it was trying to be exciting for the most part, although the final raid scene was phenomenal (all the more so considering the project was begun before bin Laden was killed and they originally planned to end the film with him still at large).  But it's only really morally ambivalent if the notion that the American military and intelligence community is fine with brutally torturing people (and shoot women, that was actually what finally made my racist uncle shut up when we watched it) is at odds with your conception of America.  If you've already taken the step of condemning American military abuses then you're in the choir during this sermon.

Sorry for the length of this post. I'm not trying to jump on you for being lukewarm on this movie, but it's relevant to many of my interests and I've gotten into discussions about it elsewhere before so I have a lot to say.

Mrs Figg wrote:just watched 12 years a slave.

 holy crapadoodle. that was intense. I hope it was cathartic to someone, you know, really useful, like Shindlers is useful for Jews and The piano is useful for women.

The Piano is one of my mom's favorite movies but I've never seen it.  Always been curious since she's not a big movie buff, but she has nothing but praise for this one.

azriel wrote:Im a big blubber, I cry at anything. I cry worst when I hear of animal suffering, I cant watch films with animals in, havent watched "War Horse" because of that. I saw "Two Brothers" about little tiger cubs & that was it !!!!!! I cried a bucket full !

I don't think I've ever been more miserable after a movie than after I watched "Two Brothers" at the age of ~10.  Fuck that movie. {{{It's really well made though.}}}

Yes Eldo, it was well made but I cried my fooking eyes out ! I even blub at TV adverts containing animals, RSPCA, Moon Bears etc

films can really tap into some deep wounds and I don't mean sentimental or obviously sad movies about kids and animals where you know its going to end in tears. the film The Secret Garden hit me like a hammer blow. although it is about kids.

Secret Garden was one of my Mom's favorite books when she was a girl. She'd read it to us every spring when we were kids. Our old copy had a colour plate of Dicken singing in the garden that I can still see in my mind's eye. I haven't seen the movie though. Should I?

Certainly, it has some strange departures from the book. The inclusion of make-believe magic, and its tone is a bit darker than it should be in many places if you enjoyed the book. But it is a beautiful film. The score is also excellent, as it was created by Zbigniew Preisner, the Polish composer.

Interesting conversation if you have any interest in Macbeth, or in how actors and directors approach the play- Patrick Stewart and his director Robert Goold talk about their technically impressive and very visual adaptation for Broadway (if you plan on watching it and don't know the story this will be spoilery)-



And if your interest is peaked here's the film version of that production-

Was watching some Shakespeare related stuff and came across something I was unaware of to do with how we view plays. Things have changed from Shakespeare's day and I don't mean style or anything like that, I mean fundamentally in how we think about going to see a play. We use a different main sense now.

The word 'audience' has its derivation in the same latin root as 'audio' it's all about the words not the visuals.
In Shakespeare's day people didn't say "lets go see a play", or 'lets go watch a play' they said, 'lets go hear a play' or 'lets go listen to a play'.
Its a completely different attitude and expectation.

Just thought this was interesting and worth sharing.

David H wrote:Secret Garden was one of my Mom's favorite books when she was a girl. She'd read it to us every spring when we were kids. Our old copy had a colour plate of Dicken singing in the garden that I can still see in my mind's eye.  I haven't seen the movie though.  Should I?

make sure you watch the 1993 version with Maggie Smith.

Mrs Figg wrote:

David H wrote:Secret Garden was one of my Mom's favorite books when she was a girl. She'd read it to us every spring when we were kids. Our old copy had a colour plate of Dicken singing in the garden that I can still see in my mind's eye.  I haven't seen the movie though.  Should I?

make sure you watch the 1993 version with Maggie Smith.

That is the definitive version for me as I grew up with it. There are older versions I suppose?

I think there might be a foreign one that came out in '94 actually.

Thanks, I'll give it a try. Maggie Smith is always worth watching!

I checked the old bookshelves last night, and the edition of "The Secret Garden" I grew up on was actually my grandmother's. It's a 1911 edition, and has been "well loved" by 4 generations. The spine is a bit loose from love but all the pages are still tight. Just smelling those old yellowed pages with the archaic typeset and seeing again those old pictures transports me in a way no movie ever will....

Eldorion wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:just watched 12 years a slave.

 holy crapadoodle. that was intense. I hope it was cathartic to someone, you know, really useful, like Shindlers is useful for Jews and The piano is useful for women.

The Piano is one of my mom's favorite movies but I've never seen it.  Always been curious since she's not a big movie buff, but she has nothing but praise for this one.

As a pianist I've never seen this, but probably should. I have seen The Pianist with Adrian Brody, and thought it was quite good. Never seen Shine either.



Then again I've never been a big fan of the eccentric musician character, an overused trope. Plus I think they play up Rach 3 too much. Sure it's a very hard concerto, but it's not the piece in the world. Rachmanninov was typically pretty conservative in terms of harmony and form, especially for early 19th century. Edit: 20th century woops

I liked "Shine", thought it was a good film indeed I like Geoffrey Rush, & he plays as the musician in this, ( David Helfgott.)

bungobaggins wrote:

Eldorion wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:just watched 12 years a slave.

 holy crapadoodle. that was intense. I hope it was cathartic to someone, you know, really useful, like Shindlers is useful for Jews and The piano is useful for women.

The Piano is one of my mom's favorite movies but I've never seen it.  Always been curious since she's not a big movie buff, but she has nothing but praise for this one.

As a pianist I've never seen this, but probably should. I have seen The Pianist with Adrian Brody, and thought it was quite good. Never seen Shine either.


Then again I've never been a big fan of the eccentric musician character, an overused trope. Plus I think they play up Rach 3 too much. Sure it's a very hard concerto, but it's not the piece in the world. Rachmanninov was typically pretty conservative in terms of harmony and form, especially for early 19th century. Edit: 20th century woops

I like this film a lot. Geoffrey Rush is just good in everything it seems. (He was certainly the highlight of much of Pirates of the Caribbean.

Forest Shepherd wrote:


I like this film a lot. Geoffrey Rush is just good in everything it seems. (He was certainly the highlight of much of Pirates of the Caribbean.

After HMS Interceptor of course!
{{{Played brilliantly by "Lady Washington", a very good friend of mine!}}}

well to be honest The Piano isn't really about music, or pianos for that matter. although the music in it is very nice.