The Movie Forums Top 100 of All-Time Refresh: Countdown

Eh, we're probably at an impasse, then, because I think we have an abundance of romanticization for this kind of thing already, and generally could use more emphasis on these phases as a learning process rather than a good in and of themselves.

I thought about expanding on this preemptively, lest someone think I was suggesting music was not a part of filmmaking or something. Of course it is. But it also wouldn't make sense for me to say I "liked" a short film, as a film, if it was just a blank white wall with my favorite song playing over it (even though I'd enjoy it), so there's some ambiguity here, I think. I think it's at least fair to note as a potential explanation for the divergence of reactions.

I also think my standards for this are slightly different with pop music than they would be with, say, a score specifically created to sit alongside the film. I haven't considered that enough to say whether this distinction withstands scrutiny, but that's my immediate gut level reaction.

Okay, got it. Thanks for sharing your interpretation.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

WOW!!! a lot of good discussion about Harold and Maude, very cool to see people get into this countdown

You newer guys should join the next 24th HoF which will start in a couple weeks from now and is the big one!....and maybe nominate Harold and Maude. I'd welcome a needed rewatch, and maybe even a second viewing will change my mind.

Current standings:
Ruth Gordon 2
Meryl Streep 0

Do you think it's romanticized, though?

Harold is miserable and he has turned inside of himself, relating to his family only through cheap provocation.

Maude gives him a voice. It is a learning process--not just a set of madcap adventures.

Having worked with my fair share of angsty boys (some of whom tend to lash out in ways far more destructive than anything we see Harold do), this is where you want them to end up. Letting go of the expectations that aren't doing them any good and expressing themselves.

Anyone who watches this film and thinks that Harold is headed for a life of stealing cars or that the message of the film is "Yeah! Do whatever you want! WOO! Free spirits!!!" has, I think, missed the point of the film.

In general, yes. With this film, specifically, harder to say.

Harold is, but that's not quite the question. The question is about viewers in general, and how it lands to someone maybe going through something like that...or, more specifically, someone who thinks they are. But anyway, the thing I was replying to crumbs about was about how these things are depicted generally, so it wasn't explicitly about Harold and Maude there.

There's real suffering, real depression, and then there's the adolescent "I'm wearing black and listening to The Smiths a lot" touristy stuff that's often a part of growing up and superficially trying on identities. So even if the film itself is about the real thing, it 's also food for that immature preoccupation with self and image that, to be clear, can be a pretty normal/healthy part of maturing if it's a stepping stone into greater empathy and self-awareness.

Right, but that's the tricky part: most of the movie is them being this way. It's quite easy to enjoy that ride ("Wow they just stole a car! Society can't control such free spirits! Oh to be so carefree!") without really taking in the ending and anything it might say about all the zany stuff before. Basically the same thing as the "idolizing them" image Speling posted earlier.

Also not sure what order the posts are being read, but I basically said the same thing in my last reply to you:

Yes, but they are usually either terrible with cheap and ham fisted ways of explaining their actions, or overtly romanticize the 'criminal' elements themselves. What the characters are doing in these other ****tier films is cool because it's a crime. And then we are meant to absolve them because of this coolness.



Maude's crimes, simply by the way they are treated in the film, are mostly a playful finger at polite society. We are not meant to be instructed by her car stealing or think too deep or hard about the consequences of actual grand theft auto. Maude basically represents a fantasy world, a utopia of misbehavior without real victims. It's not like she's surfing and robbing banks and making shooting Anthony Kiedis in the foot look like a tremendous amount of fun. She's just a spirit guide breaking Bud Cort out of his shell. A few stolen cars be-damned.

Just for the record, I haven't been able to find a definitive answer to this question I'm fully comfortable with. It's an interesting discussion which I've thought a lot about, but haven't had enough time to think over fully.

With Full Metal Jacket, some things I think could blur the line are that R. Lee Ermey's performance feels more charismatic than hateful towards the men in the boot camp or that some of the insults he uses are, admittedly, pretty clever and (in a vacuum, to be perfectly clear) funny. I think this is why many people find that segment funny. I suppose, if Ermey showed more anger towards the men and if Kubrick wrote far less one-liners into the script, the rate of people misreading the film might have dropped.

I agree that acting could be a reason why this is the case for Harold and Maude. Gordon does have a sympathetic performance (although, I think this is fitting considering that she embraces life) and somebody could definitely get hung up on that and not consider how her behavior is negatively impacting other people around her.

For me, I'd actually say it's easier to absolve Harold and Maude than Full Metal Jacket for people misinterpreting it. Even if there's concrete evidence that a film isn't idolizing a character, it is possible for a movie to influence this backlash depending on the presentation of those characters. Harold and Maude has some of this with a rather quiet, sympathetic performance from Ruth Gordon. Full Metal Jacket has quite a lot of factors which blur the line with a thoroughly charismatic performance and some frequent clever insults.

One final thing I'll address is I think most of the films and shows in the pic I posted upthread (I haven't seen Rick and Morty, btw, so I can't speak to that show) will have at least a couple factors which blur the line. With Scarface, Tony Montana is portrayed as a wealthy, cocaine-snorting badass who can survive multiple bullet wounds while everyone around him gets either killed or is rendered incompetent in a few seconds of being injured in firefights. Or with Walter White, he's portrayed as a rich genius who knows more about cooking meth than pretty much everyone else he meets on the show in spite of them being in the drug business far longer than him. Really, I think most films which have a reputation of fans falsely idolizing characters they aren't meant to idolize will blur the line a bit, even with concrete evidence that the character isn't a good person. Whether it's a case of acting, portraying them as smart, or having them do something cool or badass, I think this will always be present. Is there a line when this goes too far? Perhaps. Do I know what the line is yet? I'm not sure, to be honest. It's a tough question and I'm not sure I'm read to criticize any of the films or shows I brought up so far. I'd need more time to think that over.

For what it's worth though, I think Harold and Maude is less guilty of this than Full Metal Jacket is

I'm talking about Harold and Maude specifically, and I don't think it's romanticized.

I just . . . disagree. I don't think that the behavior we see from Harold is in any way meant to be emulated. The film is incredibly clear on this when Harold breaks down and cries and admits that his actions come from a place of emotional neglect and frustration. As a viewer I can laugh at Harold's over-the-top fake suicide stagings, but the film (and Cort's pulled-inside performance) don't suggest that Harold is a cool kid. It's incredibly obvious that Harold is a person in need of help and repair. Harold starts the film in the phase you're describing, and Maude helps pull him out of it. How can it be romanticized if the whole point is him escaping that way of being?

Plus, part of the importance of the reveal of Maude being a Holocaust survivor is to put her life in contrast with Harold. I think we are meant to understand Harold's suffering as real (and not what you're talking about in terms of typical adolescent angst), but the film's message is still that he needs to snap out of it. So if someone who is "really" suffering is meant to grow up and snap out of it, doesn't that message hit even harder for a viewer who is experiencing "normal" adolescent angst?

The ending of the film is so stark and uncompromising, how can you fail to take it in? Besides which, the film doesn't just wait until the last 10 minutes to embed the more serious stuff: Maude's survival of the Holocaust, Harold's little meltdown about feeling unloved--these are woven into the main body of the story and it gives us an anchor to understand the behavior of the characters.

I don't think that the film's structure makes it that hard to separate the zaniness of the set-pieces from the message at the heart of the film.

I guess therein lies the rub: thumbing your nose at stuffy people's arbitrary customs lands pretty different than taking someone's car. Obviously there is some point at which you would also go "okay, that seems a bit much for the point they're ostensibly trying to make." The car is past that point, for me.

Okay, but you quoted something I directed towards someone else who was talking about things generally. Specifically, it was me replying to crumbs, who was saying this:

This is phase of life is one that needs to be captured more often (if you ask me), without the unneccessary tonic of moralizing the mistakes they make.

That's the jumping off point here. It's obviously fair and natural to talk about how/whether
Harold and Maude qualifies, but the thing you're quoting and taking issue with is not specifically about that film.

Saying it's "food" for something is not exactly saying it's being presented to be "emulated." And anyway, the whole point is the way people take these things on board (or not). If I'm talking about how people receive this film (and I stressed that this is what I was saying three separate times, so there should be no mistaking it), and you're just talking about what the filmmaker intended with this particular film, then we're just going to be talking past each other. Which seems to be the case.

@crumbsroom
@Takoma1

I think what Yoda is saying is that, while he recognizes that Harold and Maude provides concrete evidence that it's not romanticizing the characters, some people are still misinterpreting the film and believing it does. I think the discussion is: Can a film influence the people who idolize the characters in it by the presentation of their scenes (acting, smart characters, badass behavior), and if that's the case, could a film be held accountable for including scenes and aspects which blur the line? That's what we were discussing and why I posted the "missing the point" pic upthread.

I think some of this is getting lost, so I thought I'd clarify.

The fiction of Harold and Maude allows me to cheer or laugh at Maude's flouting of the law, and not cheer or laugh at the actual crime of car theft literally. For me it's nothing more than a symbol of how she treats anything overly constricting or serious or deadening to her fun. That's why I saw it's less a crime than a playful finger . The consequences of what she did doesn't really need to be considered as a part of the films world.

If that's the point, there's no doubt people misinterpret films all the time. And align themselves with characters for the wrong reasons. There are lots of reasons this can potentially happen and many might do the same thing about Harold and Maude. But I can barely speak for myself, so I can't fret too much over how other people take things. I only try and articulate how I've intererpreted something, and in this case, I'm just trying to talk about how I don't have any issues with overlooking the bad behaviour of characters in some films.

Great taste obvs. Eldest for me was 1927

Nice, you win! But FWIW, 2001 is latest but one right behind that is 1987 so it’s something of an outlier.

Personally, I think it's an interesting discussion.

Take Scarface, for example. Tony Montana is a ****ty character for sure, but he's also presented as a wealthy, cocaine-snorting badass who can survive multiple bullets in shootouts as those around him either die right away when they're shot or are rendered incompetent instantly. Perhaps, this could blur the line for some and influence people into thinking he's a cool character that should be idolized. Or, with Harold and Maude, Yoda brought up how Gordon's performance is sympathetic, which can possibly blur the line for some people.

Of course, there will always be a group of people who will misinterpret a film and there will always be some degree of elements which blur the line (acting, intelligence, badass behavior, etc.) that will appear in all films whose fans idolize a ****ty character in it, but maybe there's a line when this gets too excessive? Maybe Full Metal Jacket, Scarface, Breaking Bad, Fight Club, or Harold and Maude could be criticized for including too many elements which blur the line of the characters in them who are not meant to be good.

I've thought about this in the past. I don't have an answer to it, but I think it's worth considering.

Is a clue on it's way? I need to go to work knowing Brave Little Toaster is next

Indeed. Tomorrow's clue:

Made in Japan.

My question is why is it a problem to blur the lines between these things. Why should we know exactly how to feel about a character? I'm general more curious about why we need our heroes to be avatars for good, and our villains to only be something to be held in revulsion. Fiction is a safe place for us to think about the reflexive feelings we have about things. About what makes Scarface a hero, when he's clearly one of the most depraved figures in modern cinema. Or why R Lee Ermey is loved for his psychopathic mistreatment of soldiers.



You remove these ambiguities and moral conundrums, you erase these discussions.