24th Hall of Fame

Tools    





The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
1. Barry Lyndon
2. Shame
3. Beasts of the Southern Wild
4. El Secreto de sus ojos
5. The Day of the Jackal
6. Antwone Fisher
7. The Whisperers
8. Hard Times
9. Aniara
10. Vampyr
11. The Man from Nowhere
12. La Dolce Vita
13. In a Glass Cage



Last Russian HoF was fun, and it will probably be a small one so that could be a good place to start.

I won't join though, because I need some time off, but if you need any help, just DM me.
Thanks, if necessary, I will.



I'm skipping a lot because we're going in circles and I've felt that you haven't been understanding me, which could very well be the way I'm explaining it. I'll stick to the above as that shows you're on the right track to getting what I mean. I've never thought that there was something in the movie that you didn't understand.
Got it. Because in my experience when someone says that I didn't "get" a film, they meant that I was lacking in understanding of what happened in the film or what it was trying to accomplish or missed important symbolism or whatever.

The entire point of our debate is over your belief that the Academy voters gave it the Oscar because it's more accessible and easy to like.
I do want to clarify this point, because it's not what I'm saying.

To put it mathematically: suppose 100 Academy members watch the nominated films. 90 of them watch attentively and think deeply about what they are seeing. The other 10 watch more superficially, are distracted, whatever. I'm saying that I'm totally fine conceding that many of the attentive viewers thought the film was the best. But I'm also saying that because of the film's structure and other elements, those 10 inattentive viewers would probably have a more positive response to this film than to something like Dogtooth.

I'm saying it's a film which can be appreciated in depth or superficially. And to my mind, this is not a criticism. It's just something that would give it a slight edge when it comes to something like a vote.

I disagree with the idea that it's accessible on an emotional level because emotions are complex by their very nature, and everybody processes emotion differently. Emotion is related to perception, and it's that perception that is very important here.
But emotions also have layers. Much like what I wrote above, I think that the film has emotional impact whether you regard it deeply (as you clearly do), or whether you regard it superficially. I agree that a casual viewer would not get the full impact of the emotions, but I think that a superficial viewer would still feel the impact of the "broad strokes" of the emotion. I think that you could watch that final scene without subtitles and still get the emotional vibe.

I'll skip right to the ending which you have described as relatively and generally happy, easy to take, people pleasing, and lacking nuance.
I think that there are elements of the end which are generally happy and easy to take and lacking nuance. Because you have to remember that I'm talking about what someone would be able to glean if they weren't watching the film deeply and how the film might still be able to make them feel.

For me, this was emotionally devastating. It's fine that you feel the way you do, but you can't say how I feel doesn't make sense and you should understand my view as well.
I don't doubt that you felt this way about the film. And while I wouldn't describe my reaction as being emotionally devastated--in part because so many people lost their loved ones permanently--it certainly evoked a range of emotions in me. I think that how you've explained your reaction and how you read the ending as being more tragic than me makes sense.

If they saw it at the superficial level that you have described, then I believe they would have felt more like you did. Since they voted for it, they probably were affected by it more like I was. Just as an aside, this was a very unknown movie when it won and it was considered a big surprise, so popularity played no part in it winning, just the opposite in fact.
I think that if someone was only watching a film with partial attention (something I do, um, often SORRY SORRY EVERYONE!!), this is the one that would still leave a strong impression, based on my own experiences. It just has the right mix of plot elements, visual storytelling, engaging set-pieces, and emotional music.



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
Got it. Because in my experience when someone says that I didn't "get" a film, they meant that I was lacking in understanding of what happened in the film or what it was trying to accomplish or missed important symbolism or whatever.



I do want to clarify this point, because it's not what I'm saying.

To put it mathematically: suppose 100 Academy members watch the nominated films. 90 of them watch attentively and think deeply about what they are seeing. The other 10 watch more superficially, are distracted, whatever. I'm saying that I'm totally fine conceding that many of the attentive viewers thought the film was the best. But I'm also saying that because of the film's structure and other elements, those 10 inattentive viewers would probably have a more positive response to this film than to something like Dogtooth.

I'm saying it's a film which can be appreciated in depth or superficially. And to my mind, this is not a criticism. It's just something that would give it a slight edge when it comes to something like a vote.



But emotions also have layers. Much like what I wrote above, I think that the film has emotional impact whether you regard it deeply (as you clearly do), or whether you regard it superficially. I agree that a casual viewer would not get the full impact of the emotions, but I think that a superficial viewer would still feel the impact of the "broad strokes" of the emotion. I think that you could watch that final scene without subtitles and still get the emotional vibe.



I think that there are elements of the end which are generally happy and easy to take and lacking nuance. Because you have to remember that I'm talking about what someone would be able to glean if they weren't watching the film deeply and how the film might still be able to make them feel.



I don't doubt that you felt this way about the film. And while I wouldn't describe my reaction as being emotionally devastated--in part because so many people lost their loved ones permanently--it certainly evoked a range of emotions in me. I think that how you've explained your reaction and how you read the ending as being more tragic than me makes sense.



I think that if someone was only watching a film with partial attention (something I do, um, often SORRY SORRY EVERYONE!!), this is the one that would still leave a strong impression, based on my own experiences. It just has the right mix of plot elements, visual storytelling, engaging set-pieces, and emotional music.
I think this is all reasonable. You know I don't discount that you are right about what we were debating anyway but for some reason I wanted to give a counter argument. I think both sides are plausible.

I had to tell you this because it freaked me out today. I was working and texted my wife that I was stopping at Subway and had a 2 for 1 sub coupon. She wanted chips to go with it and I was rushing her to make up her mind on what kind because people were behind me. Then this happened-





It was so weird for me because she knows nothing of the movie.



I had to tell you this because it freaked me out today. I was working and texted my wife that I was stopping at Subway and had a 2 for 1 sub coupon. She wanted chips to go with it and I was rushing her to make up her mind on what kind because people were behind me. Then this happened-
.
.
.
It was so weird for me because she knows nothing of the movie.
You went one emotional layer too deep into Secret in Their Eyes!

You know what they say: "And if you gaze long enough into The Secret in Their Eyes, The Secret in Their Eyes will gaze back into you."