Risky Business: Re-Evaluating Cinematic Crushes from Childhood

[thefourthwall]

So Here We Go. Viewing your partner’s faves with dd and 4thwall.

Welcome to what we hope to only be a semester-long endeavor, a thread where thefourthwall and dreamdead (re)visit films that were instrumental in shaping our cinematic experiences. Some of these are childhood favorites and are thus formative films, while others are more recent and are reflective of a more mature and discerning eye. Some of the appeal of this thread is to rewatch films that were foundational to our encounters with film, so that this thread provides us the distance necessary to assess whether they were truly classics or merely good enough to get us to the next level of cinema, while others give us an opportunity to engage with more recent cinema and question why we have such high regard for it.

The hope here is that we rediscover the magic that we once found in these films. A secondary affect of this thread, though, will be, inevitability, of one or both of us coming away quieted by the inadequacy of memory, after we discern the flaws that those more innocent viewings neglected. So, it’s also meant to offer an avenue for us to argue the relative merits for a film that is so much a part of us that we are able to rationalize its suck away. Expect the occasional, seeming lapse of critique in favor of nostalgia.

One thing you’ll find in these respective films is where our respective interests lie: thefourthwall is captivated by narrative whereas dreamdead is more captivated by film aesthetics. Lest things become monotonous, we encourage you all to contribute to both the discussions of these films in particular and share some of your viewing-with-partner memories…
Here is the list of the films we’ll be viewing (we rolled a die and this was the order it gave us):

Week 1 – Terminator 2: Judgment Day (dreamdead)
Week 2 – Swiss Family Robinson (thefourthwall)
Week 3 – A Tale of Winter (dreamdead)
Week 4 – The New World (dreamdead)
Week 5 – Punch Drunk Love (dreamdead)
Week 6 – Requiem for a Dream (dreamdead)
Week 7 – My Night At Maud's (dreamdead)
Week 8 – Magnolia (thefourthwall)
Week 9 – Blow-up (thefourthwall)
Week 10 – Lady and the Tramp (dreamdead)
Week 11 – Strictly Ballroom (thefourthwall)
Week 12 – Cinema Paradiso (thefourthwall)
Week 13 – The Son (dreamdead)
Week 14 – Much Ado About Nothing (thefourthwall)
Week 15 – 8 ½ (thefourthwall)
Week 16 – Titus (the fourthwall)
Week 17 – Groundhog Day (dreamdead)
Week 18 – A Streetcar Named Desire (thefourthwall)

[thefourthwall]

First reviews should be up within a week.

[Ezee E]

should be a good thread. look forward to it.

[Morris Schæffer]

Cool! Swiss Family Robinson is an absolute fave of mine and it really has held up remarkably well. One of the great adventure flicks if you ask me.

[Ivan Drago]

Looking forward to it!

[dreamdead]

http://upload.moldova.org/movie/movies/t/terminator_2_judgment_day/thumbnails/tn2_terminator_2_2.jpg
Memory be damned. This image is freakin' awesome. It has the Arnold sneer and everything.

----

Back in ’92, when I was ten, my dad exposed me to James Cameron’s Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). Needless to say, the pure adrenaline rush there was all that I remembered. Constant chases, incredible visual effects, and the thrill of watching Arnold. All glorious childhood memories. Well, except for the Sarah Connor dream sequence, which sufficiently warped my fragile little mind. And still sends me into memories of that nightmare. :|

Now, however, with this recent rewatch, my opinion has to be revised. The incessant drone of the film’s orchestral theme is still as tense and menacing as ever, and Linda Hamilton makes for, along with Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley, one of the strongest female leads in Hollywood cinema. However, there are several flaws that have become more apparent with age and, fingers crossed, wisdom. Though Cameron throws in everything with action sequences, it can become monotonous to watch another vehicle chase sequence between the Terminator, John and the T-1000. Even as Cameron ratchets up the stakes with each sequence, incredulity replaces awe.

And the film doesn’t flow nearly as well as it used to. Most of the John Connor/Terminator interactions come off as too cutesy. Far from being a negligible detail, these scenes mute the film’s oppressive vision of the future; while I grant that the film should explore the idea of John seeing the Terminator as his own private toy, as that would be the reaction at first, Cameron’s execution deflates the tension at odd and incongruent moments for bad one-liners, and in turn makes the film’s futuristic vision facile. Were Cameron to have restricted himself to just Sarah, the Terminator, and the T-1000, it’d be a film that is consistently thrilling and threatening; John displaces those anxieties and replaces them with familiarity, which simply destroys Cameron’s efforts at forming suspense.

Additionally, Cameron engages in a double-edged sword with racial stereotypes. In choosing to make Cyberdyne’s Miles Dyson an African-American, Cameron initially runs the risk of turning the enemy into a cultural Other (rather than the symbolic Other that had been showcased throughout all of the first film with machine as Other). However, in Dyson’s restoration as a hero, he becomes little more than the minority voice sacrificing himself for the Eurocentric Connors. It’s a no-win gamble, and it damages the overall thematic of Cameron’s film.

End result: it’s a film that has shrunk in esteem since that two-hour ride of shock and wonder. It’s still satisfactory for watching things explode, and the technical efforts remain remarkably current, but tonally and thematically its holes have been magnified.

I’d probably hand the film a 68/100 now…

[megladon8]

Wait wait wait...thefourthwall and dreamdead are an item?

[thefourthwall]

Wait wait wait...thefourthwall and dreamdead are an item?

:lol: http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=16&page=10

As in many things, my other half is ahead of me...my thoughts won't be ready for another day or two.

:pritch:

EDIT: http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=82587&postcount=267 hmm...were you joking with your question? I'm rather bad at reading internet sarcasm...

[megladon8]

EDIT: http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=82587&postcount=267 hmm...were you joking with your question? I'm rather bad at reading internet sarcasm...


Nah, I was being sincere. I honestly forgot.

Damn MatchCut. This whole place is like a damn soap opera!!

[NickGlass]

It's time to announce that me and another Matchcut poster are an item.

[Watashi]

It's time to announce that me and another Matchcut poster are an item.
Dude... not now. I thought we'd wait a while.

[NickGlass]

I take back my comment. It's time to announce that me and a few Matchcut posters are items.

[thefourthwall]

It's time to announce that me and another Matchcut poster are an item.

For real? Announce away...

[thefourthwall]

Terminator 2

Growing up in a fairly conservative household, I was held to law’s ratings (aka, I wasn’t allowed to watch R movies until I was 17), and since I came of age, I haven’t gone back and watched everything I missed. I’d never seen any of the Terminator films until the past couple of months, so I was glad that this project gave me a chance to see them. Although 2 is the one we’re discussing, I hate hate hate watching narratives without the full background.

I thought the role/character reversals were well done. Unfortunately, enough interaction with pop culture clued me into the fact that Arnold was not the bad guy. I can only imagine going to see it in the theaters, only knowing the first film, and then having to learn to believe and trust the first villain. I’m sure if I had seen it then, I would have freaked out in the theater when the Terminator is revealed as good. Along with this then is the costuming of the T-1000 as a police officer. By placing the film’s true antagonist in the role of protector, the film displays mistrust for local authorities in an interesting way, suggesting we ought to be wary of cops.

Linda Hamilton as so masculine; it’s a bit much for me. I’m all for strong female leads, and I found the lack of a love interest refreshing, but I don’t think this should come at the cost of de-feminizing women.

Remarkably many of the special effects hold up, so the film hasn’t aged quite as much as the first one has. While I know that parts of it traumatized dreamdead as a child, and I’m glad to have seen it for that, it was too cheesy for me to have much tension from the action.

http://home.att.net/~psychofarmer0/terminator2thumbsup.jpg

[Mysterious Dude]

I feel quite confident that most of the affection people seem to have for Terminator 2 is due to nostalgia.

[Ezee E]

I feel quite confident that most of the affection people seem to have for Terminator 2 is due to nostalgia.
I've seen it recently. It's not true in my case. It still has amazing action sequences, and I love the entire segment in the hospital.

[NickGlass]

For real? Announce away...

I apologize. I thought the joke was apparent.

[thefourthwall]

I apologize. I thought the joke was apparent.

No worries...



I'm rather bad at reading internet sarcasm...

All of a sudden I had twinges of worry and guilt--what if you really were trying to say something meaningful and we had all just ignored you? Better to ask than to risk that.

[Morris Schæffer]

I feel quite confident that most of the affection people seem to have for Terminator 2 is due to nostalgia.

That's nonsense. It's one of the greatest of all action movies.

[megladon8]

That's nonsense. It's one of the greatest of all action movies.


Seconded.

[Mysterious Dude]

That's nonsense. It's one of the greatest of all action movies.
What about all the grating non-action scenes?

[Morris Schæffer]

What about all the grating non-action scenes?

Assuming this is true, there are many of these scenes according to you? I can't help but think that your line of reasoning is fueled by the simple fact that T2 features a child bonding with a "parent," in this case a Terminator and that whiny Furlong is more persuasive when seen through the eyes of a young person. Well, I'm 32 years old and really still dig the kid and how Cameron expanded the universe beyond the leanness and merciless nature of the original. T2 is still plenty relentless and brutal and I never equated its quieter scenes with redundant fat.

[dreamdead]

I feel quite confident that most of the affection people seem to have for Terminator 2 is due to nostalgia.

This was likely how I responded so positively to it, yes, but it's a staple on cable TV and I've caught sections of it, edited, naturally, on TV several times. What changed from this viewing is that most of the hokier bits feel in tune with a cut of the film that includes commercials. It's natural to allow for respite from the futuristic apocalypse in this environment. However, when the film is isolated unto itself and watched straight through, the one-liners and other moments of levity feel less in tune with the characters and more a part of a childish wish-fulfillment that the first film never contained. And this wish-fulfillment, while some might feel is a natural extension of Cameron's world, restricts too much of the film's more natural isolated and austere sensibilities into a lesser and more friendly version of the future.

Also, Guns 'n' Roses, people. It kills the film.


Terminator 2
Linda Hamilton as so masculine; it’s a bit much for me. I’m all for strong female leads, and I found the lack of a love interest refreshing, but I don’t think this should come at the cost of de-feminizing women.


I think the film doesn't de-feminize Hamilton so much as it replaces one type of softer femininity for a more hard-edged femininity. The attire that she's dressed in (white t-shirt in the beginning, faux-military get-up later) still accentuates her appearance and focuses our attention on her musculature, yes, but also allows for a renewed consideration of her body. So it's a different type of sexuality being offered here, but I don't think it's devoid of sexuality.


Assuming this is true, there are many of these scenes according to you? I can't help but think that your line of reasoning is fueled by the simple fact that T2 features a child bonding with a "parent," in this case a Terminator and that whiny Furlong is more persuasive when seen through the eyes of a young person. Well, I'm 32 years old and really still dig the kid and how Cameron expanded the universe beyond the leanness and merciless nature of the original. T2 is still plenty relentless and brutal and I never equated its quieter scenes with redundant fat.

It depends on what you equate with quieter scenes. Those that contained Furlong and Arnold only, or when Furlong had to bark orders at Arnold, don't entirely work with the tonal aspects that Cameron has built himself into. Those between Furlong and Hamilton are more respectable, and allow for a better sense of character. The fact that Furlong's whiny isn't the problem; the fact that Cameron doesn't always depict him as knowingly whiny is closer to the root of the problem.

Additionally, there might be something to your identifying the original film as lean and merciless. I don't think Cameron works nearly as well with sentimentality as he does with harder-edged material.

[Melville]

I think the film doesn't de-feminize Hamilton so much as it replaces one type of softer femininity for a more hard-edged femininity. The attire that she's dressed in (white t-shirt in the beginning, faux-military get-up later) still accentuates her appearance and focuses our attention on her musculature, yes, but also allows for a renewed consideration of her body. So it's a different type of sexuality being offered here, but I don't think it's devoid of sexuality.
Also, a dominant aspect of her character is her motherhood. She actually seemed like a very womanly character to me--feminine but not effeminate.

[thefourthwall]

Also, a dominant aspect of her character is her motherhood. She actually seemed like a very womanly character to me--feminine but not effeminate.

While the back story may include some of this, the film itself shows very little of her parenting. Indeed, it's more about the Terminator as father than her as mother. When she's in the institution, she is doing everything possible to get back to her son, but once she's reunited, she so bent on changing fate/the future that she very selfishly abandons him to his new 'parent'. I don't see her being much of a mother.

[Melville]

While the back story may include some of this, the film itself shows very little of her parenting. Indeed, it's more about the Terminator as father than her as mother. When she's in the institution, she is doing everything possible to get back to her son, but once she's reunited, she so bent on changing fate/the future that she very selfishly abandons him to his new 'parent'. I don't see her being much of a mother.
Maybe she's not a very good mother, but the way she behaves (authoritative but protective, focused on her son's role in life, etc.) seems largely characterized by her motherhood. And she's the one who muses about the Terminator being a father figure; she's the one who thinks of the relationship in terms of parenthood. Also, the fact that Furlong sees her as mother, and the fact that the character dynamic of the film is largely based on their mother-(teenage) son relationship, casts all her actions in the light of her motherly role.

[thefourthwall]

Maybe she's not a very good mother,

I'm not sure I've completely thought through this (talking about essentials in regards to gender is very complicated, and one must tread carefully), but it seems to me that some of her failings as a mother come from her taking on masculine rather than feminine roles. Going off to kill the bad guy, while the machine built for killing stays home to nurture the child? That seems like an unnatural role reversal. (But maybe I'm being too traditional/literal--my brother is a stay-at-home dad, and I certainly think that's what's best for his family.)


And she's the one who muses about the Terminator being a father figure; she's the one who thinks of the relationship in terms of parenthood.

Which to me seems her eschewing her role--but maybe she's just tired of being a single parent and is relieved when she has some help--someone to offer her son what she can't--a father figure. In which case, her allowing the Terminator to take that role--which she was trying to play, resulting in her engendering more traditionally masculine characteristics--is her attempt to return to the role of mother only, and she just doesn't know how to do that well yet.

...hmm...I appear to have talked myself into your viewpoint in this last part...

[Melville]

That seems like an unnatural role reversal. (But maybe I'm being too traditional/literal--my brother is a stay-at-home dad, and I certainly think that's what's best for his family.)
I thought the film fit in nicely with the whole nineties PC attitude precisely because of this. Maybe it's because I was just a bit younger than Furlong when I first saw the movie and I was raised by a single mother who was very into fitness training at the time.


...hmm...I appear to have talked myself into your viewpoint in this last part...
Excellent.:)

[dreamdead]

http://www.hollywoodteenmovies.com/SwissFamilyPic.jpg

Ken Annakin’s Swiss Family Robinson (1960) is a challenge for me to write about. I have no memory of it as a child, though I surely watched it back then, so my viewing with 4thwall for this project is the first conscious take on it. It’s not an especially positive take, either. Filmed with the sort of directorial anonymity that one expects from a Disney Family production, and full of sanitized takes on burgeoning sexuality and differences of individuality, this is the sort of film that celebrates a cohesive though realistically improbable family unit. As such, it works better as a family fable rather than anything resembling realism.

Unfortunately, even under the artifice of a fable, problems emerge. There are never hard decisions to be made, as even the threat of abandoning a pack of dogs on the Robinson’s shipwrecked boat ends by having the dogs paddle behind the Robinson’s emergency boat. In essence, loss is always avoided. Even under the auspices of a fable, loss needs to occur, and not the manufactured kind where Fritz and Ernst, the eldest two sons, seem to disappear. The kindhearted could contend that this loss is avoided because the Robinson’s are so industrious, but the industriousness extends beyond levels of credibility (see their “makeshift” house for but one example). Moreover, this story sets up an unavoidable parallelism, despite or perhaps because of its attempts to be as Disney and family friendly as possible. Anyone who is European is seen as good, industrious, and loyal, while anyone who is Indo-Asian is a pirate, thoroughly corrupt, and a marauder.

Other undertones become comical rather than threatening. Freudian moments, filmed with a seemingly unknowing eye toward symbolism, allow for a more humorous adult perspective, as when Ernst and Fritz exhibit latent attraction to Roberta and then must wrestle with an anaconda in the swamp. These moments, where they try to grab hold of the snake’s head and cut it off, become glaringly and numbingly painful symbolic moments. For myself, I set forth giggling madly; it’s a film that never acknowledges the non-Disneyified sexuality that is so apparent in this film. If I felt this film were conscious of the symbolism implicit in the snake, though, I would have a bit more empathy for the film’s handling of levels of sexuality.

Further, the portrayal of Roberta is demeaning toward younger women. Though both Ernst and Fritz express their attraction to Roberta, Roberta leads them both on, continuously flirting with both and endangering the brother’s friendship instead of just admitting her fascination with the older Fritz. Indeed, in a Disney family film can a younger brother even get the girl when the older brother is also single? It seems like a Disney code, regardless of how the source text handled the storyline. Roberta ends up being portrayed as an emotional creature who cannot trust herself to make a decision. And here I don’t mean to suggest that women can’t be seen as a bit flighty in their handling of men, but rather that the film then needs to be critical of her inability to decide.

So with all of these issues am I suggesting that the film is a failure? Not really. Annakin and his team handle the larger context between Fritz and Ernst with interesting results, letting character dynamics shift naturally as each, though admittedly archetypically, reveals his separate characteristics of individuality. It’s a nice moment when they’re alone, and minus Roberta. Additionally, almost all of Father and Mother Robinson's scenes work in even a realistic context of the film. When the film stays with the parents instead of heading toward the younger children’s adventures, it’s a remarkably studied take on the responsibilities of parenthood. And on those merits I rather think it one of the better Disney live action films from this era.

So end result: the youngest son, Francis, is grating. Embarrassingly so. But when he’s not on the screen and the film is content to examine the psychologies of the parents and two older brothers, it’s quite engaging. Only when the film settles into their adventures does it become more difficult, as it’s then that the avoided loss disavows any sense of threat. And I am rather interested in how Disney as a corporate entity handled Tommy Kirk’s (Ernst) closeted homosexuality, namely by killing his contract three years later, which adds surely unintended dimensions to how I perceive Ernst as a character, and likely makes him the most engaging character in this film. Either way, it’s an enjoyable film, though not without some intentional (and some unintentional) flaws.

[monolith94]

I know it's a cliche, but the book really is better. At least, I remember it as being very engaging, from back when I read it years ago.

[Morris Schæffer]

Hm. That's a lot of analysis for a Disney adventure movie. I happen to think it's one of the finest adventure movies. In many ways it might be the ultimate escapist movie and although the Robinson family encounter their share of problems, the existence they eke out is sheer wonder and bliss.

Yeah, this movie is one of the most blissfull ever.

[thefourthwall]

Swiss Family Robinson (aka, “dreamdead doesn’t yet realize that I fully expect him to build me a tree house to live in just like this one day”)

I was worried that this film wouldn’t stand up to a recent more critical viewing with my guy; I’ve had failure in the past with films like Brotherhood of the Wolf and Big Trouble in Little China. But despite the minor distractions that came from dd’s giggling as Fritz and Ernst wrestled with a snake or whining whenever Francis was on screen, I was well pleased with how solid of a film this still is.

Rather than feeling detached and cosmopolitan-ly judgmental about it, the film was still able to suck me into the high adventure and wonder of being shipwrecked. I loved the inventive resourcefulness of the family that came from each of the members. Each of them made significant contributions that lead to the success of the family as a whole: the father’s leadership, the mother’s inspiration, Fritz’s brave responsibility, Ernest’s cleverness, Francis’s menagerie. Despite age, gender, or strength, everyone was necessary for the family to survive. The strength of the family was enough that it would be able to stand against anything because of their love, acceptance, and faith in each other and their creator.

While it potentially exoticizes the local and culture in the South Seas, the film ultimately leads one to yearn and strive for the unknown and the hope and adventure to be found, rather than teaching it’s audience to fear and stay in their comfort zone. The idea of exploring a new landscape and creating a new society based on one’s own principles and values is exciting. And if that landscape is a virtual paradise filled with cool, trainable animals and that society is your committed family unit, all the better.

While I'm not sure, I'd call it escapist, this film instilled in me some of the magic of anywhereness that film provides, that can transport a viewer to another place and time. (Which sounds a lot like escapism, but I don't think SFR encourages the eschewing of reality and responsibility, which I think escapist films may.) The film primed me with the courage to imagine that no matter how unfamiliar and terrifying changes are in my world, they can be met boldly.

[Spinal]

I thought the role/character reversals were well done. Unfortunately, enough interaction with pop culture clued me into the fact that Arnold was not the bad guy. I can only imagine going to see it in the theaters, only knowing the first film, and then having to learn to believe and trust the first villain. I’m sure if I had seen it then, I would have freaked out in the theater when the Terminator is revealed as good.

I seem to remember that the marketing itself had spoiled this. I don't recall being surprised by it at all.

Also, this thread needs a catchier title. :)

[thefourthwall]

Also, this thread needs a catchier title. :)

Such as? I'm open to suggestions (and would need direction as to how to change it...)

Edit: Suggestions from anyone.

[dreamdead]

Hm. That's a lot of analysis for a Disney adventure movie. I happen to think it's one of the finest adventure movies. In many ways it might be the ultimate escapist movie and although the Robinson family encounter their share of problems, the existence they eke out is sheer wonder and bliss.


I side with 4thwall here. It might have elements of escapism, but that shouldn't prevent it from being worth an exhaustive study. I think much of the film intends to extend out a moralistic message, so it should be examined for what and how it exhibits those qualities.


Swiss Family Robinson (aka, “dreamdead doesn’t yet realize that I fully expect him to build me a tree house to live in just like this one day”)


Oh. Hmm. I wonder if there's a Building an Immaculate Treehouse for Dummies book out yet. :P



I was worried that this film wouldn’t stand up to a recent more critical viewing with my guy; I’ve had failure in the past with films like Brotherhood of the Wolf and Big Trouble in Little China. But despite the minor distractions that came from dd’s giggling as Fritz and Ernst wrestled with a snake or whining whenever Francis was on screen, I was well pleased with how solid of a film this still is.

For my part, I think that this film does offer more substance for the viewer than either of those other two films.



Rather than feeling detached and cosmopolitan-ly judgmental about it, the film was still able to suck me into the high adventure and wonder of being shipwrecked. I loved the inventive resourcefulness of the family that came from each of the members. Each of them made significant contributions that lead to the success of the family as a whole: the father’s leadership, the mother’s inspiration, Fritz’s brave responsibility, Ernest’s cleverness, Francis’s menagerie. Despite age, gender, or strength, everyone was necessary for the family to survive. The strength of the family was enough that it would be able to stand against anything because of their love, acceptance, and faith in each other and their creator.

I don't doubt the resourcefulness. In fact, I rather like the simplicity with which they live, even if they build an extravagant treehouse in which they can live in.

What I doubt is the extent to which the family ends up in a virtual paradise after their endeavors. Again, this goes back to the idea of no sustained sense of loss, which is likely more a part of Disney's adaptation than the source material itself. There's a moment here where the mother worries over the fact that neither Fritz nor Ernst will be able to get married or experience the wonder of a marital union so long as they're stranded. This kind of moment opens up a level of humanity that reveals the depths of loneliness that they could know. However, rather than dwell on or expand that sentiment, the narrative introduces Roberta. And she only solves that sentiment for Fritz, so naturally I'm curious about how the film would continue to examine Ernst's desire for a wife.



While it potentially exoticizes the local and culture in the South Seas, the film ultimately leads one to yearn and strive for the unknown and the hope and adventure to be found, rather than teaching it’s audience to fear and stay in their comfort zone.

Right, but that striving for the unknown is always tempered here by the immutable sense that South Seas culture is to be feared, that it's repulsive, and basically evil. It's only be instilling European order that the island can be bettered. So on that level I read it as pacifying the audience, as teaching the audience that they should be afraid of those elements.


The idea of exploring a new landscape and creating a new society based on one’s own principles and values is exciting. And if that landscape is a virtual paradise filled with cool, trainable animals and that society is your committed family unit, all the better.

I agree with all of this. Though I can't shake the feeling that Francis still is annoying as all get out.


While I'm not sure, I'd call it escapist, this film instilled in me some of the magic of anywhereness that film provides, that can transport a viewer to another place and time. (Which sounds a lot like escapism, but I don't think SFR encourages the eschewing of reality and responsibility, which I think escapist films may.) The film primed me with the courage to imagine that no matter how unfamiliar and terrifying changes are in my world, they can be met boldly.

And I agree with all of this. :pritch:

I seem to remember that the marketing itself had spoiled this. I don't recall being surprised by it at all.


I had watched some of T2's extras last year and Cameron and Arnold talked about how they were particular about what production stills were released to the public, so that only those where Arnold was filmed in a threatening pose with John/Sarah Connor were published.

So it might not have been a surprise in the trailer, but if one only had access to stills, then it would have been a surprise. I should have clarified this point with 4thwall when we were chatting about the music cues and design prior to the film's "reveal" of the Terminator-as-good.

[thefourthwall]

I really don't buy the lack of loss. They were on an island with nothing but themselves and what they managed to salvage from a wrecked ship, which they had to carry on a raft they built themselves. Maybe because they were packing up their lives to move to a new colony anyways that they didn't seem to moan, complain, or comment on their loss as much. Just because the family didn't respond negatively to loss or absence doesn't mean it wasn't there.

[monolith94]

I'll buy the lack of loss. They had frikkin' water slides!

[transmogrifier]

Also, Guns 'n' Roses, people. It kills the film.



You need to have your license to comment on pop culture revoked. Guns N Roses elevates everything by its presence. This is Pop Culture Appreciation 101. I can't wait for GnR to be ironically re-embraced by disaffected hipsters.

[transmogrifier]

Such as? I'm open to suggestions (and would need direction as to how to change it...)

Edit: Suggestions from anyone.

1. Threesome! thefourthwall, dreamdead and movie X get down and dirrrty.
2. thefourthwall and dreamdead raped my childhood: reviews and comments
3. Risky Business: re-evaluating childhood crushes

[dreamdead]

Mods, can we get this thread changed to trans's title--Risky Business: re-evaluating childhood crushes of film.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2029/2350546557_a08dab15ed.jpg?v=0

Eric Rohmer’s A Tale of Winter (1992) suffers from an ungodly VHS transfer from New Yorker Video that saps much of the film’s richness of color, such that the locale more frequently looks like a washed-out 1980’s Poland than the beauty of ‘90’s France. Nonetheless, the warmth of Rohmer’s vision and philosophic care for complexity situates the film as, to my eyes, a verifiable masterpiece detailing faith and love’s ultimate conviction. Naturally, this conviction is played out against other romantic possibilities, allowing for a dialectic concerning love.

With Felicie (Charlotte Véry) constantly yearning to be reunited with her lover Charles, and father to her daughter, after they were separated without securing the necessary contact information, she has nevertheless moved on to other figures of physical if not emotional security. Yet she prizes herself on recognizing the differences between security and love, and if she frequently reveals a change of heart, it is a change that is accounted for and rationalized, even as Rohmer offers her flitting personality up for critique. For Felicie, despite her fundamental faith in love, does transgress on Loïc, one of her suitors, almost to the point of emotional abuse. Yet Rohmer grounds just enough of a mutuality in their scenes that the security doesn’t become one-sided, and he uses their relationship to develop out the most specifically philosophical dimensions, where spirituality, faith, and prayer are offered up with the Christian Rohmer’s utmost conviction.

Naturally, the idea of miracles occurring and securing Felicie’s prayer become the backdrop from which Rohmer hangs his hat thematically here, but he makes sure that the film scatters in literary references to miracles (or repudiations thereof) as well, so that there’s a host of sources from Shakespeare’s A Winter’s Tale to Pascal that speak to and/or testify to these ideas. As the film builds, Felicie begins to articulate more and more what she needs from life, and as it is presented to her, we gather that even those who actually lose out by the miracle’s occurrence, such as Loïc, have been granted enough agency to appreciate the depths of the occurrence in addition to themselves having asked for that same miracle (if indeed they have).

This is the film that I had most recently seen prior to gathering together the nine films that I feel most represent my cinematic viewing experience. As such, it’s the least in need of reappraisal, but having watched the film under these newer circumstances, where it’s watched in the company of those I love, the film’s power and message resonated all the more. Though I still privilege My Night at Maud’s and perhaps Summer/The Green Ray over A Tale of Winter, that speaks more to Rohmer’s immeasurable talents than any deficiency in this work. Still a favorite, and the first film here of mine that emphatically holds up.

[transmogrifier]

I think if you want the idea of film in the title, it should be

Risky Business: Re-Evaluating Cinematic Crushes from Childhood

Reads better without that pesky "of" preposition and...alliteration!

[thefourthwall]

Considering that it’s Rohmer week, I figured that now would be an appropriate time for me to revive this thread with my comments on A Tale of Winter. Because I am attempting my write up weeks after my viewing, I’m afraid they won’t be as extensive as dreamdead’s.

This film had all of the things that I love about Rohmer—talkiness, parallelism (I loved the play within the film), inevitability, acknowledgment of the spiritual aspect of life. It’s a testimony to how good Rohmer is that the film is so compelling despite it’s protagonist. I really didn’t like her. The majority of my critique comes from my extreme difference in personality from her. While some of her behavior may be normal or acceptable, I found it to be largely indicative of a fickle and manipulative personality. Interestingly though, Rohmer doesn’t necessarily condone her actions, and the film walks a fine line between celebrating and critiquing her life.

Another winning point for A Tale of Winter is the fact that dreamdead and I were able to spend a significant amount of time discussing it after it ended, and that that conversation extended for days after. A film with such staying power in the forefront of my consciousness is definitely worthwhile.

Up next: The New “not as bad as I anticipated” World!

[dreamdead]

This film had all of the things that I love about Rohmer—talkiness, parallelism (I loved the play within the film), inevitability, acknowledgment of the spiritual aspect of life. It’s a testimony to how good Rohmer is that the film is so compelling despite it’s protagonist. I really didn’t like her. The majority of my critique comes from my extreme difference in personality from her. While some of her behavior may be normal or acceptable, I found it to be largely indicative of a fickle and manipulative personality. Interestingly though, Rohmer doesn’t necessarily condone her actions, and the film walks a fine line between celebrating and critiquing her life.

I think one of the biggest problems people have with Rohmer is they're unsure whether or not he's vindicating or villifying his characters's actions, so the charge for or against these bourgeois couplings become harder to argue for. Here with Felicie she's given so much attention that it seems as though Rohmer condones her actions, yet instead I would contend that he's merely offering her a grace that she's neglected in her past (whether via the accidental address change or the habitual shacking up with various men). So even if she is manipulative, and I think Rohmer indicates that she clearly is with Loic, is that sense alone enough to justify mistreating her in the form of a transcendent grace? Here, due to the parallelism bestowed from Shakespeare the idea is clearly no, but what's fascinating is also how heavily Rohmer places a transcendent value on art. It is art, as well as love/faith, that are potentials for transcendence. I like the focus on humanity here, and the small incidentals that Felicie does with her daughter, even if they initially lead to more manipulation...


Up next: The New “not as bad as I anticipated” World!

Alright, who here has instilled in her the idea that Malick is boring and drawn-out? :|