The 29th Hall of Fame

Tools    





movies can be okay...

In the end, Iím not sure what the director really wanted to say here. Was he truly looking for forgiveness? Itís never brought up.

As such, itís a near miss for me, but not by much.
I'm just gonna quote myself from earlier in the thread as a response, as I already touched on a little bit of what you're talking about here.

I love the fact that the policeman and Makhmalbaf never interact throughout the film, and rather speak and resolve their issues through the film and the art. I imagine their love for cinema was what facilitated their reconciliation in the first place. I talked about this more in my review.
The ending works on multiple levels, the most basic one being that the two younger actors reject violence, both refusing to use their weapons despite being instructed to do so. Then you add the fact that they're recreating a scene from the director's past, who has obviously written this movie in of itself, and decided to end it with an altered conclusion to the incident in question, that to me is a confession of his true feelings towards that whole situation.

It simultaneously wraps up the character arcs for both the younger actors, and the older participants.
To me, the film is mainly about forgiveness, and it demonstrates that in a pretty unique way through the conclusion of both parallel storylines.
__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue ó a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then itís a good film; if itís not a dialogue, itís a bad film."
- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke



Professional horse shoe straightener
Some truly great films in this HoF. With 'A Moment of Innocence' being the pick of the bunch. It's one of the best films I've ever seen.



The trick is not minding
I'm just gonna quote myself from earlier in the thread as a response, as I already touched on a little bit of what you're talking about here.





To me, the film is mainly about forgiveness, and it demonstrates that in a pretty unique way through the conclusion of both parallel storylines.
Your second paragraph makes sense about how the younger actors avoid violence in the end.
But for me, I felt like there should have been more interaction between the director and the former police offficer. Maybe something captured on film between them that shows them resolve their past.

Itís an interesting film, nonetheless.



Your second paragraph makes sense about how the younger actors avoid violence in the end.
But for me, I felt like there should have been more interaction between the director and the former police offficer. Maybe something captured on film between them that shows them resolve their past.

Itís an interesting film, nonetheless.
I didn't think it was necessary to have Makhmalbaf and the director have a scene together when the child actors already communicated their forgiveness in a very complex and oblique way. If the film had a scene of the cop saying "I forgive you" to the director, this would've felt like dead weight as far as I'm concerned since their forgiveness was already made as clear as day.

I also think it's a given hat the two of them already forgave each other. Otherwise, the cop wouldn't have agreed to star in this film in the first place.



The trick is not minding
I didn't think it was necessary to have Makhmalbaf and the director have a scene together when the child actors already communicated their forgiveness in a very complex and oblique way. If the film had a scene of the cop saying "I forgive you" to the director, this would've felt like dead weight as far as I'm concerned since their forgiveness was already made as clear as day.

I also think it's a given hat the two of them already forgave each other. Otherwise, the cop wouldn't have agreed to star in this film in the first place.
No, itís not very clear, as the cop still harbors resentment over it. Unless that was written as fiction, and not a natural reaction. Itís hard to tell the difference between what was real, and what was scripted. *
Despite it being shown between the children portraying them, we still have nothing to go on how their meeting and reaction was upon meeting 20 years after the incident.

Surely, that should have been captured, no? Shouldnít we have seen his actual reaction to being told that the mysterious women he loved for so long was actually in on the attempt on his life? Was the reaction in the film, clearly scripted, a reflection of his real life reaction?

A face to face or sown explanation about how they felt seeing each other after the incident would have sufficed, for me.



No, itís not very clear, as the cop still harbors resentment over it. Unless that was written as fiction, and not a natural reaction. Itís hard to tell the difference between what was real, and what was scripted. *
Despite it being shown between the children portraying them, we still have nothing to go on how their meeting and reaction was upon meeting 20 years after the incident.

Surely, that should have been captured, no? Shouldnít we have seen his actual reaction to being told that the mysterious women he loved for so long was actually in on the attempt on his life? Was the reaction in the film, clearly scripted, a reflection of his real life reaction?

A face to face or sown explanation about how they felt seeing each other after the incident would have sufficed, for me.
I just took the reactions of the child actors as a representation to the reactions of the adults. I'm guessing the cop's reaction to the woman being in on the attempt on his life was scripted as I would assume he had found out about that before filming that scene (unless Makhmalbaf wanted to surprise him) and that he made up with the director before the film was shot. The final scene is confirmation that both of them found forgiveness with each other. After all, if that wasn't the case, Makhmalbaf wouldn't have ever included that scene in the first place (unless there's any stories out there I'm not aware of about Makhmalbaf and the cop not getting along with each other on set).

While we don't get a scene of the two together, I think enough is provided in the film to connect the dots.



If you guys enjoy Enthiran, you should also see the sequel, 2.0.
Have you seen it? I figured it wouldn't be as good because of the rating it has, but I was talking to this Indian dude today who told me it was better.



The trick is not minding
Have you seen it? I figured it wouldn't be as good because of the rating it has, but I was talking to this Indian dude today who told me it was better.
I saw 2.0 about 3 years ago on Amazon. Itís ok, sure. Itís definitely not terrible.



With A Moment of Innocence, I was wondering if the end could also represent the younger generation learning from past mistakes.
That's an interesting point. I suppose the ending could be read both ways.



That's an interesting point. I suppose the ending could be read both ways.
I feel like it's pretty ambiguous which I'd say is the right way to go with this kind of movie.



I feel like it's pretty ambiguous which I'd say is the right way to go with this kind of movie.
I suppose that's the case. I just find it strange that the cop would agree to star in the film if he didn't reach some level of forgiveness with the director.

Regardless of whether the two of them forgave each other in real life though, I think the ending would work with both outcomes. It's either an indication that the two of them forgave each other or a depiction of what the kids wanted them to do. Both make for compelling results.



I suppose that's the case. I just find it strange that the cop would agree to star in the film if he didn't reach some level of forgiveness with the director.

Regardless of whether the two of them forgave each other in real life though, I think the ending would work with both outcomes. It's either an indication that the two of them forgave each other or a depiction of what the kids wanted them to do. Both make for compelling results.
I very much wonder how it played out behind the scenes.



Anomalisa


Les yeux sans visage...

This tale about what it means to connect - or not - with other people is just as affecting and funny now as it was when I first watched it six years ago. Its timelessness has a lot to do with it being the work of Charlie Kaufman, whose Adaptation, which I also rewatched not too long ago, holds up despite being twenty years old. The writer/director remains the reigning expert on the subject of the difficulty of achieving meaningful human connection even though his output has slowed as of late. David Lynch notwithstanding, he may also hold this title in the reality bending department. Oh, and if the hotel phone with seemingly dozens of buttons that essentially mean the same thing and Michael's "encounter" with the hotel manager are of any indication, Charlie's a pretty funny guy, too. Credit also goes to Duke Johnson's stop-motion animation, which I believe is on par with even Aardman's best. I made a point to pay specific attention to the animation in this viewing, and during the scene where Michael is talking to his wife on the phone, there are moments when I could have sworn that he's a real person. As for the sex scene, it is more natural and realistic than ones in live-action movies. None of this would work if its trio of performers hadn't stepped up in the way they did, my favorite being Tom Noonan, who convinced me that he's a middle-aged woman and a child without having to modulate his voice that much. The cherry on top of all of this is that the movie concludes in a way that's not only heartbreaking, but also in true Charlie Kaufman fashion for how it makes you think twice about everything you've witnessed.

So, what exactly is wrong with Michael, anyway? Is he, as IMDB's one-sentence description of the movie indicates, simply "crippled by the mundanity of his life?" Alternatively, has his aptly chosen career as a customer service expert made him look at all social interaction as artificial and transactional? You could also throw a fear of intimacy and/or commitment and neurodivergence into the mix. While all of these may apply, the universality of Michael's condition is one reason why it's so resonant because it's easy to project what ails you in that department onto it. I also appreciate that the movie doesn't shirk on portraying the consequences of such conditions on others, whether itís the confusion on Michael's son's face or how clearly emotionally destroyed former flame Bella is. Moreover, you could come up with just as many reasons as to why Lisa appeals to Michael so much. Could it just be that Michael finds her attractive and relatable? Is it just because Michael thinks she is someone he can control? It's more likely that it's the latter, because as that brilliant sun-drenched breakfast scene indicates, the more Lisa reveals quirks which Michael finds annoying and the more she makes plans that he finds uninteresting or require him to let his guard down, the more she seems like everyone else to him. As for the Japanese doll, does it indicate that Lisa is a product of Michael's imagination? I doubt it, especially since that would betray the ending. We don't see what Lisa's friend Emily really looks like for no reason. I think it's in the movie to haunt Michael about what could have been and its purpose to remind him of all it ended up being. For me, choosing a favorite Charlie Kaufman movie is like choosing a favorite child because the ones I've seen are all so good and unique, but I will say that this one stands out for how well it mirrors late 2010's life and onwards. Michael's typical interaction with everyone else does, after all, resemble what social media reduces it to. When you consider that Kaufman wrote the play on which this movie is based in 2005, a year in which social media existed, but wasn't as prevalent as it is today - I mean, Twitter didn't even exist yet - we have yet another reason to wonder if he's is a time traveler, not to mention be thankful that Donald was the twin who kicked the bucket.




movies can be okay...
The writer/director remains the reigning expert on the subject of the difficulty of achieving meaningful human connection even though his output has slowed as of late. David Lynch notwithstanding, he may also hold this title in the reality bending department.
You think so? I personally never looked at Lynch or his movies that way, but then again, there are a lot of ways you can take him and his films. I can see some traces of that theme in The Elephant Man, but other than that I probably wouldn't agree. What are some of his movies where you think that theme is prevalent?

Moreover, you could come up with just as many reasons as to why Lisa appeals to David so much. Could it just be that David finds her attractive and relatable? Is it just because David thinks she is someone he can control?
But there's also the fact that Michael hears Lisa as Lisa before he even lays eyes on her, he sees her as Lisa before knowing a single thing about her, and I think that's an important detail indicating how it truly could've been about anybody passing by at that specific moment for Michael and he would've latched on to them.



You think so? I personally never looked at Lynch or his movies that way, but then again, there are a lot of ways you can take him and his films. I can see some traces of that theme in The Elephant Man, but other than that I probably wouldn't agree. What are some of his movies where you think that theme is prevalent?
I guess I should clarify what I meant by reality bending: to me, it's when you're not sure if what you're seeing is actually happening or if it's happening in one of the characters' imaginations. As for Kaufman's movies, this could be the dream sequence in this movie, the "action movie" ending of Adaptation, the bulk of what happens in Eternal Sunshine, etc. You could sort of put what happens when John Malkovich goes inside of his own head in Being John Malkovich in this category. "Reality bending" might not be the best phrase for that; I think "mindf*ck" is the accepted term for stuff like this, but I wasn't sure if Letterboxd - where I also post my writeups - would flag that, and this is a family site, isn't it? As for David Lynch, there's the whole Balthazar Getty-starring sequence in Lost Highway, the Wizard of Oz references in Wild at Heart...heck, I could write a book.

But there's also the fact that Michael hears Lisa as Lisa before he even lays eyes on her, he sees her as Lisa before knowing a single thing about her, and I think that's an important detail indicating how it truly could've been about anybody passing by at that specific moment for Michael and he would've latched on to them.
Good point, I mean, after all, you're not truly in control of who or what you love and the reasons why you love something or someone don't always make sense. It's not far off from the scene in West Side Story where Tony falls in love at first sight with Maria or the similar scene in The Godfather with Michael and Apollonia: there's no explanation it, it just happened. In that case, the possibility that Michael thinks she's someone he can control may not explain what drew Lisa to him, but his perceived lack thereof could explain why she turned into everyone else (it goes along with their pillow talk about him complaining that he keeps losing everyone he gets close to).



movies can be okay...
I guess I should clarify what I meant by reality bending: to me, it's when you're not sure if what you're seeing is actually happening or if it's happening in one of the characters' imaginations. As for Kaufman's movies, this could be the dream sequence in this movie, the "action movie" ending of Adaptation, the bulk of what happens in Eternal Sunshine, etc. You could sort of put what happens when John Malkovich goes inside of his own head in Being John Malkovich in this category. "Reality bending" might not be the best phrase for that; I think "mindf*ck" is the accepted term for stuff like this, but I wasn't sure if Letterboxd - where I also post my writeups - would flag that, and this is a family site, isn't it? As for David Lynch, there's the whole Balthazar Getty-starring sequence in Lost Highway, the Wizard of Oz references in Wild at Heart...heck, I could write a book.
My bad, I kind of misread that sentence as a comparison between Kaufman and Lynch in terms of both being masters at displaying the "difficulty of achieving a meaningful human connection". I was like hmmm that doesn't sound like my Lynch.



My bad, I kind of misread that sentence as a comparison between Kaufman and Lynch in terms of both being masters at displaying the "difficulty of achieving a meaningful human connection". I was like hmmm that doesn't sound like my Lynch.
Haha, no problem...although, that's something Lynch isn't bad at either, if Laura Palmer, Sailor when he's in "snakeskin jacket" mode, if you will, and like you said John Merrick are of any indication.

That reminds me: has there been a mindf*ck Hall of Fame? It might be a good one.