24th Hall of Fame

Tools    





The trick is not minding
I am not being sarcastic.

I hear that it makes you uncomfortable and I'm happy to adjust my language in the future.

Any attempted humor in the former post is just me pushing the line that Barry is the worst, not a jab at people asking for sensitivity around the language.
Understood. Sorry for the misunderstanding



Understood. Sorry for the misunderstanding
No worries at all.

Like I said, I would never intentionally use language that I thought would be offensive or hurtful to someone else. It didn't even enter my brain that using the term would be taken as a racial critique in any way.

And I probably should have separated the apology and the continued Barry-bashing into two separate posts.



Without reading the back and forth yet, I like the character of Barry Lyndon because I don't like him. If I didn't dislike him, I would be indifferent.



The trick is not minding
No worries at all.

Like I said, I would never intentionally use language that I thought would be offensive or hurtful to someone else. It didn't even enter my brain that using the term would be taken as a racial critique in any way.

And I probably should have separated the apology and the continued Barry-bashing into two separate posts.
No worries. It is rather easy for me to misread a message haha.



Without reading the back and forth yet, I like the character of Barry Lyndon because I don't like him. If I didn't dislike him, I would be indifferent.
I almost wish that he was more of a scoundrel. I just felt like there was nothing to get my teeth into with his character.



I almost wish that he was more of a scoundrel. I just felt like there was nothing to get my teeth into with his character.
That's right and that's probably why the movie leaves me a little cold.



I thought Barry Lyndon was a rather sad person who suffered a lot of misfortunes. Then when fortune went his way he behaved badly and stupidly towards his wife. I mean she was hot, so why cheat on her, it could've been her hairdo

The duel scene at the end of the movie was so masterfully done, Kubrick's best scene. Lots of palatable tension and it wasn't rushed or made out to be anything but another one of life's long list of tragedies. Come to think of it that's the meaning of this movie for me, it's about trials and tribulations. The more I think about it, the more I like the movie.



The Sea Inside: Well done movie. and I love Bardem as I always do. I thought this movie was pretty morally bankrupt. I don't feel that way about movies often. Maybe this is wrong, but I am often able to project my morality onto the art I engage with. I really felt very strongly that this film was putting a extremely shiny sheen on suicide. The main characters approach to his death put me off as well. He is obviously supposed to be the smartest guy in the room, but his quips to the people who love him just came off as selfishness to me. I don't say that lightly. He obviously has drawn the short straw in a lot of ways, and it is hard for me to call someone in his condition selfish. I definitely felt that throughout though.

I have harped on my negative thoughts. I didn't dislike this film. It's an easy watch despite the themes. Well acted. and there are some interesting scenes. Overall not a great one for me though.
__________________
Letterboxd



The Sea Inside: Well done movie. and I love Bardem as I always do. I thought this movie was pretty morally bankrupt. I don't feel that way about movies often. Maybe this is wrong, but I am often able to project my morality onto the art I engage with. I really felt very strongly that this film was putting a extremely shiny sheen on suicide. The main characters approach to his death put me off as well. He is obviously supposed to be the smartest guy in the room, but his quips to the people who love him just came off as selfishness to me. I don't say that lightly. He obviously has drawn the short straw in a lot of ways, and it is hard for me to call someone in his condition selfish. I definitely felt that throughout though.

I have harped on my negative thoughts. I didn't dislike this film. It's an easy watch despite the themes. Well acted. and there are some interesting scenes. Overall not a great one for me though.
I totally agree with the selfish part. This is a guy that brings a lot of joy to other people, and you would think that would be reason enough to live.



I totally agree with the selfish part. This is a guy that brings a lot of joy to other people, and you would think that would be reason enough to live.
I do want to be clear that the way I feel about the character wasn't my criticism. My favorite movies are littered with sociopaths, crimi also, and killers. To me the way the movie is constructed doesn't allow for the viewer to engage with the complexity of the themes in a meaningful way. This movie is 100% on his side 100% of the time. For me that stripped the film of empathy.



This movie is 100% on his side 100% of the time. For me that stripped the film of empathy.
I don't entirely agree with that.

We frequently see the way that the desire to end his life impacts his friends and family, especially his brother. At one point he even has a panic attack and is like "How could I do this?"

Isn't it equally selfish to demand that someone continue to suffer because you don't want to lose them?



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
I don't entirely agree with that.

We frequently see the way that the desire to end his life impacts his friends and family, especially his brother. At one point he even has a panic attack and is like "How could I do this?"

Isn't it equally selfish to demand that someone continue to suffer because you don't want to lose them?
I think I saw this way of thinking too Takoma. Good call out.



I think I saw this way of thinking too Takoma. Good call out.
It is obviously a really challenging issue. As I said, I am still shaken with my personal experience of a loved one contemplating suicide as a way to have a peaceful end of life.

I do agree that the movie is on his side. Clearly the filmmakers believe that he is correct that the right to die--for someone who is of sound mind--is something that should exist. But I also thought that they were very sympathetic to the ripples of such an action. It was a horrible situation for everyone. There was pain to be had if he lived and pain to be had if he died.

Ultimately I do come down on the side of the film, which asserts that since it is his life, he should be the one to have the final say.



I think it's reasonable to see both sides, and I could see either side depending on the circumstance. With this character, I thought the happiness he gave others was more convincing than his own personal suffering.



I don't entirely agree with that.

We frequently see the way that the desire to end his life impacts his friends and family, especially his brother. At one point he even has a panic attack and is like "How could I do this?"

Isn't it equally selfish to demand that someone continue to suffer because you don't want to lose them?
I watched it last night and don't remember the panic attack. Lol I really thought the movie went out of its way to always make his point much stronger than the families. The scene towards the end where his brother finally lets loose a little is a perfect example. After he gets to let loose he immediately says some very cruel things that place us back squarely in the protagonists corner.

We can definitely veer off into a quality of life conversation, but that's an almost impossible nut to crack. Do you think this man has more reason to end his life than someone growing up in extreme poverty or an abusive home? I don't love slippery slopes but legal euthanasia is a slope of pure ice.



We can definitely veer off into a quality of life conversation, but that's an almost impossible nut to crack. Do you think this man has more reason to end his life than someone growing up in extreme poverty or an abusive home? I don't love slippery slopes but legal euthanasia is a slope of pure ice.
I think that his situation is different because unlike someone who lives in poverty or is in an abusive situation, he has a condition that will not change and cannot change. And he has been living with this unchangable, unfixable situation for 25 years.

Should people put down animals who are suffering? Is it more ethical to demand that a creature in pain should have to endure that pain until a "natural" death?

I think that it was actually really bold of the film to show that he was smart and funny. I think that part of the point is that someone can be both of those things but still be dealing with a degree of pain that is unbearable. It would have been easy to show him as depressed and despairing. Instead he explains the way that his separation from the world around him (his inability to even reach out and touch someone's hand) is torture.

I agree that emotional pain is more abstract. And I think it is hard to portray in a film without going into an area that could be read as histrionics. And there are people whose desire to die can be directly tied to chemical imbalances. I'm not saying it's not complicated. But I also find it horrifying that my desire to do what I want with my own life and my own body should be limited by the government.



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
Just finished The Secret in their Eyes and thoroughly enjoyed it. Will get a review up tomorrow.
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio




The Secret in Their Eyes (2009)

Sorry to say this one didn't do anything for me. I didn't hate it or object to it, I just found it dry and flawed. The writing for the spoken dialogue was banal and sounded all the same regardless of the character speaking it. I didn't believe these people talked this way, hell I don't believe anyone talks that way. It seemed like a case of a poorly written film as far as the dialogue goes. The plot too was half backed and hard to buy into.

The film looked like it was all shot in three or four different rooms and at no time did I feel like I was in Argentina...And for the flash back scenes I certainly didn't feel like it was 1974. The romance part was a wash and the notion that 'love is in the eyes', pfft! I mean the husband of the murdered woman had revenge in his eyes. The twist ending was daft like something out of Tales from the Crypt. And the whole idea that the killer was found by an old photograph were he was glaring at the murdered woman years earlier seemed like a plot point from Murder She Wrote.

The only time the film got interesting was at the 1 hour 20 minute mark when it was revealed that the corrupt officials had employed the murderer as an anti-leftist rebel buster, or whatever he was called. But we never really see any of this, were just told about it.

I much preferred State of Siege (Costa-Gavras 1972).



Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	segreto-suoi-occhi9.jpg
Views:	258
Size:	66.2 KB
ID:	72737  



I think that his situation is different because unlike someone who lives in poverty or is in an abusive situation, he has a condition that will not change and cannot change. And he has been living with this unchangable, unfixable situation for 25 years.

Should people put down animals who are suffering? Is it more ethical to demand that a creature in pain should have to endure that pain until a "natural" death?

I think that it was actually really bold of the film to show that he was smart and funny. I think that part of the point is that someone can be both of those things but still be dealing with a degree of pain that is unbearable. It would have been easy to show him as depressed and despairing. Instead he explains the way that his separation from the world around him (his inability to even reach out and touch someone's hand) is torture.

I agree that emotional pain is more abstract. And I think it is hard to portray in a film without going into an area that could be read as histrionics. And there are people whose desire to die can be directly tied to chemical imbalances. I'm not saying it's not complicated. But I also find it horrifying that my desire to do what I want with my own life and my own body should be limited by the government.
I fully agree with the bolded part. In response to your last paragraph. I mean, ultimately it's not. If I decide to put a gun in my mouth tomorrow, it's done, no matter what anyone says. I don't think the state should be sponsoring such things though.