"Special" People In Movies.

Don't say that, what if one day you turn on the TV and there it is at least proceed to the Virgin thread first before you die, as I am waiting to hear about your sex life

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Very cool nebbit

I think Hollywood is confortable making movies like these.

If you criticize the film, your a jerk that hates the disabled.

P.S. What happened to your Metropolis avatar?

I still have it, but I felt like a change, so what do you think.

I have just finished watching the film Spider (2002) by David Cronenberg and with Ralph Fiennes in the leading role as a very mentally ill man.

This is a pretty complex film since we get to follow the story kind of through the eyes, or through the mind really, of the character Spider (Ralph Fiennes). Just as the schizofrenic man, we are not sure about what has happened in the past and what goes on right now. We are sure about when the film jumps back to the past and Spider's childhood, but all of a sudden the characters from the past start to appear in the present as well. The events that we were sure had really happened in the first half of the film all of a sudden seemed to be fabrications of Spider's ill mind. In the end of the film I realize that I can't be sure of anything that has happened in the film, because Spider isn't sure himself. Because Spider is completely mad.

I read an interview with Cronenberg when he said that Fiennes wanted to prepare himself for the role by visiting different asylums and meet schizofrenic patients. Cronenberg told him that he didn't care whether or not he did this because it wasn't a case study they were making. He preferred that Fiennes looked deep within himself instead of trying to illustrate classic schizofrenic symptoms. The film was supposed to be a portrait of a human being, not a clinical study - it's film art, not science.

This is kind of interesting since I find this film a whole lot more believable than films like A Beautiful Mind. Ron Howard, the director of A Beautiful Mind, made use of the illness that John Nash suffers from to gain the sympathy from the audience, and he used it as an excuse to make a sellable Hollywood story. A Beautiful Mind is about a true person with a real illness, but it totally fails to convince me. Spider is not about portraiting schizofrenic people as realistic as possible, but rather to tell a remarkable story which is realized only because the storyteller (because that's what Spider really is, a storyteller) is mad. And this results in a film that at least I think is a hell of a lot more convincing in its portrait of a schizofrenic man than A Beautiful Mind. We understand what a confusing and frightening everyday life Spider is living because we are told this remarkable story. So, at the same time as we get a really interesting and original film, we learn about what it is like to be completly nuts.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Whatever happened to people making whatever film they want to make and seeing what the market will bear in terms of revenue?

I'm against imposing limits on films in any way, shape or form. I don't even like ratings because I think they put a box around the creative process from the start and they make movies about what is accepted in society versus a work of art.

No one told Michaelangelo to paint a bikini on his nudes or to temper his subject matter so as not to offend.

If you don't like the painting, look at something else. No one has a right to say that another can't like something that they, themselves dislike.

If you don't like the film, don't pay to see it.

If it's on TV change the f*cking channel and quit bitching about it. Someone else may think it's the best damn film ever.

Change the f*cking thread and stop bitching, you big baby!

Yeah but.... but....

Crap, busted by a pinko rugrat.

So your comparing Radio and I Am Sam to Michaelangelo?

I'm sure when he made David he was concerned about what "the market will bear in terms of revenue."

I didn't know bikinis were fashionable in the 16th century.

I don't watch these movies.

I do change the "f*cking channel."

No, I'm saying it's all about artistic freedom. I'm certainly not comparing the two works, but the idea that there were undoubtedly people offended by the nudity in art (and there were, they were pretty prissy back then) as there are people offended (or bored, or anti-enthusistic) by content in film today. In either case, neither is required viewing. We do that of our own free will.

Piddy, as always, busted me for being guilty of exactly what I was posting. He's a pain in the ass.

I'll shut up now.

But honey... You told me you want it rough!

Me too.

Nah, you were doing fine.


I like your posts by the way, welcome to MoFo.

Thanks

I'm probably not gonna c Radio, so can anyone tell me what happens at the end? Like does he get treated better? Because i saw the trailer and it looked really sad (especially when the coach says theres not gonna be any room on the bus and Radio looks so disappointed)

Another great review Piddzilla.

I usually like David Cronenberg's movies, so I'll check it out.

Thanks, man!

Yeah, the guy makes really odd films. I haven't seen that many. I ordered some films recently and I think Scanners by Cronenberg was one of them. I don't remember exactly which films I ordered.

Have you seen Naked Lunch (1991)?

One of the top ten strangest movies I've ever watched.

Not for homophobes.

You know, I haven't seen it yet. It's one of those must-sees that I haven't seen. It's up there together with Shakespeare in Love.

AHHHHHH, the good old days of MoFo. Back when you could do what you want and like what you want -- before all these disastrous, "You know nothing and are worth nothing if you only like American films" attitudes came along here.