Secret of Kells - the prettiest movie you've never seen

Tam

fucking videogames
I swear to god
ruining the youth

Yukira

I watched it!

This is such a pretty movie and so very well done.

The wife loved it too.

I even put aside video games to watch it.

EidolonOrpheus

Fffffffff
Went to Best Buy to pick it up, closed.
Went to Borders to pick it up, out of stock.
I need this movie...

Yukira

It's on Netflix!

Barcardi

question: they refer to the

snake demon thing as ________? What did they call it again? Also was it basically the ouroboros? What is the mythology behind that? Also is there any mythology behind the wolf girl, or is it just made up?

Yukira

Barcardi wrote: »

question: they refer to the

snake demon thing as ________? What did they call it again? Also was it basically the ouroboros? What is the mythology behind that? Also is there any mythology behind the wolf girl, or is it just made up?

I think the girl was just based off the Irish myths of their ideas of forest spirits.

Goatmon

Barcardi wrote: »

question: they refer to the

snake demon thing as ________? What did they call it again? Also was it basically the ouroboros? What is the mythology behind that? Also is there any mythology behind the wolf girl, or is it just made up?

The creepy snake creature is Crom Cruach.

And Aisling is supposedly one of the Tuatha Dé Danann, or related to them.

101

Ok this film was fantastic.

Beautiful artwork.

Kusuguttai

the animation and art was absolutely stunning in this movie

wish i could say the same for the story, which was basically 'THIS BOOK IS SUPER IMPORTANT!!!' and then no explanation why it was so important at all

EidolonOrpheus

The last half felt kinda rushed compared to the beginning and the mood shift was incredibly abrupt.

Kusuguttai

yeah that's exactly how i felt

the last half had me going 'uhhh whattt'
especially when

the abbot is all 'MAN WISH I WOULD HAVE LET YOU GUYS DRAW THIS BOOK INSTEAD OF BUILDING MY WALL THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED US ALL'

and i was like what

Rohan

Goatmon wrote: »

Barcardi wrote: »

question: they refer to the

snake demon thing as ________? What did they call it again? Also was it basically the ouroboros? What is the mythology behind that? Also is there any mythology behind the wolf girl, or is it just made up?

The creepy snake creature is Crom Cruach.

And Aisling is supposedly one of the Tuatha Dé Danann, or related to them.

Cromm Cruach was a pre-Christian deity in Ireland which human sacrifices were possibly made to. The stone figures seen in the film around his cave were often surrounding the deity, represented as a golden figure, especially at Magh Slécht, or the "plain of prostration" in Co. Cavan. Worship ended when St. Patrick apparently destroyed the golden figure with a hammer.

Aisling is supposed to be a member of the Sídhe, the Irish "spirit race", or a fairy, if you will. More specifically, as has been said, she is one of the Tuatha Dé, the people belonging to one of the mythological divine invasions of Ireland. As they invaded and conquered the Fir Bolg, the Milesians did the same to the Tuatha Dé Danann. It's possible that Cromm Cruach was one of the Milesians, I don't know, but Aisling does say that the god killed her mother, so that is possibly what they're alluding to. Aisling is likely hundreds of years old. There's too much information on the Sídhe to go into here, so have a look yourself online.

The talk of the book being the light that defeats the dark is a reference to the death of worship to the old pagan Gods and the promotion of Christianity and a single God. Everyone knows the story of St. Patrick ridding Ireland of all snakes - the depiction of Cromm as a serpent is a reference to this.

Late, I know... but I love this film. The ending is unfortunately short and yeah, a little jarring because of it, but for me it doesn't detract from the rest of the film.

Mysst

yeah kusu how dumb are you for not knowing your Irish mythology

Tam

that wasn't a reply to him at all though

the book is an illuminated (gorgeously decorated) version of the Gospels
but I thought the point was more "you will not beat tragedy or death, avoid them as best you can and create or participate in something that gives you solace/hope"

the implication being "so you don't live in misery and fear all your life"

Mysst

wait, did you take my post as totally sarcastic?

NotASenator

Holy crap, that's the prettiest movie trailer I've ever seen.

I am buying this right now.

Viscount Islands

Hey I might rent this some time.

The Geek

Oh hey, I missed this thread the first time around.

This looks like a really damn pretty movie.

Mysst

it's on netflix instant!

NotASenator

I don't care, I'm buying three copies.

Druhim

I loved this film and I thought the story worked very well from beginning to end. The story was clearly a very intimate tale focused on Brendan's interest in the book and how it conflicted with the wishes of his uncle. And to characterize his uncle as suddenly saying that he wished he'd let them finish the book instead of building the wall that would save them all misses the obvious fact that

the wall does not save them all. That was the fucking point all along. That Brother Aidan was convinced the wall would only delay the inevitable, but that the book would have lasting significance. And he ended up being right. Abbott Cellach never stopped working on the wall before the Vikings attacked.

And it wouldn't have made sense to spend another half an hour showing Brendon's travels after the abbey was attacked, because that actually would have needlessly sidetracked from the core of the story. They made the right choice to just show him returning after completing the book.

Langly

Kusuguttai wrote: »

the animation and art was absolutely stunning in this movie

wish i could say the same for the story, which was basically 'THIS BOOK IS SUPER IMPORTANT!!!' and then no explanation why it was so important at all

Besides the fact that they explain it in the movie, you're supposed to know why it's important from the beginning, before you even start watching. The Book of Kells is a real book that has huge historical and religious significance. It represents beauty and art and thoughtfulness during a time most refer to as a dark age of man. It's not just a copy of the gospels, it has other texts and also earlier versions of the gospels. It is pretty much the pinnacle of Irish historical artwork. The movie is just a dramatization of the creation of the book, it's not fiction in regards to that part of the story.

The art of illuminating manuscripts is completely crazy and awesome.

Langly

Also I explained that on the second page of this thread.

Langly wrote: »

people going to see this should realize that it isn't a fairy tale, really. It's an imaginative way to tell the story of the origin of the Book of Kells, which is a very important and beautiful book that was made in Ireland. You've seen books like it, or pages from it, whenever you see those old biblical texts that have pictures that frame the page. That's called Illuminating, and it involves details that you would think you would need a microscope to create, but medieval monks created with rudimentary lenses.

for example



That was free handed, possibly by someone with just their naked eye. In the Medieval period.

Druhim

The funny thing is, the beautiful animation of the film actually ties in wonderfully with the whole point of the film being what an amazing work of art the Book of Kells is. To say that makes the story weak seems to really just miss the whole point of the film.

Peter Ebel

Yo, how many tits and robot rapes are in this Anime?

Fugitive

Druhim wrote: »

I loved this film and I thought the story worked very well from beginning to end. The story was clearly a very intimate tale focused on Brendan's interest in the book and how it conflicted with the wishes of his uncle. And to characterize his uncle as suddenly saying that he wished he'd let them finish the book instead of building the wall that would save them all misses the obvious fact that

the wall does not save them all. That was the fucking point all along. That Brother Aidan was convinced the wall would only delay the inevitable, but that the book would have lasting significance. And he ended up being right. Abbott Cellach never stopped working on the wall before the Vikings attacked.

And it wouldn't have made sense to spend another half an hour showing Brendon's travels after the abbey was attacked, because that actually would have needlessly sidetracked from the core of the story. They made the right choice to just show him returning after completing the book.

This is pretty much spot on.

The only part that seemed even remotely vague or confusing was the exact function of the crystal. Other than that the film was excellently crafted.

Langly

He was using it to magnify the paper

Fugitive

That's what I figured originally, but then there was the whole part with

Crom Cruach, and how when Brendan looked at him through the crystal what was formerly a really confusing jumble became suddenly simplified.

So I wasn't sure if it was also some kind of measurement tool or what.

Langly

Yeah I think they were just trying to get across the idea of it providing clarity, more than measurement

EidolonOrpheus

Fugitive wrote: »

Druhim wrote: »

I loved this film and I thought the story worked very well from beginning to end. The story was clearly a very intimate tale focused on Brendan's interest in the book and how it conflicted with the wishes of his uncle. And to characterize his uncle as suddenly saying that he wished he'd let them finish the book instead of building the wall that would save them all misses the obvious fact that

the wall does not save them all. That was the fucking point all along. That Brother Aidan was convinced the wall would only delay the inevitable, but that the book would have lasting significance. And he ended up being right. Abbott Cellach never stopped working on the wall before the Vikings attacked.

And it wouldn't have made sense to spend another half an hour showing Brendon's travels after the abbey was attacked, because that actually would have needlessly sidetracked from the core of the story. They made the right choice to just show him returning after completing the book.

This is pretty much spot on.

The only part that seemed even remotely vague or confusing was the exact function of the crystal. Other than that the film was excellently crafted.

After several viewings, I'm liking the film a whole lot more. I think my initial thoughts I shared in the thread were probably more of a personal/emotional reaction

to the suddenness and brutality of the viking attack and the movie from then on. I don't know. For some reason, after the first few times I watched it, I felt really sad. Sad enough that I didn't want to watch it again even though I thought it was wonderful throughout the movie, although something jarred with my thoughts about it. Maybe something about most the scribes of Kells we see throughout the movie are killed by vikings, Aiden dies, though peacfully, and Cellach is about to die.

Eh, I'm probably just thinking too much of it. I'd recommend it to anyone.

Kusuguttai

Mysst wrote: »

yeah kusu how dumb are you for not knowing your Irish mythology

yeah i know it seems like my problems from the movie stem from not having any prior knowledge to anything going on in it

so uh

sorry for not boning up on irish mythos bros, but having no prior knowledge to the book of kells, i can say that the last half was (to me) rushed and that a lot of the stuff happening was left unexplained.

Langly

The one thing I don't really like about the movie

is that the vikings are never humanized. they're always these invincible unstoppable shadow men. Which works when you're talking about them, but they stayed that way later on too.

Druhim

The funny thing is, I'm not up on my Irish mythos either kusu. The film inspired me to do a little research after the fact. In spite of my very shallow knowledge of Irish mythology, the movie still made sense to me and was internally consistent. Stuff that was left unexplained was stuff that didn't need to be explained or you just weren't paying attention. The viking attack was foreshadowed through the entire film, so if anyone feels that came out of nowhere, they must have been sleeping or talking to friends through the first half.

If you didn't care for the film, if it didn't engage you, fine. A friend of mine doesn't like Midnight Cowboy because she finds it too depressing. Fine, I can dig that. However that's very different from calling Midnight Cowboy bad because it ends on such a down note. That was the whole point of the film.

This movie didn't have a weak story, you just didn't care about it.

GoldenSeducer

One thing I liked about this movie and makes it easy for me to recommend this movie to other people is that it's not a preachy Catholic movie. Yes, it stresses the importance of the book, but it doesn't really tell you that the book is of the New Testament Gospels. I deal with clueless people and the minute they ask me, "What's the Book of Kells" I tell them and they get kinda turned off to the movie. Makes me kinda sad.

Tam

Something I don't quite understand is why

Aisling never directly speaks to Brendan again after he defeats Crom Cruach. Was she a symbol of his innocence? Like, he loses his innocence after his battle and after seeing the brutality of the viking attack and she sort of just goes away (growing up) and catches a glimpse of her when returning (revisiting his childhood).
Anyone with me on this or am I nucking futs here.

edit: also, I'm gobsmacked that they not only reproduced, but animated, some of the illuminations

GoldenSeducer

Tam wrote: »

Something I don't quite understand is why

Aisling never directly speaks to Brendan again after he defeats Crom Cruach. Was she a symbol of his innocence? Like, he loses his innocence after his battle and after seeing the brutality of the viking attack and she sort of just goes away (growing up) and catches a glimpse of her when returning (revisiting his childhood).
Anyone with me on this or am I nucking futs here.

edit: also, I'm gobsmacked that they not only reproduced, but animated, some of the illuminations

I took that portion of the film to be

Aisling becoming horribly mutilated or scarred or just lost her power. Crom Cruach takes everything, so maybe he took her ability to transform into her girl-self, but didn't have a chance to take her life because she dropped the statue before he could.

Kusuguttai

GoldenSeducer wrote: »

One thing I liked about this movie and makes it easy for me to recommend this movie to other people is that it's not a preachy Catholic movie. Yes, it stresses the importance of the book, but it doesn't really tell you that the book is of the New Testament Gospels. I deal with clueless people and the minute they ask me, "What's the Book of Kells" I tell them and they get kinda turned off to the movie. Makes me kinda sad.

That's what I was just saying, and someone was saying that they explain what it is in the movie! They clearly don't, so I was kind of confused as to why it was so important; I also went in thinking this was some sort of irish fairy tale, not realizing it was based (somewhat) on fact, so I was really just like 'man, they should be focusing on that wall not the book! the vikings are coming!"

Kusuguttai

also dru the movie made sense to me too, i never felt like the vikings were out of nowhere (i dunno how any could??)
i just felt like there was this huge importance placed on the book, which was unexplained. I also thought that the last half especially the last bit with aisling was rushed. she never talks to brendan again, and that is completely unexplained. she saves them, but doesn't say goodbye to her friend?

i also never said that the movie was bad–i just don't think its something that I would watch again other than to drool over how pretty it is. it was not my cup of tea, story-wise. it felt like there could have been about 20-30 more minutes, especially considering how short the movie is overall anyway. I understand the overall theme of the movie–the importance of seeing the world firsthand and of imagination over walling yourself off from the world–but i feel like there was this way the brendan/abbot story was going and it kinda just went
'oh brendan went off for like 15 years and finished the book and while that was happening the abbot was filled with regret' in the span of about 3 minutes, and it felt unsatisfying in terms of their relationship.

Druhim

The book is important more for it's amazing art and historical significance than for the gospels it contains, so I don't see how explaining that it was specifically a collection of Catholic scripture helps the story. And I already explained why exploring in more depth what happened after the vikings raid the abbey would have taken the film off target. That wasn't what the film was about. That would have just padded out the film and made it drag instead of keeping it focused.

Kusuguttai

yes, but even in the actual movie, it's only important because of how important it is. they never say 'this is an important historical document', they basically just boil down its significance to 'the art is crazy awesome', which i found to be slightly puzzling and a little off putting in terms of the importance of it in the first place.

also i think there are probably at least a dozen ways to have made the ending more significant and longer without sacrificing the integrity of the film. just because neither of us can think of one doesn't make it true and the end is far from flawless.