What Movies are you Watching?

[Kkun]

I tend to find people either really like V for Vendetta or they really don't like it. What is it in particular that you don't like about it? If you "don't know how they got away with" making the film, who do you propose should have prevented its production, and by what means?

Alan Moore, with a chainsaw, twenty gallons of gasoline and the unholy blood of Glycon, the Roman snake god he worships.

[GhostontheNet]

Alan Moore, with a chainsaw, twenty gallons of gasoline and the unholy blood of Glycon, the Roman snake god he worships.

Wow, so it was a slasher flick and a Hammer horror film at the same time?

[Kkun]

Wow, so it was a slasher flick and a Hammer horror film at the same time?

Naw, man, you asked who should have prevented V for Vendetta's production and by what means...and that's what I gave you. Fish might have a different answer, but I think mine is better than whatever he comes up with.

[Fish and Chips]

I tend to find people either really like V for Vendetta or they really don't like it. What is it in particular that you don't like about it? If you "don't know how they got away with" making the film, who do you propose should have prevented its production, and by what means?

V appears before a studio audience to criticize them for creating their own situation. They were scared, they didn't know who to turn to, so they turned to Sutler because he promised them protection, and the only cost was their silent blind obediance to his plan. That sounds pretty terrible. Sheep in a dangerous situation, just doing what they're told because their told, no word of protest. It paints a vivid image of conformity. Good thing they know now so they'll never do that again.



Nothing has changed.

[GhostontheNet]

Nothing has changed.

The way I take the final scene is that it is an expressionistic visual intended to show the viewer a factor normally unseen: the effect of an archetype on the collective unconscious as worked out in society. Here the V hero archetype has fundamentally changed the outlook and direction of the society, an apt commentary on the meaning, intent, and impact of the film. In support of this interpretation, the savvy viewer will note that among the faces of those who remove their masks are people who were previously executed by the state, effectively highlighting the symbolic nature of the image. V for Vendetta is, after all, a movie about the power of ideas, and while all the authorities that can compel the military to fire upon unarmed civilians are assassinated before they can give the order, it is ultimately nonviolent resistance that wins the day.

[Htom Sirveaux]

House of Wax. The original of course, not that 2005 remake. I don't watch remakes. (Although technically, even the 1953 film is a remake. The real original is 1933's Mystery of the Wax Museum.)

After watching it, just out of curiosity I looked up the trailer for the 2005 version on YouTube. Blasphemy. Sheer blasphemy.

[Fish and Chips]

The way I take the final scene is that it is an expressionistic visual intended to show the viewer a factor normally unseen: the effect of an archetype on the collective unconscious as worked out in society. Here the V hero archetype has fundamentally changed the outlook and direction of the society, an apt commentary on the meaning, intent, and impact of the film. In support of this interpretation, the savvy viewer will note that among the faces of those who remove their masks are people who were previously executed by the state, effectively highlighting the symbolic nature of the image. V for Vendetta is, after all, a movie about the power of ideas, and while all the authorities that can compel the military to fire upon unarmed civilians are assassinated before they can give the order, it is ultimately nonviolent resistance that wins the day.

I can appreciate the message that a symbol is stronger than any individual (even if they dropped it with the subtlety fridge), but the masses are still the sheep V berated them for being. They have a new god, but their religion is the same; they have traded the security of a red cross (or, again with the same subtlety, a double cross) for a white mask. Perhaps two people really understood what V was trying to accomplish, but the rest of London was simply invoking the same trust in V's iconography that they had in Sutler's years ago. They are still parroting the symbol of a man whose means and methods they still do not fully understand.

Savvy viewership really comes second in this, since the only way to miss the executed appearing among the crowd is if you actually skipped the scene entirely, though consequently it was a touch I enjoyed.

[GhostontheNet]

House of Wax. The original of course, not that 2005 remake. I don't watch remakes. (Although technically, even the 1953 film is a remake. The real original is 1933's Mystery of the Wax Museum.)

After watching it, just out of curiosity I looked up the trailer for the 2005 version on YouTube. Blasphemy. Sheer blasphemy.

Ah yes, Vincent Price was quite a charmer, wasn't he? He could do the most cruel and vicious deeds, become completely crazy, and still come across as both gentlemanly and handsome. If I was one of the ladies, the thought of suffering diabolical tortures at his hands would probably creep in to my nightmares and fantasies. Make sure to check out his other films as well, especially the ones directed by Roger Corman. The House on Haunted Hill is great as well, and is quite handy for parties and company not indisposed to a little morbid fun.

[Htom Sirveaux]

Yeah, I really wanna see House on Haunted Hill sometime. I've been on something of a classic horror kick lately, in film and literature.

[Lengai]

Watched Taken last week. I really liked it, even though some of the violence made me cringe. And the dialogue could've been a bit more polished, but I adore Liam Neeson. <3

[GhostontheNet]

Tonight I watched Phoebe in Wonderland.

I can appreciate the message that a symbol is stronger than any individual (even if they dropped it with the subtlety fridge), but the masses are still the sheep V berated them for being. They have a new god, but their religion is the same] Yeah, it's true that ever since The Matrix Reloaded, the Wachowski Brothers have been too willing to let the cat out of the bag and reveal the content of their symbolism, often at the cost of bathos in the narrative. In V for Vendetta, for example, they made the ingeneous appeal to The Passion of Joan of Arc in Evey's torture and masculinization, but blew it by making her complain that V shaved her hair. To be sure, having one's hair shaved would be quite humiliating, as it entails the loss of a symbol of her femininity and individual identity, but on some level the audience would have already understood this. You accuse the people of London of being sheep who only want placid security under a new symbol, but under this symbol they have the courage to stand firm directly in the face of a well-armed military to reshape society on their own terms. If it is security they desire for, then, it is in the mutually agreed terms of a just social contract, rather than acquiescence to the ill mores of a corrupt and dysfunctional society. You imply that they are cowards, but the truth is that they have a lot more courage than you or I.

Yeah, I really wanna see House on Haunted Hill sometime. I've been on something of a classic horror kick lately, in film and literature.

Tell me about it, lately I've even been working on an amusingly subversive study of gender in the Universal monster movies, taking a cue from Linda Williams' observation of "a surprising (and at times subversive) affinity between monster and woman, the sense in which her look at the monster recognizes their similar status within patriarchal structures of seeing." (Linda Williams, "When the Woman Looks") If you've been reading up on classic horror literature, make sure to read Anne Radcliffe, she was a master of the first wave of gothic novels, and her work has remarkable scene and atmosphere.

[Fish and Chips]

You accuse the people of London of being sheep who only want placid security under a new symbol, but under this symbol they have the courage to stand firm directly in the face of a well-armed military to reshape society on their own terms. If it is security they desire for, then, it is in the mutually agreed terms of a just social contract, rather than acquiescence to the ill mores of a corrupt and dysfunctional society. You imply that they are cowards, but the truth is that they have a lot more courage than you or I.

I didn't intend to paint them as cowards; even the brave can act under the pretense of fear (which is the virtue in it). My comments were directed towards their follower mentality. Their civil disobediance was only as successful as the government was incapable of functioning minus its top brass, but I would consider that more the failure of the government than the success of the revolution.

[GhostontheNet]

[quote="Fish and Chips (post: 1325319)"]I didn't intend to paint them as cowards] Hold on, are you implying the military should have machine gunned the unarmed crowd of political dissidents with or without orders because it was their civic duty (a "failure of the government" to 'function')? The truth of the matter is that no police force or military wants to fire upon the citizenry it is charged with protecting, and Walter Wink documents cases where an unarmed coup d'etat successfully overthrew oppressive regimes because the military refused to fire upon such a large number of civilians, and instead determined to take their side. Where you read "failure", then, I read massive success. Unfortunately, as cool as being a self-styled individualist is, governments don't tend to listen to such individuals, so they must find ways of making themselves heard by others who may or may not accept their ideas. And anyway, how can they embody a blind follower mentality if their leader is dead? They can unite around a symbol against a symbol of oppression, but they cannot exalt the former symbol to the throne, and so remove their masks once it is established that their individual identities will be secure under the new regime.

[Lady Kenshin]

O_o;

Serious discussions are serious.

I most recently watched Paul Blart: Mall Cop. XD

[Fish and Chips]

Hold on, are you implying the military should have machine gunned the unarmed crowd of political dissidents with or without orders because it was their civic duty (a "failure of the government" to 'function')? The truth of the matter is that no police force or military wants to fire upon the citizenry it is charged with protecting, and Walter Wink documents cases where an unarmed coup d'etat successfully overthrew oppressive regimes because the military refused to fire upon such a large number of civilians, and instead determined to take their side. Where you read "failure", then, I read massive success. Unfortunately, as cool as being a self-styled individualist is, governments don't tend to listen to such individuals, so they must find ways of making themselves heard by others who may or may not accept their ideas. And anyway, how can they embody a blind follower mentality if their leader is dead? They can unite around a symbol against a symbol of oppression, but they cannot exalt the former symbol to the throne, and so remove their masks once it is established that their individual identities will be secure under the new regime.

Unfortunately, this begins to fall under the Devil's Proof for both of us. None of the party's leadership was alive at the time of the revolution, and it is only after calling urgently and having no contact that the general decided to err on the side of caution. If Creedy had managed to escape and given orders shouted over telephones, maybe they would have opened fire, or maybe they wouldn't have. We can't know because the opportunity didn't appear. I could easily draw connections to the Burma army to support my side, but that would be equally moot.

This is also where inconsistant characterization shows up. Prior to this scene, the movie went out of its way to establish just how horrible the government is. We have an fiercely dogmatic leader, his amoral second in command, a drug addicted loudmouthed propaganda pundit, and a pedophiliac priest for no real reason except that it was on the news I suppose (let's go back to the subtlety thing). However, the opening scene also shows us policemen-level government employees threatening to rape Evey. Now either she just had cinematically bad luck (quite possible), or this sort of thing is common around curfew. This isn't even going into all the soldiers necessary to man the experimental prision facilities and break in and black bag everyone the government doesn't like. The film goes into strenuous effort to convince us how awful the government is, but one of their top generals has the presence of mind and crisis of morality to order a cease fire? And none of the possibly fiercely patriotic commanders under him thought to circumvent his orders?

It's a fairly stark situtation. Either the corrupt government's influence perpetuates through the government and the media and science divisions and the general police, but the army is an untouched bastion of moral showmanship, or (my stance) that if there's one thing the Evil Empire is good at doing, it's following orders, and with no orders to follow, ceases to function.

You also bring up another complaint I have with the movie, that we have no indication what follows November 5th. Secured under the new regime? There isn't one. The old regime is dead, and the revolutionary leader is dead. What happens next? The film would apparently have you believe that everything is alright, and that democracy or utopia even will simply come about in the dictatorships absence. Pardon me for being a history major, but I don't find that likely.

[Scarecrow]

Alligator... lol... ya the one with giant alligator living in the sewer. It was fun in a cheesy way. The alligator, for the most part wasn't bad especially for when it was made. But ya, it was kind of cheesy/dumb.

[GhostontheNet]

Tonight I watched No Such Thing. Proof positive a silly script with good heart and a good actress can actually make a half-decent movie.

O_o] Well, it's quite enjoyable to watch a movie that gives good food for thought and then discuss it. Sometimes even the most silly and ridiculous entertainment conceals astute intelligence and sharp wit (witness Charlie Chaplin and the Monty Python films, which discuss serious issues in the context of comedy). So where some people see 'mindless entertainment', I tend to see a message of some kind, whether positive or negative. But please, don't misread me, I'm writing to discuss the movie because I enjoy to do so, just as I enjoy watching movies in general. I am not the kind of critic who likes to destroy a work, I write so that I can show its significance and value. I take movies seriously because I love them.

Unfortunately, this begins to fall under the Devil's Proof for both of us. None of the party's leadership was alive at the time of the revolution, and it is only after calling urgently and having no contact that the general decided to err on the side of caution. If Creedy had managed to escape and given orders shouted over telephones, maybe they would have opened fire, or maybe they wouldn't have. We can't know because the opportunity didn't appear. I could easily draw connections to the Burma army to support my side, but that would be equally moot.

This is also where inconsistant characterization shows up. Prior to this scene, the movie went out of its way to establish just how horrible the government is. We have an fiercely dogmatic leader, his amoral second in command, a drug addicted loudmouthed propaganda pundit, and a pedophiliac priest for no real reason except that it was on the news I suppose (let's go back to the subtlety thing). However, the opening scene also shows us policemen-level government employees threatening to rape Evey. Now either she just had cinematically bad luck (quite possible), or this sort of thing is common around curfew. This isn't even going into all the soldiers necessary to man the experimental prision facilities and break in and black bag everyone the government doesn't like. The film goes into strenuous effort to convince us how awful the government is, but one of their top generals has the presence of mind and crisis of morality to order a cease fire? And none of the possibly fiercely patriotic commanders under him thought to circumvent his orders?

It's a fairly stark situtation. Either the corrupt government's influence perpetuates through the government and the media and science divisions and the general police, but the army is an untouched bastion of moral showmanship, or (my stance) that if there's one thing the Evil Empire is good at doing, it's following orders, and with no orders to follow, ceases to function.

You also bring up another complaint I have with the movie, that we have no indication what follows November 5th. Secured under the new regime? There isn't one. The old regime is dead, and the revolutionary leader is dead. What happens next? The film would apparently have you believe that everything is alright, and that democracy or utopia even will simply come about in the dictatorships absence. Pardon me for being a history major, but I don't find that likely.

Even in the most corrupt and oppressive governments, there are basically two strata of people, the honest citizens, and the people that bully them while claiming to act on their behalf. After all, is not the very rhetoric of totalitarianism rooted in the appeal to a strong collective ethos? Indeed, it is an appeal so strong it subordinates the individual to the collective. Owing to this, in such a State there is always the lingering hope that the former strata of people will do the right thing if they can gain the power to do so, because the nation has not yet departed from the moral and symbolic order entirely, but only misconstrued its nature. This is why the film answers the regime's demands for the cleansing of the land with the cleansing rain of God, although it comes in a much different way than they expected. On that note, we'll get to the bullies one by one.

Admittedly, the list of adversaries are something of a laundry list from issues of the day, but they do serve nicely to lampoon Neoconservative hubris. To me, the reason for the two policemen's efforts to rape Evey is rather obvious: she is a woman claiming power and authority over them, they are the agents of the patriarchal order, and they must subdue and humiliate her to 'put her in her place'. Rape, after all, is not so much about sex as it is about power, and in light of the sad ubiquity of rape and domestic violence, it really doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination. In terms of the black bag operations, we would assume they aren't just assigned to just any old cop or soldier, but to specific individuals who are both able and willing to carry them out. And beyond the simple fact that secret government experiments make good science fiction, it may be possible to keep the average guard aware of only a small part of what's really going on. He may, for example, be aware that he is guarding very sick prisoners in a cell, but unaware that they have been infected by the government for tests in biological warfare. As far as our pill-popping PR pundit goes, I thought that element was an apt commentary on the psychology of his character. He acts like a tough English bulldog, but inside he has a deep well of anxieties that he must keep hidden from the world or lose his reputation. So what about our openly two-faced lecherous Anglican priest with the huge Lolita complex, who has gone far beyond having a mid-life crisis of faith? Whether functioning at safe or dangerous levels, I think the eroticization of minors has a lot to do with the longing for the lost happiness of childhood (notably, a time before his collusion with abuse of power and ensuing loss of faith). Aside from distancing its conception of God from the paternalistic mode of faith embodied by the Christian Right (a crucial move for audience acceptance and narrative coherency), I think the role this plays in the film is to comment upon distorted views of sexuality widespread throughout much of the Church. Unfortunately, owing to the ambiguities of their relation to the divine and symbolic orders, the Church historically has had a difficult time dealing with the sexualities of clergymen (equally unfortunately, I can't really comment meaningfully on the sexualities of clergywomen), and so has created an environment rife for the development of serious psychosexual problems. Over against this tendency, the film insists that the clergy must be allowed legitimate means of expressing their sexuality, or they will express it in ways that are illegitimate and distorted in secret. Indeed, the voyeuristic thrill of watching the clergy go wild and crazy in the movies is a sign that we know a lot about what they are against, but have no idea what they are for.

Now, about the ending, in light of the people congregating en masse around one of London's civic centers with civic intentions signaled by their lack of arms, the misse-en-scene effectively signals that the conditions are ripe for the formation of a new social contract. Far from the kind of political and moral chaos that often follows these types of regime changes (for example, the turbulent year of four emperors following the death of the tyrant Nero), the film is not unjustified in suggesting that a free and just social order will be formed in the wake of the collapse of the old regime. And why not? The film's theistic ontology of a cleansing 'God in the rain' suggests that the hand of providence has been at work bringing about the events we are now witnessing. And where divine providence and human free will work toward the same end, some truly marvelous things can be brought about. Or would you rather the film accuse God of powerlessness too see things through even when the conditions are ripe?

[Htom Sirveaux]

Dark City. My kind of movie.

[christianfriend]

Bah, I watched the Pink Panther 2 a few nights ago. It was worse then I thought it would be. x.x

[Lengai]

Bah, I watched the Pink Panther 2 a few nights ago. It was worse then I thought it would be. x.x

Stick with the originals, mon ami.

[christianfriend]

Yes, I think I'll take your advice on that Lengai XD No more suffering by the hands of sequels anymore for me, lol.

[GhostontheNet]

Tonight I watched Suspiria.

Yes, I think I'll take your advice on that Lengai XD No more suffering by the hands of sequels anymore for me, lol.

As many bad sequels as there are, it would be a mistake to avoid all sequels in principle. The important thing to tell is whether a sequel is rooted in the same spirit and creative voices of the original (being a film done by the same director is always a good sign), or whether it is merely an effort of the Hollywood studio system to capitalize on its success.

[GhostontheNet]

Tonight I watched Dario Argentino's Opera.

[the_wolfs_howl]

Let's see.... I watched Barbie: Thumbelina with my sisters. I was actually pleasantly surprised; it was better than I thought it would be, especially compared to the awful Fairytopia movies. I was rather annoyed at the "Protect The Environment!" message, since I get that stuffed down my throat way too much at school, but still, it was not a bad movie. One thought that came to mind was that if Pixar had come up with this story, it would be one killer of a movie.

I also saw Bridge to Terabithia for the third or fourth time. Gah, I cry at the end every time! Josh Hutcherson is such a good actor....

[Scarecrow]

Finally saw The Devil's Advocate for the first time. I really liked it. A clever thriller. I really liked how they had all the sneaky and subtle ways Satan lures the main character away but never actually makes or force him to sin. As far as anything coming out of Hollywood dealing with Satan and the way he works, this one was probably the most best I've seen. Some things with the ending I would have done differently but over all, good movie. Would cautiously recommended it but it very much deserves it's R rating, but what can you really expect with a movie about the devil and his tricks?

[GhostontheNet]

Last night I watched xxxHolic vol. 5, Ginger Snaps, and Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Finally saw The Devil's Advocate for the first time. I really liked it. A clever thriller. I really liked how they had all the sneaky and subtle ways Satan lures the main character away but never actually makes or force him to sin. As far as anything coming out of Hollywood dealing with Satan and the way he works, this one was probably the most best I've seen. Some things with the ending I would have done differently but over all, good movie. Would cautiously recommended it but it very much deserves it's R rating, but what can you really expect with a movie about the devil and his tricks?

Oh yes, Devil's Advocate is a fine example of Gothic horror. It's very Nathaniel Hawthorne, only in the context of Fin de siècle decadence following a century that only Old Scratch could take credit for.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Just watched Knowing.

0_o; Gah, that was stupid. Kinda hard watching that after seeing Star Trek and Quantum of Solace...

[GeneD]

[quote="Shao Feng-Li (post: 1327812)"]Just watched Knowing.

0_o]A friend of mine saw this a few days ago and said it was stupid too. It didn't sound very interesting.

This weekend I caught up on some superhero movies I still hadn't seen. I watched Iron Man last night and The Incredible Hulk tonight. I enjoyed both movies, but couldn't help noticing that in both they end up fighting evil versions of themselves. You'd think they could have changed the basic storyline.

[ProphetGirl16]

Let's see, I watched Sabrina today with Harrison Ford; awesome love story, great chick flick if you're in the mood for one. ^^ I also saw comedy today called "Rookie of the year"; both are awesome movies. ^O^
-PG

[ich1990]

The Pursuit of Happyness

Great reality check (although slow). Highly recommended. Yes, there is a good reason for the misspelling in the title.