It's just something I usually do not like.
That's fine, I suppose, but let's do a quick thought experiment: imagine an American poster who loves Marvel films says, about some subtitled, slow-paced, black-and-white foreign film, that it's "just something [they] usually do not like." What would you think of that?
I feel like you'd think (hell, you'd probably
say) that they were just a narrow-minded American who liked being force-fed cinematic mediocrities, and couldn't be bothered to step outside of their comfort zone to immerse themselves in another culture's art. And you might be right (whatever my objections to the phrasing).
For what it's worth, one of mark f's favorite films, Elmer Gantry, is also a film about a preacher, but I loved that one. It just felt and looked better.
Can we unpack "felt and looked better" a bit? If you felt uncomfortable watching it, well, you were definitely supposed to.
As much is clear. But the amount of preaching in this well exceeded the level of acceptance.
I don't know what this means. Because you wouldn't be moved by the preaching in real life, you have some upper limit on how much you'll accept from a character in a story?
I think you overestimate my open-mindedness. No matter how open-minded you try to be, some things just aren't for you.
Again, this is fine as a broad explanation (even though I think it behooves us all to figure out WHY some things aren't for us), but I think it's kind of at odds with your generally tenacious approach towards others, too. This is what it feels like, in case you were ever curious.
That being said, the film is pretty bland visually, too.
Dang, really? I dunno man. From top left to bottom right:
Converting a man coming down from above like God Himself. His mother playing dead, dressed appropriately in red (and note how much less attention he pays to her than he does a stranger who he thinks needs salvation). A sinner eavesdropping with a perspective that looks like a confessional. Sunny's face half in shadow (look at the other shots of him: this happens over and over). A bright purple mark in a book in a dull field, emblematic of the passion he brings to this poor, quiet place, a bright fire-colored sign imploring him to stop and refuse to save this dying man, which he completely disregards.
Jumping ahead to the fourth row: the church is sickly and green (like the window above), both shots from early in his arrival to the town. In shadow again, bars in front of and behind him. More shadows, heavier now that he's on the prowl, using his charisma for more self-interested purposes. The bright red and yellow bus, and one of the few times in the film he looks completely and genuinely happy, unconcerned with his inevitable downfall. And on the bottom right, the kind preacher, head bent just enough to show the man he represents peeking out from behind him.
I know there's no accounting for this kind of thing, but I think there's plenty going on here. It's just not super showy about it.
But then, the movie continues. And all your guesses turn out to be true.
I don't follow. You wanted some kind of surprise? Without spoiling anything (because I'd very much like anyone reading this to go watch the film), the end is inevitable. He has a personal eschatology that mirrors humanity's.
Watch The Human Condition trilogy and you will know. To be truly humane, a film has to have something that is hard to describe. Something that TRANSCENDS its story.
Can you maybe expound on what it means to be "humane" without just asking me to watch several films? I'm skeptical that will help, because if you'd asked me to explain the term to you, I'd have give you this film (among others), and obviously that didn't work.
Preemptively, I accept that some very important things can't be explained, but you recently started a thread where you solicited examples of "humane" films, which seems to suggest you think it can be conveyed with words, so I'd be interested in hearing it articulated, even if it's impossible to get just right.
Reply to Topic
