Just curious, what do you english speakers think about Nykvists (Viggos) accent? Always in comedy shows and the like and some whacky "swedish" dude comes along he almost always speaks with a german or completely ridiculous accent, but Nykvist of course speaks with his own heavy swedish accent. Does it sound ridiculous? Fake? Eastern European? Have you heard it before?
It doesn't sound Russian to me in the slightest, but Americans notoriously have a tin ear for accents.
We can pick out French and Scottish, that's about it. Anything English, Irish, South African, Australian, Kiwi, or Welsh is "British." Anything Iberian in origin is "Hispanic." Everything else is "European."
I thought it sounded Russian when I saw it but I wasn't like closely paying attention to exactly what accent he was using or anything.
I just assumed russian, because the eastern european bad guys are always russian, they are the fat people of action movies.
To be fair they specifically refer to him as Russian and they speak Russian throughout the film. I just took it at face value and assumed it was a Russian accent. It didn't sound like the Swedish guys I know to me!
Due to the recent discussion of Seven and the article Astaereth linked to, I rewatched the film to see whether my own impression and recollection of the film were inaccurate and that I simply remembered the film in the way that fit in with the way I interpreted the characters originally, ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
I have to say that I came away with my opinion reinforced. When it comes to Somerset's character, there's too much in the article that I'd consider misinterpretation or misrepresentation. It overstresses certain points while ignoring others, and to my mind its representation of Somerset's character arc is simply incorrect. I stand by my original statement: Somerset is tempted by apathy and resignation in the face of the world he lives in, but his actions make it pretty clear that he hasn't given in yet. He drives the investigation to a large extent. Mills is the more idealistic one, certainly, but if the film wanted to set up Somerset and Mills as protagonist and antagonist, then it does a bad job of doing so. The contrast between the two is played up at the beginning, but over the course of the film they become a team, and that is in no small way due to Somerset *not* giving up. He even asks, just before John Doe is revealed, to be kept on the case so it can be brought to an end.
Some of the ways in which the article IMO misrepresents the film:
The scene where Tracy meets Somerset to tell him about her pregnancy. Somerset's advice to her isn't one of resignation; he says that in a similar situation he pushed his partner to abort, but that he regrets that choice every single day. He ends by telling Tracy that, if she decides to keep the baby, she should shower the kid with love every single day. Are those the words of a man who preaches apathy and resignation?
The pre-credits crime scene: As a case, the scene is clear. There's no crime to be solved. Somerset's "Did the kid see it?" is angrily dismissed by a fellow cop because "Well, who gives a fuck?" It's the world around him, including his fellow cops, that is apathetic to the reality of human suffering.
The early scene where Somerset asks to be taken off the case: His boss mentions that he's left cases unfinished before, and the article brings this up as evidence that Somerset is a quitter. At the very least that's a biased interpretation; Somerset follows up that "Everything else was taken as close to conclusion as humanly possible." The article's reading isn't impossible, but it's skewed towards the case the article wants to make. It's much more likely that the captain mentions this because, as every detective (even in Hollywood movies), Somerset hasn't got a 100% clearance rate. Why should this one bother him?
Mills is actually the first one who says at the end that he wants to take Doe up on his offer. He tells Somerset, "Let's finish it." How does this support a reading where what happens is essentially Somerset's fault?
Somerset's actions as a detective leading up to the end aren't fundamentally different from Mills'. If the film wants to show a contrast between the two and their worldviews, again, it doesn't do so very clearly. The contrast posited by the article making a fundamental difference to their actions is simply not evidenced by the last, oh, hour of the film.
In making Somerset responsible for how the film ends, the article denies Mills' agency, and there's nothing in the film to support this IMO. Yes, I'd agree that Somerset is the protagonist, but other than this one formal feature we don't have any reason to see Somerset more responsible for what happens than his partner. Yes, Somerset could shoot Mills or Doe, but he tries to stop what happens at the end: he just doesn't succeed. There's no indication that he tries to talk Mills out of killing Doe for reasons of resignation or apathy, and there's no indication that Somerset opening or not opening the box would make any difference to what happens. Whatever mistakes Somerset makes, if they come out of apathy there's simply no good, clear evidence that I can see in the film.
Anyway, I've posted two walls of text before, and this is a third one. I'll try to make sure there isn't a fourth one. :P
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Watched the maze runner. it certainly was more entertaining than the giver. i'm actually wondering if they are going to do the second movie. the ending felt a little silly because
how did the angry muscle kid show up in the bunker area? the doors closed to keep the grievers out so how did he follow them?
Watched the maze runner. it certainly was more entertaining than the giver. i'm actually wondering if they are going to do the second movie. the ending felt a little silly because
how did the angry muscle kid show up in the bunker area? the doors closed to keep the grievers out so how did he follow them?
I recently watched this and Divergent. I thought the Maze Runner was executed better, with better fight choreography, but Divergent was a much more interesting movie. I have no idea what the Maze Runner is about. I don't know if the recording at the end was all lies, part lies, mostly truth, anything. I've got nothing. On the other hand, Divergent had some half assed fight training going on with its young actors, but the stakes were much clearer. As with all these YA books to movies, I find the world being shown to be much more interesting than the people in it. The Maze was a blank slate in that regard.
The Maze Runner was much more interesting when you had no idea what was going on.
It was competent enough, but I don't know if I'll be watching the rest of the trilogy (assuming they complete it).
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Was a fun movie. Loved the very kinect style. But really, what I couldn't shake throughout the whole thing and even now is that it feels so much like The Wolf of Wall Street. It's so obviously the same director trying to do with the same kind of style. And it's awesome. Really made me love Scorcese. It feels like the film is shoving a rocket up your ass and firing you through it's goings on.
But I ultimately felt like I liked Wolf of Wall Street alot better. WoWS feels polished. It feels like a more confident, more experienced director. Like Goodfellas was the crazy experimental first try and WoWS is the same guy going back with more experience and know-how and knowing how to make it all work just so since he made all the mistakes last time.
The other thing I really liked was the portrayal of gangsters. The way it shows the appeal of the lifestyle, the power and the respect and the money and all that, but never loses sight of the sheer pettiness of it all. These guys are idiots. They are mouthy and violent and not terribly good at any kind of self-restraint, even when it's in their own best interest. They live in their own little world and they all say it's family but ultimately they almost never show any restraint about murdering each other when it comes down to it. And ultimately all their respect is so ... small. It's just the people in their neighbourhood who are terrified of them.
It's like a pack of kids who never grew up. By joining the lifestyle, they have skipped over the whole part where you have to mature and learn to be responsible. They found the cheat code to life and never had to learn to control themselves or deal with real consequences or real work. And this is both what ultimately brings down all their schemes and what serves as the protagonist's ultimate punishment. He's forced to be a real person. To grow up.
It's refreshing to see the movie strip down the mythical aspects of the gangster you see in other films and cut to the greed at the heart of it. The desire for each money and easy acclaim. Henry Hill becomes a mobster because ultimately he doesn't wanna be working 9-5 like his father.
Goodfellas is the best movie ever.
Whatever storytelling Scorsese refined in Wolf is lost a bit in the performances and doesn't really have anything as off the cuff memorable as the one take Copacabana entrance (always love watching Liotta bump into the stove halfway thought because that almost made him break character), or Tommy being told to go fuck himself or get his shinebox. And the music chosen is one of the best in cinema history.
They're both great movies, but Goodfellas is just Transcendence and Lucy. Wait, what?
If you haven't seen Casino it's very much the same mold, and another great movie but not as good as Wolf because Sharon Stone is the weakest link and never carries the role like she should, instead making it more all about her and "I'm Sharon Stone I won't be relevant a year after this film" as opposed to a broken woman who truly cares only about money as opposed to love because she doesn't know what it is.
Was a fun movie. Loved the very kinect style. But really, what I couldn't shake throughout the whole thing and even now is that it feels so much like The Wolf of Wall Street. It's so obviously the same director trying to do with the same kind of style. And it's awesome. Really made me love Scorcese. It feels like the film is shoving a rocket up your ass and firing you through it's goings on.
But I ultimately felt like I liked Wolf of Wall Street alot better. WoWS feels polished. It feels like a more confident, more experienced director. Like Goodfellas was the crazy experimental first try and WoWS is the same guy going back with more experience and know-how and knowing how to make it all work just so since he made all the mistakes last time.
The other thing I really liked was the portrayal of gangsters. The way it shows the appeal of the lifestyle, the power and the respect and the money and all that, but never loses sight of the sheer pettiness of it all. These guys are idiots. They are mouthy and violent and not terribly good at any kind of self-restraint, even when it's in their own best interest. They live in their own little world and they all say it's family but ultimately they almost never show any restraint about murdering each other when it comes down to it. And ultimately all their respect is so ... small. It's just the people in their neighbourhood who are terrified of them.
It's like a pack of kids who never grew up. By joining the lifestyle, they have skipped over the whole part where you have to mature and learn to be responsible. They found the cheat code to life and never had to learn to control themselves or deal with real consequences or real work. And this is both what ultimately brings down all their schemes and what serves as the protagonist's ultimate punishment. He's forced to be a real person. To grow up.
It's refreshing to see the movie strip down the mythical aspects of the gangster you see in other films and cut to the greed at the heart of it. The desire for each money and easy acclaim. Henry Hill becomes a mobster because ultimately he doesn't wanna be working 9-5 like his father.
Goodfellas is the best movie ever.
Whatever storytelling Scorsese refined in Wolf is lost a bit in the performances and doesn't really have anything as off the cuff memorable as the one take Copacabana entrance (always love watching Liotta bump into the stove halfway thought because that almost made him break character), or Tommy being told to go fuck himself or get his shinebox. And the music chosen is one of the best in cinema history.
They're both great movies, but Goodfellas is just Transcendence and Lucy. Wait, what?
If you haven't seen Casino it's very much the same mold, and another great movie but not as good as Wolf because Sharon Stone is the weakest link and never carries the role like she should, instead making it more all about her and "I'm Sharon Stone I won't be relevant a year after this film" as opposed to a broken woman who truly cares only about money as opposed to love because she doesn't know what it is.
I never found Casino to feel like either Goodfellas or WoWS. And definitely never found it to be anywhere near as good.
I also think WoWS has uniformly excellent performances so I've no idea what you are talking about there.
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Jonah Hill gets a little too silly where he bleeds through the character, especially near the end.
It's a great cast and against any other film would win nine times out of ten. But compared to Goodfellas it's Goodfellas every day.
Jonah Hill gets a little too silly where he bleeds through the character, especially near the end.
It's a great cast and against any other film would win nine times out of ten. But compared to Goodfellas it's Goodfellas every day.
Disagree on both points.
I absolutely disagree and I believe you should go home and get your fucking shine box!
:P
+5
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
This kid, this kid Shryke was great, they used to call him Spitshine Shryke, I swear to God, make your shoes look like fuckin' mirrors (excuse my language)
I don't even understand why you seem to like that scene so much.
The inconsequential bullshitting that leads to violence. The bloodiness of the scene that follows, gripping in its stark portrayal of the mobster life-style.
And when they have killed a made man and potentially forfeit their own lives Tommy apologizing for getting blood on Henry's floor. Cause taking human life means so little to Tommy.
I thought killing Spider was a far more effective scene at achieving those goals.
Killing Spider is a good scene for showing how much of a hair-trigger psycho-path Tommy is. But remember he has Robert DeNiro and Ray Liotta keep Batts there for a couple of hours until Tommy can come back and kill him. Tommy has had time to cool off and think about the consequences of his actions. And he still kills a Made Man.
I saw As Above, So Below and Tusk last night. The former had a few interesting scenes, but otherwise was pretty meh. I started out kind of liking the latter only for my opinion to plummet by the end.
I watched Summer Wars this morning. Sooooooo much better.
Hexmage-PA on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Due to the recent discussion of Seven and the article Astaereth linked to, I rewatched the film to see whether my own impression and recollection of the film were inaccurate and that I simply remembered the film in the way that fit in with the way I interpreted the characters originally, ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
I have to say that I came away with my opinion reinforced. When it comes to Somerset's character, there's too much in the article that I'd consider misinterpretation or misrepresentation. It overstresses certain points while ignoring others, and to my mind its representation of Somerset's character arc is simply incorrect. I stand by my original statement: Somerset is tempted by apathy and resignation in the face of the world he lives in, but his actions make it pretty clear that he hasn't given in yet. He drives the investigation to a large extent. Mills is the more idealistic one, certainly, but if the film wanted to set up Somerset and Mills as protagonist and antagonist, then it does a bad job of doing so. The contrast between the two is played up at the beginning, but over the course of the film they become a team, and that is in no small way due to Somerset *not* giving up. He even asks, just before John Doe is revealed, to be kept on the case so it can be brought to an end.
Some of the ways in which the article IMO misrepresents the film:
The scene where Tracy meets Somerset to tell him about her pregnancy. Somerset's advice to her isn't one of resignation; he says that in a similar situation he pushed his partner to abort, but that he regrets that choice every single day. He ends by telling Tracy that, if she decides to keep the baby, she should shower the kid with love every single day. Are those the words of a man who preaches apathy and resignation?
The pre-credits crime scene: As a case, the scene is clear. There's no crime to be solved. Somerset's "Did the kid see it?" is angrily dismissed by a fellow cop because "Well, who gives a fuck?" It's the world around him, including his fellow cops, that is apathetic to the reality of human suffering.
The early scene where Somerset asks to be taken off the case: His boss mentions that he's left cases unfinished before, and the article brings this up as evidence that Somerset is a quitter. At the very least that's a biased interpretation; Somerset follows up that "Everything else was taken as close to conclusion as humanly possible." The article's reading isn't impossible, but it's skewed towards the case the article wants to make. It's much more likely that the captain mentions this because, as every detective (even in Hollywood movies), Somerset hasn't got a 100% clearance rate. Why should this one bother him?
Mills is actually the first one who says at the end that he wants to take Doe up on his offer. He tells Somerset, "Let's finish it." How does this support a reading where what happens is essentially Somerset's fault?
Somerset's actions as a detective leading up to the end aren't fundamentally different from Mills'. If the film wants to show a contrast between the two and their worldviews, again, it doesn't do so very clearly. The contrast posited by the article making a fundamental difference to their actions is simply not evidenced by the last, oh, hour of the film.
In making Somerset responsible for how the film ends, the article denies Mills' agency, and there's nothing in the film to support this IMO. Yes, I'd agree that Somerset is the protagonist, but other than this one formal feature we don't have any reason to see Somerset more responsible for what happens than his partner. Yes, Somerset could shoot Mills or Doe, but he tries to stop what happens at the end: he just doesn't succeed. There's no indication that he tries to talk Mills out of killing Doe for reasons of resignation or apathy, and there's no indication that Somerset opening or not opening the box would make any difference to what happens. Whatever mistakes Somerset makes, if they come out of apathy there's simply no good, clear evidence that I can see in the film.
Anyway, I've posted two walls of text before, and this is a third one. I'll try to make sure there isn't a fourth one. :P
You've disagreed with some of the article's evidence, but do you disagree with the article's overall conclusions about the point of the ending and the point of the work? Are you saying you'd adjust the article's general points from "Somerset is apathetic; Mills exposes Somerset's philosophy as founded in fear, not intellect; the painful finale demonstrates the folly of Somerset's apathy; Somerset concludes the world is worth fighting for" to "Somerset is tempted by apathy; Mills and Somerset work hard together; the painful finale really sucks for everyone; hooray for John Doe, who won the game; Somerset concludes the world is worth fighting for"?
Ie., the article takes what is commonly looked at as a grim, well-produced but fairly meaningless serial killer thriller and posits a meaningful character and thematic arc to the film as evidenced in the text. Does your disagreement with the evidence lead you to conclude that the movie is just a grim, well-produced but fairly meaningless movie?
Watched the maze runner. it certainly was more entertaining than the giver. i'm actually wondering if they are going to do the second movie. the ending felt a little silly because
how did the angry muscle kid show up in the bunker area? the doors closed to keep the grievers out so how did he follow them?
I recently watched this and Divergent. I thought the Maze Runner was executed better, with better fight choreography, but Divergent was a much more interesting movie. I have no idea what the Maze Runner is about. I don't know if the recording at the end was all lies, part lies, mostly truth, anything. I've got nothing. On the other hand, Divergent had some half assed fight training going on with its young actors, but the stakes were much clearer. As with all these YA books to movies, I find the world being shown to be much more interesting than the people in it. The Maze was a blank slate in that regard.
Divergent was meh. Guess I didn't miss much by not seeing it in the theater. Shailene Wooley was terrible as a soldier in that, she's no Jennifer Lawrence.
Due to the recent discussion of Seven and the article Astaereth linked to, I rewatched the film to see whether my own impression and recollection of the film were inaccurate and that I simply remembered the film in the way that fit in with the way I interpreted the characters originally, ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
I have to say that I came away with my opinion reinforced. When it comes to Somerset's character, there's too much in the article that I'd consider misinterpretation or misrepresentation. It overstresses certain points while ignoring others, and to my mind its representation of Somerset's character arc is simply incorrect. I stand by my original statement: Somerset is tempted by apathy and resignation in the face of the world he lives in, but his actions make it pretty clear that he hasn't given in yet. He drives the investigation to a large extent. Mills is the more idealistic one, certainly, but if the film wanted to set up Somerset and Mills as protagonist and antagonist, then it does a bad job of doing so. The contrast between the two is played up at the beginning, but over the course of the film they become a team, and that is in no small way due to Somerset *not* giving up. He even asks, just before John Doe is revealed, to be kept on the case so it can be brought to an end.
Some of the ways in which the article IMO misrepresents the film:
The scene where Tracy meets Somerset to tell him about her pregnancy. Somerset's advice to her isn't one of resignation; he says that in a similar situation he pushed his partner to abort, but that he regrets that choice every single day. He ends by telling Tracy that, if she decides to keep the baby, she should shower the kid with love every single day. Are those the words of a man who preaches apathy and resignation?
The pre-credits crime scene: As a case, the scene is clear. There's no crime to be solved. Somerset's "Did the kid see it?" is angrily dismissed by a fellow cop because "Well, who gives a fuck?" It's the world around him, including his fellow cops, that is apathetic to the reality of human suffering.
The early scene where Somerset asks to be taken off the case: His boss mentions that he's left cases unfinished before, and the article brings this up as evidence that Somerset is a quitter. At the very least that's a biased interpretation; Somerset follows up that "Everything else was taken as close to conclusion as humanly possible." The article's reading isn't impossible, but it's skewed towards the case the article wants to make. It's much more likely that the captain mentions this because, as every detective (even in Hollywood movies), Somerset hasn't got a 100% clearance rate. Why should this one bother him?
Mills is actually the first one who says at the end that he wants to take Doe up on his offer. He tells Somerset, "Let's finish it." How does this support a reading where what happens is essentially Somerset's fault?
Somerset's actions as a detective leading up to the end aren't fundamentally different from Mills'. If the film wants to show a contrast between the two and their worldviews, again, it doesn't do so very clearly. The contrast posited by the article making a fundamental difference to their actions is simply not evidenced by the last, oh, hour of the film.
In making Somerset responsible for how the film ends, the article denies Mills' agency, and there's nothing in the film to support this IMO. Yes, I'd agree that Somerset is the protagonist, but other than this one formal feature we don't have any reason to see Somerset more responsible for what happens than his partner. Yes, Somerset could shoot Mills or Doe, but he tries to stop what happens at the end: he just doesn't succeed. There's no indication that he tries to talk Mills out of killing Doe for reasons of resignation or apathy, and there's no indication that Somerset opening or not opening the box would make any difference to what happens. Whatever mistakes Somerset makes, if they come out of apathy there's simply no good, clear evidence that I can see in the film.
Anyway, I've posted two walls of text before, and this is a third one. I'll try to make sure there isn't a fourth one. :P
You've disagreed with some of the article's evidence, but do you disagree with the article's overall conclusions about the point of the ending and the point of the work? Are you saying you'd adjust the article's general points from "Somerset is apathetic; Mills exposes Somerset's philosophy as founded in fear, not intellect; the painful finale demonstrates the folly of Somerset's apathy; Somerset concludes the world is worth fighting for" to "Somerset is tempted by apathy; Mills and Somerset work hard together; the painful finale really sucks for everyone; hooray for John Doe, who won the game; Somerset concludes the world is worth fighting for"?
Ie., the article takes what is commonly looked at as a grim, well-produced but fairly meaningless serial killer thriller and posits a meaningful character and thematic arc to the film as evidenced in the text. Does your disagreement with the evidence lead you to conclude that the movie is just a grim, well-produced but fairly meaningless movie?
I think is point is that it doesn't matter what exactly you think the movie is about, the article's evidence does not match what actually happens in the film.
Generally, I would not say Somerset is apathetic nor would I say he is tempted by that. He seems more tempted to just give up.
shryke on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I can't argue his evidence until I find the time to rewatch the movie; I'm just curious how his counterargument connects back to the overall thesis, which IIRC he seemed to mostly agree with earlier.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Saw American Sniper today. Theater was packed full, which surprised me a bit for a Sunday afternoon.
It suffered a bit from the same problem I had with The Hurt Locker, in that a lot of the movie felt like a series of scenes that didn't have much to do with each other aside from them all being in a war zone following a particular soldier.
This one at least does a better job trying to show the man behind the soldier, and at least give him an arc. Part of it comes from Bradley Cooper's performance, as he's simply better at this than Jeremy Renner was.
I'm beginning to wonder if the flimsy narrative structure is more a problem with modern Global War on Terror pictures in general, reflecting the unclear, unfocused nature of the GWoT itself.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I'm beginning to wonder if the flimsy narrative structure is more a problem with modern Global War on Terror pictures in general, reflecting the unclear, unfocused nature of the GWoT itself.
I would imagine this is because the experience in WWII and Vietnam for the military was much more mission-based, in that troops were slowly fighting to gain and hold territory. In Iraq/Afghanistan the military has mostly just been occupying territory and responding to various threats, so that the structure of life on the ground is "Who's trying to blow us up today?" and not "Okay, guys, we're here, and for the next week we're going to try to get over there to the other side of that hill." So that probably lends itself to more episodic narratives based on individual encounters with isolated combatants rather than sustained narratives featuring steps toward a long-term goal.
+5
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Yeah that's pretty much what I was getting at
But better
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I'm beginning to wonder if the flimsy narrative structure is more a problem with modern Global War on Terror pictures in general, reflecting the unclear, unfocused nature of the GWoT itself.
I would imagine this is because the experience in WWII and Vietnam for the military was much more mission-based, in that troops were slowly fighting to gain and hold territory. In Iraq/Afghanistan the military has mostly just been occupying territory and responding to various threats, so that the structure of life on the ground is "Who's trying to blow us up today?" and not "Okay, guys, we're here, and for the next week we're going to try to get over there to the other side of that hill." So that probably lends itself to more episodic narratives based on individual encounters with isolated combatants rather than sustained narratives featuring steps toward a long-term goal.
I think that's sort of the first step, but the rest of it is that built on top of this is no one has yet done a good job I think of stringing that kind of episodic war narrative into a cohesive structure.
Astaereth: My first reaction to the article was that I largely agreed with it, but now I have to revise that: I agree with it taking issue with those who say that Seven is nihilistic, but I think the article itself misrepresents Somerset too much for me to agree with it as a whole. I don't think that there are only the two options you suggest, though: either the article is right or Seven is a well-made but meaningless serial killer flick. There are other kinds of meaning a film can have.
Having said that, I wouldn't say that the film is extremely deep. It has more depth than most serial killer movies, which tend follow a fairly generic whodunnit template, but it also goes for the appearance of intelligence over the actual thing at times, for instance in its use of and references to literature and art, which is pretty flimsy. There's little meaningful to be got out of its mentions of Chaucer and Dante, and while the library sequence is beautifully shot and the nighttime conversation over beer and wine between Somerset and Mills that references the Divine Comedy is both funny and fun, the shoutouts to art and literature are just surface markers of "This is cultured."
Where the film has some depth, though, is in the character dynamics (which don't necessarily resolve themselves in a clear arc, mind you) and parallels, and in how steadfastly the film refuses to follow the conventional template. Most thrillers of this kind follow a rather simplistic morality: the good guy wins, the bad guy is caught (and usually killed, because you need the standard punishment), we the audience have been titillated by serial killer violence but that's okay because in the end we are on the side of the angels and they win out. Seven doesn't do that: the detectives are competent, they do what they can, but the world isn't that simple and it isn't that fair. If the film stopped there, it'd be the Holden Caulfield of serial killer movies, but it goes a bit further. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I would argue that it subscribes to existential humanism. Yes, the world is a bad place, but this doesn't make what people do meaningless - in fact, it's the opposite: because the world isn't inherently good, what we do is the only thing that matters. If Somerset did give up (not because he's reached retirement age but because he feels he's no longer got any fight in him), then John Doe has won, because then it's the sick, sadistic, fundamentalist, hypocritical assholes who claim for themselves that they get up and do something about the state of the world. In that sense, the article is right IMO - this is prompted by Mills, but not in as neatly structured and black-and-white a way as the article puts it, because it twists its evidence too much to fit its hypothesis.
There are other aspects that elevate Seven over the usual serial killer fare, for instance the way Somerset and Doe are set up as mirrored - again, this is something the article discusses, and I agree with some of it. I don't think the film provides all that much evidence that Somerset is fatalistically driven by wanting to see Doe's grand design played out, but the two are paralleled. The library sequence is the light to the intro sequence's darkness, both men talk about the apathy of people seeing evil and doing nothing, but they draw opposite conclusions. Somerset tries to convince himself that there's nothing he can do, that his engagement is meaningless, but in the end he stops wavering: the world is worth fighting for, even if you don't always win, even if people like Tracy and Mills are ground up. Doe is convinced that he is doing the good work, that his crimes are meaningful and didactic, but in the end he's a sadistic, self-righteous narcissist with a library card.
That's how I'd answer your question. I think the film has complexity and meaning, although not necessarily the one posited by the article (I agree with some of the overall statements but disagree on Somerset) and not necessarily as much as it thinks it has or as it wants to have.
Anyway, I said I wouldn't post another wall of text, but here it is, for what it's worth. Next time I'll have to have a cup of coffee before writing one of these.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
So instead of talking about one of the many fantastic films mentioned on this page, I will instead talk about Let's Be Cops.
It was approximately how I expected it to be, if maybe a little more soulless. It feels like someone took the B-plot from an episode of New Girl and handed it to a guy who writes fan fiction. The movie is more our less saved by Johnson's and Wayans' considerable charisma and natural chemistry, which elevate several bits of the movie to genuinely enjoyable, but it always feels as if it's just shy of being really great. The pieces are there, but the script just doesn't know what to do with them.
If "Nick and Coach play around for ninety minutes while saying 'fuck' a lot" sounds like a good time, you'll probably like this movie. But not as much as you should.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Astaereth: My first reaction to the article was that I largely agreed with it, but now I have to revise that: I agree with it taking issue with those who say that Seven is nihilistic, but I think the article itself misrepresents Somerset too much for me to agree with it as a whole. I don't think that there are those two options, though - either the article is right or Seven is a well-made but meaningless serial killer flick. There are other kinds of meaning a filmcan have.
Having said that, I wouldn't say that the film is extremely deep. It has more depth than most serial killer movies, which tend follow a fairly generic whodunnit template, but it also goes for the appearance of intelligence over the actual thing at times, for instance in its use of and references to literature and art, which is pretty flimsy. There's little meaningful to be got out of its mentions of Chaucer and Dante, and while the library sequence is beautifully shot and the nighttime conversation over beer and wine between Somerset and Mills that references the Divine Comedy is both funny and fun, the shoutouts to art and literature are just surface markers of "This is cultured."
Where the film has some depth, though, is in the character dynamics (which don't necessarily resolve themselves in a clear arc, mind you) and parallels, and in how steadfastly the film refuses to follow the conventional template. Most thrillers of this kind follow a rather simplistic morality: the good guy wins, the bad guy is caught (and usually killed, because you need the standard punishment), we the audience have been titillated by serial killer violence but that's okay because in the end we are on the side of the angels and they win out. Seven doesn't do that: the detectives are competent, they do what they can, but the world isn't that simple and it isn't that fair. If the film stopped there, it'd be the Holden Caulfield of serial killer movies, but it goes a bit further. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I would argue that it subscribes to existential humanism. Yes, the world is a bad place, but this doesn't make what people do meaningless - in fact, it's the opposite: because the world isn't inherently good, what we do is the only thing that matters. If Somerset did give up (not because he's reached retirement age but because he feels he's no longer got any fight in him), then John Doe has won, because then it's the sick, sadistic, fundamentalist, hypocritical assholes who claim for themselves that they get up and do something about the state of the world. In that sense, the article is right IMO - this is prompted by Mills, but not in as neatly structured and black-and-white a way as the article puts it, because it twists its evidence too much to fit its hypothesis.
There are other aspects that elevate Seven over the usual serial killer fare, for instance the way Somerset and Doe are set up as mirrored - again, this is something the article discusses, and I agree with some of it. I don't think the film provides all that much evidence that Somerset is fatalistically driven by wanting to see Doe's grand design played out, but the two are paralleled. The library sequence is the light to the intro sequence's darkness, both men talk about the apathy of people seeing evil and doing nothing, but they draw opposite conclusions. Somerset tries to convince himself that there's nothing he can do, that his engagement is meaningless, but in the end he stops wavering: the world is worth fighting for, even if you don't always win, even if people like Tracy and Mills are ground up. Doe is convinced that he is doing the good work, that his crimes are meaningful and didactic, but in the end he's a sadistic, self-righteous narcissist with a library card.
That's how I'd answer your question. I think the film has complexity and meaning, although not necessarily the one posited by the article (I agree with some of the overall statements but disagree on Somerset) and not necessarily as much as it thinks it has or as it wants to have.
Anyway, I said I wouldn't post another wall of text, but here it is, for what it's worth. Next time I'll have to have a cup of coffee before writing one of these.
Your comments here kinda clarify my own. I agree with you, I don't think the film at all supports Somerset is fatalistic or apathetic. I think he feels beaten. And then ultimately his epiphany at the end is that he has to keep fighting. John Doe is essentially the suggested alternative. A man who at the least pretends to high culture and who can't stand to see the degeneracy around him but chooses to solve that problem in a way that is ultimately self-indulgent and narcissistic and psychotic.
I think the article writer confuses Somerset saying the world is shitty and apathetic for Somerset himself being apathetic. Somerset sees and understand the apathy around him but he still cares. He just doesn't think he can do anything. He's not apathetic, he's powerless.
I think at the end he decides he has to fight because the world is worth fighting for. And because the alternative is horror disguised as enlightened salvation.
To some extent Somerset is drawn to numbness and apathy, I'd say. He wishes he could not care, but the only way he can do this is by retiring and going away. (If I remember correctly, there was originally a scene at the beginning where he looks at a remote farmhouse that he wants to move to.) He does say as much to Mills when the two of them have a drink roughly 2/3 into the movie, and Mills does call him out on it.
I would say that the article takes Somerset at his word too readily, and confuses him saying that he sees the attraction in resignation and apathy with him actually being apathetic. I.e. basically what you're saying, shryke, but with the added element that Somerset isn't immune to the lure of not caring, it's just not something he can do without physically removing himself from the situation.
On a different note: I'm slowly, slowly working through my Criterion backlog, and last Friday I watched The Innocents. What a beautifully shot, effectively creepy film, and Deborah Kerr's performance is great: neurotic, repressed, with her caring side slowly twisting into something darker and more troubling. If I remember correctly, she plays a fairly similar character (without the caring side, perhaps) in Black Narcissus. At times the film gets close to going over the top, especially with the kids, but it never crosses the line. Definitely glad I got that one.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I'm beginning to wonder if the flimsy narrative structure is more a problem with modern Global War on Terror pictures in general, reflecting the unclear, unfocused nature of the GWoT itself.
I would imagine this is because the experience in WWII and Vietnam for the military was much more mission-based, in that troops were slowly fighting to gain and hold territory. In Iraq/Afghanistan the military has mostly just been occupying territory and responding to various threats, so that the structure of life on the ground is "Who's trying to blow us up today?" and not "Okay, guys, we're here, and for the next week we're going to try to get over there to the other side of that hill." So that probably lends itself to more episodic narratives based on individual encounters with isolated combatants rather than sustained narratives featuring steps toward a long-term goal.
I think that's sort of the first step, but the rest of it is that built on top of this is no one has yet done a good job I think of stringing that kind of episodic war narrative into a cohesive structure.
Generation Kill was so good... Almost as strong as the best of The Wire IMO, and better than the weakest parts of The Wire. I'm not sure its approach (or any David Simon approach, really) would work for a movie, though.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
+2
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
Last Crusade is my favorite Indiana Jones movie. It has tanks!
It's a funny scene, but it also highlights something I minded about Last Crusade: Sallah pretty much turned into a walking joke, as did Marcus Brody. I preferred it when Indy was surrounded by actual people rather than setups for jokes.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Posts
To be fair they specifically refer to him as Russian and they speak Russian throughout the film. I just took it at face value and assumed it was a Russian accent. It didn't sound like the Swedish guys I know to me!
Steam: adamjnet
I have to say that I came away with my opinion reinforced. When it comes to Somerset's character, there's too much in the article that I'd consider misinterpretation or misrepresentation. It overstresses certain points while ignoring others, and to my mind its representation of Somerset's character arc is simply incorrect. I stand by my original statement: Somerset is tempted by apathy and resignation in the face of the world he lives in, but his actions make it pretty clear that he hasn't given in yet. He drives the investigation to a large extent. Mills is the more idealistic one, certainly, but if the film wanted to set up Somerset and Mills as protagonist and antagonist, then it does a bad job of doing so. The contrast between the two is played up at the beginning, but over the course of the film they become a team, and that is in no small way due to Somerset *not* giving up. He even asks, just before John Doe is revealed, to be kept on the case so it can be brought to an end.
Some of the ways in which the article IMO misrepresents the film:
In making Somerset responsible for how the film ends, the article denies Mills' agency, and there's nothing in the film to support this IMO. Yes, I'd agree that Somerset is the protagonist, but other than this one formal feature we don't have any reason to see Somerset more responsible for what happens than his partner. Yes, Somerset could shoot Mills or Doe, but he tries to stop what happens at the end: he just doesn't succeed. There's no indication that he tries to talk Mills out of killing Doe for reasons of resignation or apathy, and there's no indication that Somerset opening or not opening the box would make any difference to what happens. Whatever mistakes Somerset makes, if they come out of apathy there's simply no good, clear evidence that I can see in the film.
Anyway, I've posted two walls of text before, and this is a third one. I'll try to make sure there isn't a fourth one. :P
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
I recently watched this and Divergent. I thought the Maze Runner was executed better, with better fight choreography, but Divergent was a much more interesting movie. I have no idea what the Maze Runner is about. I don't know if the recording at the end was all lies, part lies, mostly truth, anything. I've got nothing. On the other hand, Divergent had some half assed fight training going on with its young actors, but the stakes were much clearer. As with all these YA books to movies, I find the world being shown to be much more interesting than the people in it. The Maze was a blank slate in that regard.
It was competent enough, but I don't know if I'll be watching the rest of the trilogy (assuming they complete it).
Goodfellas is the best movie ever.
Whatever storytelling Scorsese refined in Wolf is lost a bit in the performances and doesn't really have anything as off the cuff memorable as the one take Copacabana entrance (always love watching Liotta bump into the stove halfway thought because that almost made him break character), or Tommy being told to go fuck himself or get his shinebox. And the music chosen is one of the best in cinema history.
They're both great movies, but Goodfellas is just Transcendence and Lucy. Wait, what?
If you haven't seen Casino it's very much the same mold, and another great movie but not as good as Wolf because Sharon Stone is the weakest link and never carries the role like she should, instead making it more all about her and "I'm Sharon Stone I won't be relevant a year after this film" as opposed to a broken woman who truly cares only about money as opposed to love because she doesn't know what it is.
I never found Casino to feel like either Goodfellas or WoWS. And definitely never found it to be anywhere near as good.
I also think WoWS has uniformly excellent performances so I've no idea what you are talking about there.
It's a great cast and against any other film would win nine times out of ten. But compared to Goodfellas it's Goodfellas every day.
Disagree on both points.
I absolutely disagree and I believe you should go home and get your fucking shine box!
:P
The inconsequential bullshitting that leads to violence. The bloodiness of the scene that follows, gripping in its stark portrayal of the mobster life-style.
And when they have killed a made man and potentially forfeit their own lives Tommy apologizing for getting blood on Henry's floor. Cause taking human life means so little to Tommy.
Killing Spider is a good scene for showing how much of a hair-trigger psycho-path Tommy is. But remember he has Robert DeNiro and Ray Liotta keep Batts there for a couple of hours until Tommy can come back and kill him. Tommy has had time to cool off and think about the consequences of his actions. And he still kills a Made Man.
And killing Batts is a much bloodier scene.
I watched Summer Wars this morning. Sooooooo much better.
You've disagreed with some of the article's evidence, but do you disagree with the article's overall conclusions about the point of the ending and the point of the work? Are you saying you'd adjust the article's general points from "Somerset is apathetic; Mills exposes Somerset's philosophy as founded in fear, not intellect; the painful finale demonstrates the folly of Somerset's apathy; Somerset concludes the world is worth fighting for" to "Somerset is tempted by apathy; Mills and Somerset work hard together; the painful finale really sucks for everyone; hooray for John Doe, who won the game; Somerset concludes the world is worth fighting for"?
Ie., the article takes what is commonly looked at as a grim, well-produced but fairly meaningless serial killer thriller and posits a meaningful character and thematic arc to the film as evidenced in the text. Does your disagreement with the evidence lead you to conclude that the movie is just a grim, well-produced but fairly meaningless movie?
Divergent was meh. Guess I didn't miss much by not seeing it in the theater. Shailene Wooley was terrible as a soldier in that, she's no Jennifer Lawrence.
I think is point is that it doesn't matter what exactly you think the movie is about, the article's evidence does not match what actually happens in the film.
Generally, I would not say Somerset is apathetic nor would I say he is tempted by that. He seems more tempted to just give up.
It suffered a bit from the same problem I had with The Hurt Locker, in that a lot of the movie felt like a series of scenes that didn't have much to do with each other aside from them all being in a war zone following a particular soldier.
This one at least does a better job trying to show the man behind the soldier, and at least give him an arc. Part of it comes from Bradley Cooper's performance, as he's simply better at this than Jeremy Renner was.
I'm beginning to wonder if the flimsy narrative structure is more a problem with modern Global War on Terror pictures in general, reflecting the unclear, unfocused nature of the GWoT itself.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I would imagine this is because the experience in WWII and Vietnam for the military was much more mission-based, in that troops were slowly fighting to gain and hold territory. In Iraq/Afghanistan the military has mostly just been occupying territory and responding to various threats, so that the structure of life on the ground is "Who's trying to blow us up today?" and not "Okay, guys, we're here, and for the next week we're going to try to get over there to the other side of that hill." So that probably lends itself to more episodic narratives based on individual encounters with isolated combatants rather than sustained narratives featuring steps toward a long-term goal.
But better
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I think that's sort of the first step, but the rest of it is that built on top of this is no one has yet done a good job I think of stringing that kind of episodic war narrative into a cohesive structure.
Having said that, I wouldn't say that the film is extremely deep. It has more depth than most serial killer movies, which tend follow a fairly generic whodunnit template, but it also goes for the appearance of intelligence over the actual thing at times, for instance in its use of and references to literature and art, which is pretty flimsy. There's little meaningful to be got out of its mentions of Chaucer and Dante, and while the library sequence is beautifully shot and the nighttime conversation over beer and wine between Somerset and Mills that references the Divine Comedy is both funny and fun, the shoutouts to art and literature are just surface markers of "This is cultured."
Where the film has some depth, though, is in the character dynamics (which don't necessarily resolve themselves in a clear arc, mind you) and parallels, and in how steadfastly the film refuses to follow the conventional template. Most thrillers of this kind follow a rather simplistic morality: the good guy wins, the bad guy is caught (and usually killed, because you need the standard punishment), we the audience have been titillated by serial killer violence but that's okay because in the end we are on the side of the angels and they win out. Seven doesn't do that: the detectives are competent, they do what they can, but the world isn't that simple and it isn't that fair. If the film stopped there, it'd be the Holden Caulfield of serial killer movies, but it goes a bit further. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I would argue that it subscribes to existential humanism. Yes, the world is a bad place, but this doesn't make what people do meaningless - in fact, it's the opposite: because the world isn't inherently good, what we do is the only thing that matters. If Somerset did give up (not because he's reached retirement age but because he feels he's no longer got any fight in him), then John Doe has won, because then it's the sick, sadistic, fundamentalist, hypocritical assholes who claim for themselves that they get up and do something about the state of the world. In that sense, the article is right IMO - this is prompted by Mills, but not in as neatly structured and black-and-white a way as the article puts it, because it twists its evidence too much to fit its hypothesis.
There are other aspects that elevate Seven over the usual serial killer fare, for instance the way Somerset and Doe are set up as mirrored - again, this is something the article discusses, and I agree with some of it. I don't think the film provides all that much evidence that Somerset is fatalistically driven by wanting to see Doe's grand design played out, but the two are paralleled. The library sequence is the light to the intro sequence's darkness, both men talk about the apathy of people seeing evil and doing nothing, but they draw opposite conclusions. Somerset tries to convince himself that there's nothing he can do, that his engagement is meaningless, but in the end he stops wavering: the world is worth fighting for, even if you don't always win, even if people like Tracy and Mills are ground up. Doe is convinced that he is doing the good work, that his crimes are meaningful and didactic, but in the end he's a sadistic, self-righteous narcissist with a library card.
That's how I'd answer your question. I think the film has complexity and meaning, although not necessarily the one posited by the article (I agree with some of the overall statements but disagree on Somerset) and not necessarily as much as it thinks it has or as it wants to have.
Anyway, I said I wouldn't post another wall of text, but here it is, for what it's worth. Next time I'll have to have a cup of coffee before writing one of these.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
It was approximately how I expected it to be, if maybe a little more soulless. It feels like someone took the B-plot from an episode of New Girl and handed it to a guy who writes fan fiction. The movie is more our less saved by Johnson's and Wayans' considerable charisma and natural chemistry, which elevate several bits of the movie to genuinely enjoyable, but it always feels as if it's just shy of being really great. The pieces are there, but the script just doesn't know what to do with them.
If "Nick and Coach play around for ninety minutes while saying 'fuck' a lot" sounds like a good time, you'll probably like this movie. But not as much as you should.
Your comments here kinda clarify my own. I agree with you, I don't think the film at all supports Somerset is fatalistic or apathetic. I think he feels beaten. And then ultimately his epiphany at the end is that he has to keep fighting. John Doe is essentially the suggested alternative. A man who at the least pretends to high culture and who can't stand to see the degeneracy around him but chooses to solve that problem in a way that is ultimately self-indulgent and narcissistic and psychotic.
I think the article writer confuses Somerset saying the world is shitty and apathetic for Somerset himself being apathetic. Somerset sees and understand the apathy around him but he still cares. He just doesn't think he can do anything. He's not apathetic, he's powerless.
I think at the end he decides he has to fight because the world is worth fighting for. And because the alternative is horror disguised as enlightened salvation.
I would say that the article takes Somerset at his word too readily, and confuses him saying that he sees the attraction in resignation and apathy with him actually being apathetic. I.e. basically what you're saying, shryke, but with the added element that Somerset isn't immune to the lure of not caring, it's just not something he can do without physically removing himself from the situation.
On a different note: I'm slowly, slowly working through my Criterion backlog, and last Friday I watched The Innocents. What a beautifully shot, effectively creepy film, and Deborah Kerr's performance is great: neurotic, repressed, with her caring side slowly twisting into something darker and more troubling. If I remember correctly, she plays a fairly similar character (without the caring side, perhaps) in Black Narcissus. At times the film gets close to going over the top, especially with the kids, but it never crosses the line. Definitely glad I got that one.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Generation KIll
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I got camels!
Last Crusade also has one of my favorite lines.
"Dad. We're well out of range."
pleasepaypreacher.net
"The camels are to apologize to my brother for losing his car!"
(Or something to that effect, it's been awhile)
pleasepaypreacher.net
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods