25th Hall of Fame

I meant how old the movie is, not him. Just seems to me if you think the age of the movie matters, you see more going on in the relationship then you say. I am asking why you brought up watching the film differently now, and you seem to be finding a lot of ways not to answer why you think that.

I will just leave it that I think he fell for Cybele. You mention him beating up the kid as him treating Cybele badly. I think it’s the exact opposite, he’s protecting his turf. That’s actually the point the movie left all ambiguity behind for me. From that point forward he fell deeper and deeper in love, his actions reflect that, and I think the director is good with that. In fact I think it’s why he told the story.

I think he loved her but wasn't in love with her. Cool actually that we have different interpretations, although I still don't know how you, Sean, liked the movie.

You can love someone without being sexually attracted to them though. He clearly did care deeply for Cybèle, but I didn't get the impression that they had a physical relationship.

__________________

I don’t think they did either but I think that’s the way in which Pierre loved Cybele and I base that off the way he treated his girlfriend as he falls in love with her.

I don’t think it’s a bad movie, but I can’t like it because of its point of view. My opinion of its POV obviously.

I will say I didn’t find it as beautiful aesthetically as you guys either. I didn’t think it was bad looking, just nothing stood out. Falls into the competent camp for me.

Okay, I just wasn't sure exactly what it was that you disliked about it's framing. But from your post after this one, it seems to be the perspective, and how the film doesn't spend a lot of time with those who disagree with the relationship.

I was maybe not reading this discussion properly since it's a bit later than I usually stay up and I'm quite tired haha. I'll read through this again tomorrow to make sure I understand.

Sounds good. Yeah, my opinion is that the intent matters here and I didn’t find the film to be working in the shades of grey most of you do.

I'm trying to answer the best I can, I'm not trying to dodge your questions, promise....I think the age in which a movie is made determines (at least in part) what it's intent was. Today's audiences are way to socially concerned and often believe a film has to have a positive message or it's condemned. I don't know how many movies I've seen slammed at MoFo because someone thought the message wasn't in accordance with today's social trends. I mean Gone With The Wind which was a breakout performance for a black actress is now demonized. I hate temporalism which is where people of the past and their intentions are judge by today's standards.

In 1962 it was a more gentle world. I don't think everybody was so quick to label people pedophiles. Least not in a movie. And as far as I know having the lead (semi-sorta) protagonist actor be a pedophile was just not done. I think people today can have more of a knee jerk reaction to a film like Sundays and Cybele than they did 60 years ago. Did you read Siddon's review? He said there was phallic symbols in the movie. I looked for those and didn't see a one.

Totally agree. Same with his intense jealousy of the man riding the horse. Anyone who comes between him and Cybele is a threat...even his girlfriend was a threat in the bumper cars as she prevented him from being with Cybele that day, thus he hit her.

I'm thinking you're not understand where I'm coming from. I hope I'm not that bad of a writer

Are you saying the director wanted to tell a story of pedophilia? You could be right, I don't know what the director had in his head?

Oh, what I actually came in here to say before I saw all the recent posts was that I just finished watching La Vérité. I even stayed up late to finish it in one sitting because I was quite invested. I'll probably write something about it tomorrow.

Turns out it was not the film I thought I had seen some years ago for a film class. That's actually a good thing because the one I keep forgetting the name of was not a film I enjoyed haha.

About Elly (2009)

What a fascinating film!

The film involves a group of middle-class Iranians, former classmates at law school, who travel together for what they expect to be a fun seaside weekend. The group includes Sepideh, her husband Amir and their young daughter; Shohreh, her husband Peymān and their two children, and her husband Manuchehr. Also present is Ahmed, a divorced friend visting from Germany. Sepideh brings along her daughter's kindergarten teacher, Elly, hoping to instigate a romance with Ahmed. Elly is mysterious - she clearly has secrets, but the film does not give them up easily. When one of the children nearly drowns and Elly, who was watching the children at the time, disappears, all hell breaks loose.

That is where the trouble begins. Truths are revealed. Things spiral quickly. The primary actors are compelling and convincing and many basic aspects of Iranian society - including its treatment of gender - still unfortunate despite modernization - are explored. The tension is overwhelming. This felt so much like a play - just human drama playing out over a short time in a limited space. I really enjoyed it.

Fair enough. I think I fall in the middle of that argument. I do think cancel culture is trying to over compensate for past sins. It has made the pendulum swing the other way and that can get frustrating and messy. I’m going to try and not use language here that will make you not hear me, but I think referring to the 60”s as a gentler time is seeing thing through rose colored glasses. It was a gentle time for the voices that got to be heard the most. I don’t think it was a gentle time for a whole lot of folks.

I could be wrong about the director of this movie, wouldn’t be the first time. I can only go by what I think was going on screen and, for me, that was Pierre is a tragic hero.

I thought he was indifferent to his girlfriend because he didn't want a sexual or adult relationship.

Besides the different time period, I think they may see things differently in France as well.

Hmm, did you feeling go away at all in their final night together. The way he looks at her, the cut finger?

I know I am probably belaboring things but I am just getting mixed signals when you guys think the relationship is plutonic but also saying it would have been different in the 60”s or in France. Not sure why that distinction matters if there is no sexual attraction.

What POV is it? To me that's paramount to the discussion.

Agreed most of the 1960s were tumultuous. Though the early 60s during Kennedy and 'Camelot' was a much more hopeful and positive time. Once Kennedy was assassinated the attitude in America grew more pensive...and I'm way off topic

I don't see Pierre as a tragic hero, I didn't like him as he had a creepy stalker vibe in the very first scene, nor do I have to like or root for him for me to enjoy the unfolding of the story. He was tragic all right, but never a hero in my eyes.

The POV of the director. Yeah, I think the film is constructed for us to be on Pierre’s side. You don’t, that’s cool. Probably past time to move on.

I’m not frustrated. Been a good discussion. I will still reply if I think I have anything new to say but I think I rambled long enough.

Well the cut finger was her and it happened fast. As far as the way he looked at her, idk, looks can make you think a certain way but people aren't always easy to read, especially some dude you don't know who has PTSD. It all looked slippery to me, but in the end I had to judge by what I saw, rather than what was in my own head.

There was a time when you could pull your car over and ask a local kid for directions. Now I'd rather be lost. The issue is not sexual attraction but rather perception by who's watching.