If I've not had dinner yet and I watch an HoF nom, it goes to the bottom of my list because I'm hungry:rolleyes:






not really!

Thank God for small favors.


No but I'll fix that. It sounds awesome.


Perhaps not. Perhaps some are from Argentina. Perhaps some read the book. Perhaps just knowing it's there earned the film some extra credit. Perhaps, like myself, they loved it with out knowing anything about it. It's probably a variety pack.


I think the emotional aspect of the movie is much more complex than either you want to admit or realize. I'm not saying you need to be a genius, but you do need to think and it's easy to miss a lot of things.


That's true; one of the things I've said before this conversation is that the plot is unimportant, a means to an end. You are looking at the movie at the most superficial level possible. You could do that with any movie. A person watching this movie like that doesn't get the movie, and in turn won't have as high of an opinion of it.


Why? Sure, it's his job, but he's also traumatized by it-very different from other "thrillers". Furthermore, he becomes fueled by the husband's deep and unending love for the deceased, something he's never had but yearns for, yet lacks the courage to pursue.


Yes, but it's not about the villains and there's no effort put forth to not make them obvious. It's supposed to be that way.


I don't specifically remember this, but just because the viewer knows it's there, that doesn't mean the viewer understands or feels it.


He adds an A, not an a, an important distinction. Yes, fear becomes love, and he's motivated by what Morales did, even though it horrified him. Part of the reason it horrified him is what Morales had done to himself and he doesn't want to end up like that. He finds the courage he didn't have before, the courage to do anything in the name of true love, like Morales had done. The A that was missing from his typewriter while writing his novel represented what was missing in his life. He adds the A to the paper just like he had been adding it to his book.


Well, I hope that's not how he voices regret because he doesn't mention love. He says he needs to talk to her just like he's done in the past. This time she senses it's different.


The exact same music that was sad during the train scene at the beginning. Interestingly enough, the film is also about how we process memory.


Red to be exact, not the first time in the movie red was intentionally used. And he was already in, she just told him to close the door.


I'm sure people have felt that way and were wrong. Those are probably not the people who love it.


I'd have to watch it again, but my guess is that it could also be stripped down to its bare bones.


I could say that about any movie besides my favorite. I often recommend movies to people that I don't even like myself.


I liked all 3 movies but didn't think any were best picture material. My opinion of course.


Yes of course they liked it. A big point to my argument is that I don't think they'd like it enough to vote for it had they only seen it at surface level.



I like the synopsis and I certainly love disturbing and dark humor


I can send you a link if you watch movies that way.

I mean, I did think while I was watching it? I actually paid very close attention to all of the films. And this is a historical context I find interesting and am familiar with. Nothing you've said about the emotions are things I missed, I just find them less impactful than you (and others) do.

But plot is not unimportant, especially if the events in that plot are meant to take us on the allegorical journey. If you're thinking my opinion of the film is lower because I only watched it on a literal level, you are mistaken. I feel that I had a good grasp on the film's themes and broadly how it was connected to the real history of Argentinian politics.

I just don't find his character as original as you do, I guess. I feel like detectives who are haunted by "that one case" are actually dime a dozen in the mystery films/TV/books I consume.

I find it pretty explicit, as with this dialogue:

-Benjamin, that part when...the guy goes to Jujuy the guy's crying is despair and she's running along the platform as if she's losing the love of her life touching their hands through the glass as if they were a single person she's crying, as if she knew she would be fated to suffer a fake love almost falling on the track, because she never dared to show her love
-Yes..it was like that, no?

I'm not saying that this theme isn't developed in more subtle ways in the rest of the film. All of what I was listing was an example of how the film could still provide a satisfying and complete narrative for someone who was only paying superficial attention.

And that's fine. But it's not, in my opinion, subtle.

He rushes in all bright eyed saying he needs to talk to her. Yes, she senses what he's saying, because she answers "It will be complicated" and he replied "I don't care."

I might not have had the wording correct (or the color of the flowers), but it doesn't change my basic assertion about the kind of emotional momentum that the ending has.

Any movie can. I'm saying that by contrast I found the ending of Mother more emotionally complex as a viewer.

Then I'm not sure why me not liking it more than other films is taken as a sign that I didn't pay enough attention or think hard enough or appreciate it for all of its layers.

This is where we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because part of what I'm arguing is that the film is satisfying even if regarded superficially (and more satisfying than many other films would be if similarly regarded).

I was really pleasantly surprised by it. And unfortunately, the thing that I think is most brilliant about it is something that develops through the course of the film and would be too spoiler-ish to discuss with someone who hasn't seen it. If you ever do get around to it, I'd love to discuss!

I don't--but thank you for the offer!

Re: 24th Hall of Fame
 

How do we decide who hosts each HoF?

Someone just says they want to do it.

I know I'm new, but could I do it, perhaps?

I would do a specialty one first to see if you like it. If their is a specific type of film or style you want to dive into that might get you more engaged than immediately trying to do the 25th.

Re: 24th Hall of Fame
 

CONGRATS @Siddon!!! Seeing Lyndon was a great surprise
THANKS EVERYONE for a great list of movies and reviews!
and, of course, THANK YOU @rauldc14 for Hosting!!


1) La Dolce Vita (#2)
2) The Day of the Jackal (#4)
3) Beasts of the Southern Wild (#11)
4) The Whisperers (#9)
5) Vampyr (#5)
6) Barry Lyndon (#1)
7) The Man from Nowhere (#7)
8) Hard Times (#10)
9) The Secret in Their Eyes (#6)
10) Antwone Fisher (#8)
11) Shame (#3)
12) In a Glass Cage (#13)
13) Aniara (#12)

Okay, that's fair. Do I bring up my idea in Movie HALL OF FAME Archives & info?

Sure, you could host an HoF... I'm doing the next one the 25th. I've been talking about it for a long time I was just working on some art work for it, but if you want to do the 26th, cool! Or you can always host a specialty HoF...those are popular.

Re: 24th Hall of Fame
 

I think I'll start with a specialty HoF first.

We tried the group decision thing and it caused more problems than it's worth. So it's always up to the individual.

If you want to do a specialty HoF, just mention it here and mention it on the Archives thread and see if people are interested. I bet you'd be a good host! Depending on what the genre/topic is I might join.

Re: 24th Hall of Fame
 

A HoF I've been thinking of doing for a while is a Russian film HoF since Russia is my favorite country for watching foreign films. Would anyone be interested in that? I'll post this in the Archives thread as well.

And I'm not talking about you. I know by your reviews what a good viewer you are. I'm just talking about how some viewers may have seen it.

In that way sure it's important for those who understand that aspect. I don't mean the plot could be something else completely either.

Again, I'm not saying you watched it that way, but you are criticizing it in that way. I'm talking about if someone else watched it at the level you are criticizing it. You've talked about how accessible it is at it's bare bones level, and I'm saying if someone watches it at it's bare bones level, they probably won't get everything out of it, and therefore probably won't think it's a great movie.

I think his emotions as a detective in a thriller are not the norm.

I don't believe that someone only paying superficial attention can get all that it has to offer.

So you think a quick moment in the film is not subtle. I'd assume that's a criticism or else you probably wouldn't have mentioned it. Do you prefer thrillers that are subtle the whole way through?

Right. Is this another criticism?

Don't forget the happy music.

They are taking a positive step towards finding the happiness that has eluded them for 25 years. Sandoval is still dead. Meanwhile the victim of the film is stuck in a life of misery and loneliness. I'm fascinated that some people look at this as a storybook ending. Then again, I should know that emotions can be complex.

I wish I could remember better.

Not saying that at all. You could understand everything about it, hate it, and I wouldn't take issue. I'm saying in order to think it's a great movie, a person needs to get it all, or at least a lot of it. If a person doesn't get everything it has to offer, they most likely won't love it.

Same as above. Satisfying sure, but I wouldn't love the movie if I saw it that way. I find this funny in a way. You're telling me you like it but like other movies better. I'm telling you I need to get everything out of it in order to love it. I don't even understand what this part of the debate is over. I feel like you're telling me it's better than I think it is if only looked at on it's most basic level.

I put it on my watchlist. Maybe you'll nominate it for a HoF?

I usually don't participate in specialty HoFs, but I thought I'd mention a movie you might enjoy if you like crime movies-Brother (1997). I thought it was pretty good. Also The Green Elephant if you like something horribly depraved.

I've been meaning to check out Brother for some time. I haven't heard of The Green Elephant, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

You keep coming back to my descriptions of the film as criticism. My (neutral!) observation that the basic structure/story of the film is, at a superficial level, more accessible than other films is not a criticism. Like, I love Brain Damage and think it has lots of layers and interesting themes, but also it can be watched at a superficial, literal level and it still works.

I can't prove or disprove that someone who is mostly watching the film for the mystery plot and the broader emotional themes would think it was great. I could see someone watching the film and being tuned into the mystery and tuned into the unrequited love story and still really liking it.

I think that the degree to which the case impacts his personal life is a bit out of the norm. But I think that the detective who is fixated/haunted by an unsolved or a poorly-resolved case is a fairly common trope.

Agreed. But what I do think is true is that someone paying superficial attention could come away with a positive and satisfying viewing experience.

You were responding to my assertion that the ending (taken as a whole) is not subtle. And I really don't think it is. From the moment that he turns "I fear" into "I love", I think that the ending lacks nuance. And I'll say again that this isn't a criticism. (Okay, I find the whole "I fear"/"I love you" think kind of hokey, but the rest is fine). It's just part of my larger observation that someone watching superficially would still understand the conclusion to the film's big arcs.

Nope.

I never said it was storybook. It's obviously an ending with bittersweet, complicated elements. But I do think that it is an optimistic ending and that the implication is that these two characters are going to pursue the happiness that they once gave up. And frankly, watching the scene three times now, I feel as if the actors themselves are mainly emoting happiness.

I vividly remember the final minute of Mother and the range of emotions I felt. And that's a film I watched on release over 10 years ago. Which is not to say others will feel that same impact, but it does serve as a contrast for me personally.

But what else is there to "get"? Or maybe when you say "get" you mean like being on the same frequency with the film? I honestly don't think that I missed anything in the movie, just that what there was didn't have the same impact. Saying I didn't "get it" makes it sound like an issue of understanding or interpretation. I think it's more just a case of incompatibility.

You say that you need to get everything out of it in order to love it; I'm saying people can love films without engaging with that complexity. And to go a step further, I'm suggesting that the superficial level of this film-ie just the mystery and romance part--would feel complete to some viewers. I'm not trying to take away from the film's depth or the fact that you liked it because you engaged with it on that level.

Maybe. It's one of those films where reading bad takes ("I just didn't like the main character" OH REALLY?!?!?!) makes me legit kind of mad, LOL.

I missed out on the previous Russian HOF, so this interests me greatly.

I'm skipping a lot because we're going in circles and I've felt that you haven't been understanding me, which could very well be the way I'm explaining it. I'll stick to the above as that shows you're on the right track to getting what I mean. I've never thought that there was something in the movie that you didn't understand.

The entire point of our debate is over your belief that the Academy voters gave it the Oscar because it's more accessible and easy to like.

You believe the plot and emotions are easily accessible. I agree with you about the plot, but feel the plot it unimportant because in order to love the movie, it has to hit you on that emotional level. The plot is nothing I haven't seen before, the ending is nothing I haven't seen before, and nothing surprised me. It doesn't matter. I've read many reviews of the movie, and for those who love it, it's the emotion that they cite as the main reason why.

I disagree with the idea that it's accessible on an emotional level because emotions are complex by their very nature, and everybody processes emotion differently. Emotion is related to perception, and it's that perception that is very important here.

I'll skip right to the ending which you have described as relatively and generally happy, easy to take, people pleasing, and lacking nuance. There's one thing you've said that really stands out to me, and that's that you thought the music at the end was happy and hopeful. This speaks volumes to me because it's the exact same music that's played at the beginning of the film during the sad train scene. This has everything to do with your perception. That doesn't make you wrong. It's how you feel and you can't be wrong about how you feel. I will carefully describe how I felt about the ending and I want you to focus on one sentence-you can't suffer real loss without having something that's real. The conclusion of the film includes the main character who needs justice, Morales, holding his head in his hands as he suffers through a living hell. Esposito is traumatized by this. Not a happy ending for who you could call the character who is the main victim of the film, as far as it's presented. On to the other main characters, Ben and Irene. After 25 years, they reconnect showing that their love is real. It is because of this that I feel the pain of those 25 lost years. That pain doesn't come if they do not take that positive step for love. For me, this was emotionally devastating. It's fine that you feel the way you do, but you can't say how I feel doesn't make sense and you should understand my view as well. What this means is that you didn't get the film the way I did. There is a certain amount of available potential with each film we watch. With this particular film, that potential was much more highly realized for me than it was for you, and that's obviously why I feel more strongly about it. It has nothing to do with your ability to follow it or understand it. It has everything to do with our sensibilities as a viewer.

This is why I don't agree with accessibility on an emotional level. Yes we all know what love, loss, regret, trauma, etc., are, but we all understand them and process them on different levels, and even that varies with different circumstances. How can it be accessible on an emotional level if viewers feel differently? I agree with your idea that it can be an easier movie to like than some others, but it gets more complicated when it comes to loving the movie. We were specifically talking about the people who voted to give it an award. If they saw it at the superficial level that you have described, then I believe they would have felt more like you did. Since they voted for it, they probably were affected by it more like I was. Just as an aside, this was a very unknown movie when it won and it was considered a big surprise, so popularity played no part in it winning, just the opposite in fact.

Last Russian HoF was fun, and it will probably be a small one so that could be a good place to start.

I won't join though, because I need some time off, but if you need any help, just DM me.