-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
So basically Оля what you do is watch horror movies and American blockbusters, find them bad for some reason (poor acting or whatever comes to mind) or, to the best, entertaining, and then you go on about "foreign films" and "western cinema" -- are you serious?
Would you find it fair if I picked some Russian pop band and, based on this, went on criticizing popular Russian music?
In other words, I think you should call things by their name. Hollywoodian cinema is not "foreign films". And you should not judge a whole genre by the worse movies which belong to it. There are actually some good horror movies, why don't you watch Jack Clayton's "The Innocents" (1961) for example? I've watched it a dozen times and the little boy's verses still make me chill.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
So Olya, let me ask you this (and I ask with sincerity) ... story line aside... what about the rest of the movie? The things that it won Oscars for, did you find those at all to help the film have any redeeming value or was the storyline so upsetting for you that it would not matter how good everything else was, it was too distracting for you?
The reason I ask, I know that there are times when even one piece of dialogue (maybe it is not right for the character or would not have been said at the time the story took place), one wrong continuity, or some other little distraction... can ruin an otherwise fantastic film for people. So if this is the case, if the story line itself (or the main character) was such a distraction for you, even with the rest of the film being the cream of the crop, 50 awards, is it a film you would never recommend on any level?
Just wondering, 'cus ya know, I am the curious type when it comes to this stuff. :)
To be honest, I don't remember the film very well, and I don't remember the whole plot in details, even. But I remember very well all my impressions about this film. I can tell you that I didn't like the acting AT ALL (I don't remember supporting roles, though). The story line told us that the man and the woman loved... no, LOVED each other. I didn't see that at all. I only saw vain attempts to imitate love. All those "love" things in the film were boring to me.
I must add, however, that we Russian viewers are used to a very high level of acting we saw in our films (I think many Russians even don't realize that). So an acting which won Oscar could look just very pale and even just bad from Russian dainty point of view. To be quite honest, I see
really good acting (in my opinion) in foreign films
very rarely. At best, acting in foreign films is just "okay" to me.
P.S. If you are interested, the only foreing actor who convinced me that he can play not worse, and even better than some Russian actors, was Alan Rickman.
Olya! I have now watched "The English Patient" and I must admit... YOU ARE CORRECT! :thanks:
This movie is not so great. I had not missed much by not watching it all these years. I could have happily not watched it my entire life and been just fine. I do belive that the awards the film won for, were valid. The "artistic" part of the movie was very nice and the music that went with it was lovely; however.... the acting and script, for me, were just so-so. And, if you had not told me in advance what it was about, I would have been lost and would have had to rewatch the entire thing to understand it and I'm not certain it was worth doing so.
Maybe back 13 years ago, it was a BIG gottcha ending, but it just did not do that for me. In all honesty, if he loved her that much, he would have fought harder for her. He could have carried her (she only had a broken ankle) or explained more to the people what had happened and why he needed help.
The only scene that really got me was the one with Kip detonating the bomb and the tanks driving over the bridge.
Also, I was retelling your posting to my daughter about how a man killed all these people to rescue his one love, and she finished your sentence for you by saying "Oh and of course, we think that is oh, so romantic. We don't care about all the other people who had wives."
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zubr
So basically Оля what you do is watch horror movies and American blockbusters, find them bad for some reason (poor acting or whatever comes to mind) or, to the best, entertaining, and then you go on about "foreign films" and "western cinema" -- are you serious?
Zubr, please read my post more carefully - I didn't say that all western cinema is bad. I wrote quite the opposite.
Quote:
Would you find it fair if I picked some Russian pop band and, based on this, went on criticizing popular Russian music?
Well, you know, basically, even good pop music doesn't have the same value as,... say, more serious music. I am not a very musical person, so I'd prefer not to talk much about music. However, even if I do admit that there is really good pop misic, I will never say that it touchs me as much as [let's write here "the music I really love", because the question is too extensive].
Quote:
And you should not judge a whole genre by the worse movies which belong to it.
As far as I understand, the film I mentioned, "White Single Female" does not belong to the the worst movies of that genre at all. Then again, I, too, don't think so. My point actually was that I don't see any "high" sense even in good horror movies, generally. I'm not talking about genius films, like "Vertigo", because genius things are genius things.
Quote:
I've watched it a dozen times and the little boy's verses still make me chill.
I haven't seen this film, probably I'll watch it. But you obviously missed my point. As I said, chill is not the first thing I want to feel when watching a movie. What I meant, is that in the most of foreign movies, I feel lack of something what would touch my best feelings deeply in my heart. Sorry for my slobbery English here, can't express it better.
P.S. You are French, so I suppose you know the film "Deux Hommes Dans La Ville"?.. That's a film which excited me a lot, for example.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
All...
I think it goes back to an older posting I wrote. What is the purpose of cinema or any art form? Is it to entertain, to teach, to unite?
Each art has its own purpose and each person has their own unique experience that they bring to the art and will take away from the art.
Is a Peanuts cartoon any less worthy than a Degas? Should Scooby Doo be looked down upon because it is in the same genre as Film, Film, Film? Should we never make a horror film like Texas Chainsaw Massacre because all it does is scare people and has no redeeming value? There are many people out there who watch movies just to enjoy them. They watch them purely for the fun of them, the entertainment. They don't care about the inept scripts, inaccurate settings or any other of the millions of things which are technically wrong with the film. They are there simply to enjoy and have an hour or so to escape. And I admit to this... upon occassion you can find me reading trashy novels or watching "stupid worthless" tv shows :yahoo:
But then again, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
upon occassion you can find me reading trashy novels or watching "stupid worthless" tv shows
Ditto (=me too). Every now and then something populistic and very simplified is all you have mental energy for... There is definitely room for such entertainment.
HOWEVER -- When I look around me I think there is a bit too much of the type of culture that appeals to the lowest common denominator. One of the good things about "state TV" is that it tries to educate people and raise the intellectual level in the country. Watching without commercials is much nicer. I grew up with such a regime and I don't regret it although certain phenomenons got a "cool" status as "forbidden fruit", like TV commercials and certain types of programming - how silly that seems now.
It's sad in a way that there are people who spend half their time in front of the TV / video but don't know anything about art, litterature, theatre, political issues or history.... But they could tell you the colour of the underwear of the contestants in Big Brother or the names of Victoria Beckhams kids...
I'm in two minds about it --- in extreme moments I think all junk entertainment should be banned... But the next day I find myself reading the Daily Mail or watching "Britain's got talent" (but I draw the line at Big Brother!!!)
I think the internet and broadband is changing everything though, and things will never go back to how they were. Because of the internet there is complete freedom of choice - People can watch more or less whatever they want, whenever they want.... so you can choose to widen your horizons or indulge in unlimited amounts of junk....
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
In all honesty, if he loved her that much, he would have fought harder for her. He could have carried her (she only had a broken ankle) or explained more to the people what had happened and why he needed help.
Yes! That's exactly what I think and what I was thinking when watching the movie! Why didn't he carry her, I couldn't understand that! Leaving her in that cave was just sheer lunacy. I think if I were in a similar situation, even I, a woman - I would never leave my man there; I would drag him, after all.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
All...
I think it goes back to an older posting I wrote. What is the purpose of cinema or any art form? Is it to entertain, to teach, to unite?
Each art has its own purpose and each person has their own unique experience that they bring to the art and will take away from the art.
Art should elevate, ennoble man. It's well-known. That's its goal. That's not quite true that each art has its own purpose. The general purpose is common. Art should provoke best feelings. That's the way it was in all epochs. The ancient Greeks went to the theatre in order to experience the catharsis. People never created artworks for provoking hate, fear, or disgust.
Another question is if cinema should be art or not. For me, it should.
As for stupid TV shows and stupid/bad movies – I watch them sometimes, too. Everyone watches them, one way or another. But why can't I say that some disposable one-time film I've watched is worse than other film, a good one? Why should we start politically correct talking like "but why are films made for?" There are films made for making money and watched for killing time, but those films are not art, that's all. Let's call things by their right names.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by "What Is Art? by Leo Tolstoy, 1896
Art begins when one person, with the object of joining another or others to himself in one and the samefeeling, expresses that feeling by certain external indications. To take the simplest example: a boy, having experienced, let us say, fear on encountering a wolf, relates that encounter; and, in order to evoke in others the feeling he has experienced, describes himself, his condition before the encounter, the surroundings, the woods, his own light heartedness, and then the wolf's appearance, its movements, the distance between himself and the wolf, etc. All this, if only the boy, when telling the story, again experiences the feelings he had lived through and infects the hearers and compels them to feel what the narrator had experienced is art. If even the boy had not seen a wolf but had frequently been afraid of one, and if, wishing to evoke in others the fear he had felt, he invented an encounter with a wolf and recounted it so as to make his hearers share the feelings he experienced when he feared the world, that also would be art. And just in the same way it is art if a man, having experienced either the fear of suffering or the attraction of enjoyment (whether in reality or inimagination) expresses these feelings on canvas or in marble so that others are infected by them. And it is also art if a man feels or imagines to himself feelings of delight, gladness, sorrow, despair, courage, or despondency and the transition from one to another of these feelings, and expresses these feelings by sounds so that the hearers are infected by them and experience them as they were experienced by the composer.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Firstly, at Tolstoy's times, there was no cinema. Or, to be more precise, the cinema that existed then already, he didn't consider as art. I think if he could find out that people in the XXth century would make movies like "Children of the Corn", he would turn over in his grave.
But okay, let's talk about his quote. Listen, do you think the boy wants to earn money when he narrates his story? :)
I even don't think that he wants to frighten the listeners. Well, maybe, sometimes, if he tells such a story to his friends, he does. But I don't think that's what Tolstoy meant, because when you tells a story just to frighten the listeners, you don't feel true fear yourself, and there is no complete sincerity in your story. What the Tolstoy's boy wants, is to share his adventure with others (not to frighten them), or to free himself from his fear, or the both. And he doesn't actually think what happens in hearts of the listeners. He's occupied with his own emotions, and that's right, that's when a true sincere story comes out. A boy would be sincere to the limit. His main goal is to share his experience, his emotions, his fear with others. If he narrates badly, not sincerely, you will feel falsity and will not be imbued with his story, you will not pity him. Even if the story is not true, he should tell it sincerely, and only in this case we'll believe him.
But when a director starts to shot a movie, it's not that simple. Do you really think a script writer always really wants to share with us his fear of some crazy man who deceives and murders people, and that's the true script writer's goal?
However, a film is always made by many people, and many people can't act, think, and respire like one person. It happens rarely even when the film is good. Only a genius director can make many people to act like one person and infect them all with a common idea.
The other main thing is that all those people who are making the movie earn money by doing that. I am sorry, but we can't compare all those people making their money with one boy who really simply wants to tell us a story, even if he only invented it.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
Firstly, at Tolstoy's times, there was no cinema.
Thank God. I think that's why literature is dead, everyone wants their book turned into a movie.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Apropos of the purpose of art:
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.D.Salinger
"I know this much, is all," Franny said. "If you are a poet, you do something beautiful. I mean, you're supposed to leave something beautiful after your get off the page and everything. The ones you are talking about don't leave a single, solitary thing beautiful. All that maybe the slightly better ones do is sort of get inside your head and leave something there, but just because they do, just because they know how to leave something, it doesn't have to be a poem, for heaven's sake. It maybe just some kind of terribly fascinating, syntaxy droppings—excuse the expression."
J.D. Salinger, Franny
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
First[s:1uipvpnk]ly[/s:1uipvpnk], at Tolstoy's times, there was no cinema. Or, to be more precise, the cinema that existed then already, he didn't consider it as art.
I even don't think that he wants to frighten the listeners. (I think it should be ... "I don't even think"... but I am not certain as both sound odd to me.)
But I don't think that's what Tolstoy meant, because when you tell[s:1uipvpnk]s[/s:1uipvpnk] a story just to frighten the listeners....
If he narrates badly, not sincerely, you will feel falsity and will not be imbued (okay, I had to look this word up, and it means: influenced as if by dyeing or to inspire, or influence thoroughly "the spirit that imbudes the new constitution" is that what you were going for?) with his story, you will not pity him.
But when a director starts to shoot a movie, it's not that simple. Do you really think a script writer always really wants to share with us his fear of some crazy man who deceives and murders people, and that's the true script writer's goal?
However, a film is always made by many people, and many people can't act, think, and [s:1uipvpnk]respire[/s:1uipvpnk] breathe like one person. It happens rarely even when the film is good. Only a genius director can make many people [s:1uipvpnk]to[/s:1uipvpnk] act like one person and infect them all with a common idea. (Olya, infect- very interesting word choice here! I never would have thought of that!)
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
First[s:47h7ri0p]ly[/s:47h7ri0p], at Tolstoy's times, there was no cinema.
I meant "firstly" ("first of all").
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
I even don't think that he wants to frighten the listeners. (I think it should be ... "I don't even think"... but I am not certain as both sound odd to me.)
"I don't think that he even wants to frighten the listeners."
Is this any better?
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
[quote=Оля] Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Оля":2bhzc6gw
First[s:2bhzc6gw]ly[/s:2bhzc6gw], at Tolstoy's times, there was no cinema.
I meant "firstly" ("first of all").[/quote:2bhzc6gw]
I know dearest one... go check out the English thread..
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
[quote=E-learner] Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Оля":3ak1r93n
I even don't think that he wants to frighten the listeners. (I think it should be ... "I don't even think"... but I am not certain as both sound odd to me.)
"I don't think that he even wants to frighten the listeners."
Is this any better?[/quote:3ak1r93n]
Oh yes, much better e-Learner!
I believe, from learning so much since being on this forum, you can even remove the "that" from the sentence. (I now notice how much I use the word "that" in my writing.)
"I don't think even he wants to frighten the listeners" or would it be "I don't think even he wants to frighten his listeners" ???
I really must try not to correct English when my head hurts!
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
There was said a lot for how the Russian movies (art, theater's acting, music, etc.) are fantastic and incredible with respect to all the foreign arts. I would say a few words about what bores me in the Russian art. There are two things: First one is "totalitarianism" and second one is "aspiration to compassion".
"Totalitarianism" – there is nothing related to our government's ruling of art. To take the simplest example: a person admired some artwork of a master. He thought that this artwork is the best. After that he started to neglect all the other artworks by all the other masters. As a result we have the mainstream in art. This mainstream is polished with each new artwork. But there are now any new waves in the art. The art has become conservative and does not give us any new impressions or feelings. The art is perfect but dead. Period. The art of movie can't be used only in one Stanislavsky's way of human soul. When you are listening to music which is without lyrics or seeing a painting full of sunflowers is the human soul the only thing you are looking for in these artworks? NO. Movie is also an art and can be used for the same purposes as music and paintings: to give new impressions or feelings and these impressions are not obligated to be connected to some human soul.
I love the line:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
"Aspiration to compassion" – very frequently some people mix two things "love" and "compassions" (or "feeling pity for smth"). If a person suffers a lot you regret of it and feel compassion to that person. The more suffering – the more compassion. After some time you start to think you love this person just for the compassion you feel. Here the simple formula emerges for making your art be loved: Make you main character suffering as much as possible and people will feel compassion and love your character. If people love your character they love your art. IT SUCKS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
they provoke catharsis and compassion. That's what I want to feel having watched a movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
I HATE the film "The English Patient" ... in the name of "love". Listen, he gave secret maps to fascists!!! Having got those maps, fascists captured a city...
Maybe it is really bad to sacrifice a city for saving only your beloved. But back to the movie "The cranes are flying": Listen, Veronika betrayed her beloved for nothing. What if Boris would survive and meet Veronika married another man??? It's disgusting. The more disgust is pushed in to the story the more compassion some people feel. I hate this movie. This is the worst Russian movie.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeCup
"The cranes are flying"...I hate this movie. This is the worst Russian movie.
CoffeeCup... Please, would you expand on this one? I ask of you the same types of questions I asked Olya. What are the reasons for you not liking this movie as you know how much I did enjoy this film.
I actually agree with you about Veronika's character faults, she was a b@tch for leaving Boris. Yet that was the setup for the rest of the movie and allowed the actors to show how well they can actually act. Watching her torment and inner strugle and how well she portrayed those emotions on the screen, the deepth of her despair, her self loathing at what she had done. Uncle Fyodor's struggle with liking Veronika, yet trying to remain loyal to his on flesh and blood. These actors and the script writing for this movie, IMHO, were right on the money. They were realistic. Now, her jumping ship so quickly... that I did not exactly understand and it might have to do with the translation from Russian to English, yet I let that one slide. Otherwise, the rest of the movie worked and covered a number of taboo issues and did so rather amazingly. Had a film in Russia ever talk about dodging the draft before?
So, now PLEASE let me know your thoughts... was it the story that turned you off? That Veronkia betrayed Boris? Or was it much more than that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeCup
there is nothing related to our government's ruling of art.
This is an excellent point. I tend to forget this. How did it all work back then. Did the government fund everything? Were aspiring actors given training and never had to worry about where their next meal came from? Or what did happen to actors, directors and scriptwriters if the film did poorly in the box office or if leaders were not pleased with the final product? How was a film made if a scriptwriter had a script that he/she wanted to make and it was not say "approved material" was there a black market film business? Forgive me if my questions sound stupid or naive... I just honestly have no frame of reference for this. I only know about the history of American cinema and the big Hollywood studios and contract players and how United Artists all came about.
So, please, help educate me once again. :)
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeCup
When you are listening to music which is without lyrics or seeing a painting full of sunflowers is the human soul the only thing you are looking for in these artworks? NO. Movie is also an art and can be used for the same purposes as music and paintings: to give new impressions or feelings and these impressions are not obligated to be connected to some human soul.
There is an oxymoron here: impressions and feelings ARE connected to human soul by their very definition.
Then again, music with lyrics or without touches your soul, not your heels or stomach.
Quote:
Listen, Veronika betrayed her beloved for nothing. What if Boris would survive and meet Veronika married another man??? It's disgusting. The more disgust is pushed in to the story the more compassion some people feel. I hate this movie. This is the worst Russian movie.
Obviously you never watched this movie carefully. Boris's brother violated her, didn't he? I don't remember the plot very well now, so Rockzmom please tell us if it was so.* The morals at those times were so that a girl could not act in another way in a situation like that. She had to marry him. However, I don't think that the whole film is about compassion for Veronika only. I rather feel compassion for Boris... And for all people who had beloved and lost them in war.
*I've just re-watched that scene. He did.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
So, now PLEASE let me know your thoughts... was it the story that turned you off? That Veronkia betrayed Boris? Or was it much more than that?
Three things make me to dislike this movie.
First: silly and fake idea of the story. This dark spot gives the shadow to the whole movie.
Second: Veronika had no backbone whatsoever.
Third: the plot only aim is mental suffering and compassion. I don't see any difference if there was a maniac physically torturing a chained and strapped victim all the movie long. The only difference is that the victim would wish to escape while Veronica doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
So, please, help educate me once again.
I am not an expert in the Russian movie history. Everything below is just a common sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
Did the government fund everything?
The government did fund everything. Not every movie, but EVERYTHING. The government was the only monopoly which managed money all over the USSR. Of course, there was some selection what a movie to fund what not to fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
Were aspiring actors given training and never had to worry about where their next meal came from?
Yes, and not only actors. Everyone was condemned to education and then to work. Even if someone did nothing he had some work and some salary. Of course, if someone did his work better he had better chances to get better work and better salary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
Or what did happen to actors, directors and scriptwriters if the film did poorly in the box office?
Nothing happened. If the government gave money for a movie and did not get any profit in the box office, the government just covered the expenses by selling more missiles or fight planes to some third world countries. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
... or if leaders were not pleased with the final product?
They were exiled to Siberia (he-he-he). :D
Actually, you can imagine any big corporation leader disliking the results of his employee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
How was a film made if a scriptwriter had a script that he/she wanted to make and it was not say "approved material" was there a black market film business?
There was only one monopoly which was able to fund the movie. So the scriptwriter had to correct his script if he really wanted to make the movie.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Coffeecup, your responses were very funny and interesting!
My understanding is that one of the reasons USSR cinema was able to make some artistically outstanding films was that profit-making (appealing to the largest possible audience) was not a factor that they had to worry much about. Economically I think it did not matter much to the director or the actors if the film was seen by 5 million people or 20 million... I think they were just paid a regular salary regardless. But those who were considered outstanding in their field were rewarded with things like nice houses and better consumer goods than what regular people had access to. The result of the lack of commericalism meant that they could focus more on artistic quality and less about creating a block-buster.
My impression (not sure what Russian people think about this) is that from the 1960s and forward there was no serious requirement of ideological content of the film as long as the film did not outright critisize the government. But several USSR films that I have seen have plenty of hints at problems with the government, or they are making political statements that are placed in a sci-fi or historical context (to circumvent censorship.) Large parts of the world, including many capitalist countries had (and still have) restrictions against outright criticism towards the government, so it's not really that unusual.
But nobody would have tried to make an outright government-critical film and they wouldn't have recieved funding for it.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
WARNING… Spoil Alert... "The Cranes are Flying" …Spoil Alert…WARNING
:shock: I know..."OMG it's a wall of English text...Rockzmom has lost her frickin' mind!" :wacko:
It will be good practice for y'all. Get yourself a cup of coffee or tea, and relax. :wink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeCup
Three things make me to dislike this movie.
First: silly and fake idea of the story.
This response surprises me. The first part of the story, we have the romance of Boris and Veronkia and then Boris signing up to go to war. He leaves his best girl behind and asks her to wait for him. This all seems very plausible to me.
Then we have Veronkia's parents dying in a scenario which seems very possible, so I can buy that one.
Next we have Veronkia getting married to Boris' cousin (Mark) who has always loved her and apparently took advantage of her (raped) and she had no choice but to marry him. What she should have done was ratted him out. Why, I don't know but she didn't. Her decision to marry him is a paradox. Yet, I could still buy this as it was a war time, she just lost her parents, and she was scared and in those days a woman was probably thought of as "dirty" or somehow wrong if that happened to her and she was not mentally all there, blah, blah, blah. And how would she explain not being a virgin any longer to Boris once he came home from the war?
Now, the little boy scene... that was one of the ones I had a little trouble with. The expression in the industry is “jumping the shark” and it means when the plot just gets to absurd. I could see her wanting to end her life after all of this... She hates herself for what she has done, what has happened to her and she has become…but the whole little boy wandering into the street exactly at the same time and her never really looking for his parents. That is a bit much for me to swallow.
Moving on, we have her husband (who we now know is a jerk) possibly two-timing on her and taking her most treasured possession in the world (besides her virginity), which of course was not in the apartment and blown to bits, because she took it with her to the air raid shelter. This (along with seeing him at the party) of course sends her over the edge and back to reality (finally, thank you) and gives her back the backbone you saw was missing...I can see all this happening as well.
I can also see the whole Mark buying his way out of the Army as we now know he is a real slime ball.
I also accept the ending with Uncle Fyodor siding with and taking Veronika over Mark as he really did like her all along and now he has proof his schmuck of a nephew really is a loser. This allows Fyodor to finally take Veronika back into the family.
And there you have it, a fairly realistic story line. If you just take out the little boy scene, the rest of it really does work and is very plausible.
(are ya wavering yet coffeecup?)
Have you ever heard of the Fighting Sullivan Brothers? I don't think the younger generation of Americans have so I am not certain how many foreigners know this story. I only know it because of my dad.
(he still has this poster)
http://cds033.dc1.hwcdn.net/m5v9i3d8...sposter_sm.jpg
The Sullivan’s were five brothers who all enlisted in the Navy for WWII on the ONE condition that they all serve together. Now normally the Navy separated siblings, but in this case, tragically they did not and all five of them were killed in action.
Now, if you saw a movie with a plot about 5 brothers all enlisting and demanding to serve together and the Navy just turning a blind eye and actually letting them and THEN, and THEN...they all die within 8 days of each other...if you saw that movie without knowing the story line really happened in true life, it would seem pretty fake and silly (kind of jumping the shark), wouldn't it?? And it might just ruin the entire movie for you because it just turned you off and no matter how good everything else was in the film, you could not suspend disbelief and forget that there was a movie screen in front of you.
So that plot compared to Cranes??? Cranes seems pretty resonable, no?
(come on coffeecup, your thinkin' I'm a little right now, ain't cha?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeCup
Second: Veronika had no backbone whatsoever.
What about Anna from, The Lady with the Dog? That was a character without a backbone! Both characters felt guilt about cheating on their man, yet I did not feel anything from Anna's character. Anyway, throughout the film, Veronika has to fight her way to see Boris. There are three times that she does this. She is actually fighting a sea of people, swimming upstream, against the flow to find HER man! As if all odds are against her. It is a foreshadowing of things to come of course. Yet, she never gives up, this chick has moxie, she just loses it for a while.
(come on coffeecup, come on over to the dark side. It's okay, I have cream puffs waiting for ya.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeCup
Third: the plot only aim is mental suffering and compassion. I don't see any difference if there was a maniac physically torturing a chained and strapped victim all the movie long. The only difference is that the victim would wish to escape while Veronica doesn't.
I think there are two times she does want to escape. Once when she tries to kill herself and once when she tries to leave him but Uncle Fyodor stops her. And, IMHO, the plot is also about how people deal with their feelings during difficult times.
Boris chose to enlist in the Army and serve his country even though he was young and could get out of serving while his cousin did just the opposite, he bought his way out. Was Mark against the war on principles? No, he just did not want to fight. Yet Boris, he wanted to serve. These are two very different character traits.
The film also showed a female doctor and made the reference to if she had been born a man (at least in the English subtitles it says that). In any case, it was interesting to me that they showed a female surgeon, Irina. Back then in the U.S., how many films had female surgeons? They were showing only female nurses.
Also, Uncle Fyodor had great depth as a character and the plot surrounding him and how he handled the situation of both his son and his nephew. He had lost his son to the war and now finds out his nephew had paid not to be drafted, would he be thankful or upset? This is a pivotal point. The character could have gone either way.
So this movie is really a study and reflection of human nature and how we as humans (notice I am not saying Russians) deal with life. HOWEVER, this film offers so much more. To me, this film has a depth to it “artistically” and I know that this is a hot topic right now. What is artistic? When I saw this film, I saw so much more than light on transparent celluloid. I saw all the art forms working as one to make magic. And with the exception of the little boy scene, to suspend disbelief. I was brought into their world. They were no longer two dimensional flickering images. They became real to me.
(Game, set, match.)
I'm tired now. http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/q...miley-yawn.gif
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Okay... after that longggg posting...time for some fun! American TV style.
This was on last night and it was one of the best episodic shows I have seen in YEARS! The show is called "Glee" and it is brand new. From start to finish this episode was (as Johanna would say) BRILLIANT! :yahoo:
I found the opening clip (it is cut a little short so you miss the dad's comments) and a clip from towards the end of the show. I have no idea how long they will stay up on Youtube. I also have a link so you can watch the entire episode if you want. As it is only the 4th show in the series, I think you should be able to just watch it without much trouble.
IMPORTANT! NOW if you have NOT seen "Beyoncé - Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)"
music video, you NEED to watch that FIRST to really appreciate all the humor.
Beyoncé - Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It) - watch first if you have not seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mVEGfH4s5g
Glee - Single Ladies Opening of the show (quality not so great, but only one up right now)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHTuWtJY1Ww
Glee - Single Ladies (Football Team Dance) 09/23/09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U-Qz8yzxVQ
Glee SE0104 full episode
http://www.quicktvonline.com/2009/09/glee-s01e04.html
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
Her decision to marry him is a paradox.
Guys, it's not a paradox. It's a paradox only for a modern man who doesn't care a hang that women, and especially innocent girls, can't act and see things the same way as men do; and that there were times when people had different morals. Also, such a man can't understand that if you've just experienced a bombing, are half-conscious, and a man takes you in his arms and carries you somewhere - if you're an innocent girl, all that DOES NOT yet mean to you WHAT he's going to do with you now! ESPECIALLY at those times.
Quote:
Yet, I could still buy this as it was a war time, she just lost her parents, and she was scared and in those days a woman was probably thought of as "dirty" or somehow wrong if that happened to her and she was not mentally all there, blah, blah, blah. And how would she explain not being a virgin any longer to Boris once he came home from the war?
That's a very good explanation, Rockzmom, and especially the latter; it was actually her main reason, I think.
Quote:
and her never really looking for his parents.
Oh, Rockzmom, if you only knew how many kids were getting lost then! They just were not able to say where are they from and what is their surname and the parents' names, so how could one look the parents then? Then again, there was no Internet or TV there, so the search would not be something easy. And finally, I think she did try to find his parents; but it is soooo obvious that the director doesn't show that in the film.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeCup
If the government gave money for a movie and did not get any profit in the box office, the government just covered the expenses by selling more missiles or fight planes to some third world countries. :D
You forgot to mention how these "sellings" were occured: USSR gave to some third world countries that equipment, but the money for those deals USSR never got. And modern Russia just canceled majority of this debts. Just guess who was paying in result. (И извини, конечно, Кофечашко, но если ты действительно так считаешь (что Советское правительство наживалось за счёт продажи оружия на странах третьего мира), то ты дурачок, ну а в противном случае ты просто ...)
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
Her decision to marry him is a paradox.
Guys, it's not a paradox.
Maybe I should have stated a "moral paradox" or an "ethical dilemma?"
Example: the conflict between a moral injunction and a duty that cannot be fulfilled without violating that injunction. For example, take the situation of a parent with children who must be fed (the duty), but cannot afford to do so without stealing, which would be wrong (the injunction). Such a conflict between two maxims is normally resolved through weakening one or the other of them: the need for survival is greater than the need to abide by the law.
In the case of the movie, Veronika has been raped by Mark. She is in love with Boris and is to marry him (the duty), yet she has the shame of what has happened to her (the injucntion). Can she really marry the man that just raped her ? Can she face Boris again knowing he will find out she is no longer a virgin? Can she face Boris' family knowing that she has betrayed Boris and married Mark? Can she face them if she tells them what Mark has done? She is in a no win situation. She has a need for survival.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
... Just guess who was paying in result. (И извини, конечно, Кофечашко, но если ты действительно так считаешь (что Советское правительство наживалось за счёт продажи оружия на странах третьего мира), то ты дурачок, ну а в противном случае ты просто ...)
Мне очень жаль, что я задел Ваши чувства, уважаемый Базиль. Я не знал, что на форуме есть люди, которые из своих личных средств финансировали всю советскую военную промышленность, и их может сильно ранить тот факт, что страны, в которых людям нечего есть, до сих пор не выплатили им дивиденды. В следующий раз, когда мне захочется пошутить я буду использовать в качестве объекта шутки только медведей и балалайки. Надеюсь Вы не были руководителем совхоза по разведению медведей или школы обучения медведей игре на балалайках.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
I can honestly say... I have never seen any of these movies!!!
Worst of the Worst
Counting down the worst reviewed movies of the last 10 years
(if you want to learn more about these movies here is the link http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/wo ... the_worst/)
100 Whiteout (2009)
99 Glitter (2001)
98 Cheaper by the Dozen 2 (2005)
97 Boat Trip (2003)
96 All About Steve (2009)
95 Lost Souls (2000)
94 The New Guy (2002)
93 A Sound of Thunder (2005)
92 Babylon A.D. (2008)
91 Surviving Christmas (2004)
90 Dragonfly (2002)
89 Basic Instinct 2 (2006)
88 Kaena: The Prophecy (2004)
87 Testosterone (2003)
86 Pavilion of Women (2001)
85 Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector (2006)
84 Thr3e (2007)
83 Doogal (2006)
82 Supercross: The Movie (2005)
81 Extreme Ops (2002)
80 Big Momma's House 2 (2006)
79 The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)
78 Deck the Halls (2006)
77 Date Movie (2006)
76 Johnson Family Vacation (2004)
75 Son of the Mask (2005)
74 Envy (2004)
73 Gigli (2003)
72 Broken Bridges (2006)
71 College (2008)
70 New Best Friend (2002)
69 The Cookout (2004)
68 Yu-Gi-Oh: The Movie (2004)
67 The Hottie & the Nottie (2008)
66 The Fog (2005)
65 Swept Away (2002)
64 Corky Romano (2001)
63 Yours, Mine, & Ours (2005)
62 Serving Sara (2002)
61 Good Luck Chuck (2007)
60 The Perfect Man (2005)
59 88 Minutes (2008)
58 Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
57 Godsend (2004)
56 Because I Said So (2007)
55 The Celestine Prophecy (2006)
54 Harry And Max (2005)
53 Modigliani (2005)
52 The Bridge of San Luis Rey (2005)
51 Fascination (2005)
50 Dirty Love (2005)
49 In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2008)
48 BloodRayne (2006)
47 Soul Survivors (2001)
46 Material Girls (2006)
45 My Baby's Daddy (2004)
44 Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li (2009)
43 Darkness (2003)
42 House of the Dead (2003)
41 Zoom (2006)
40 Down to You (2000)
39 Miss March (2009)
38 Happily N'Ever After (2007)
37 Code Name: The Cleaner (2007)
36 The Whole Ten Yards (2004)
35 Deal (2008)
34 The Haunting of Molly Hartley (2008)
33 Delta Farce (2007)
32 Deuces Wild (2002)
31 The Covenant (2006)
30 Fear Dot Com (2002)
29 Bless the Child (2000)
28 Rollerball (2002)
27 Battlefield Earth (2000)
26 Kickin' It Old Skool (2007)
25 Meet the Spartans (2008)
24 Texas Rangers (2001)
23 The In Crowd (2000)
22 Disaster Movie (2008)
21 Epic Movie (2007)
20 Crossover (2006)
19 Half Past Dead (2002)
18 The Master of Disguise (2002)
17 Twisted (2004)
16 Daddy Day Camp (2007)
15 Alone in the Dark (2005)
14 Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009)
13 Constellation (2007)
12 Killing Me Softly (2002)
11 Merci Docteur Rey! (2002)
10 Witless Protection (2008)
9 Redline (2007)
8 3 Strikes (2000)
7 Strange Wilderness (2008)
6 Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (2004)
5 National Lampoon's Gold Diggers (2004)
4 King's Ransom (2005)
3 Pinocchio (2002)
2 One Missed Call (2008)
1 Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002)
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
if you only knew how many kids were getting lost then! They just were not able to say where are they from and what is their surname and the parents' names, so how could one look the parents then?
That is such a tragic result of the war! I am so grateful my country was not affected -- but it took in lots of orphans whose parents could not be located. Probably USSR was the worst affected country, but Germany and many other countries also had lots of lost children.
I remember a very touching Russian film about a group of Russian WW2 orphans who lived with a Moslem couple, don't remember the name of the film unfortunately, but it was good. From Germany there is "Suchkind 312" (Lost Child 312 - loose translation) which has been made into a film twice. A woman is on a refugee train and loses her daughter while she leaves the train to get some milk. The train leaves without her and in the chaos of the war, nothing can be done to re-unite them. These stories really caught my imagination as a child. All so tragic and actually, most of these children are still alive! Here are some such stories:
Suchkind 312 --- A German heart-wrenching classic about a mother and daughter who got separated during the last months of the war.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2913/suchkind312.jpg
"They called her Leni" True story about a 1950s German girl who discovered that she was really Czechoslovakian, and went there.
http://www.fagus.se/bilder/DSC00494.jpg
Kyra and Shurik - True story about a nurse who adopts an orphan called Shurik during the siege of Leningrad. Both starve and freeze due to the blockade...
http://www2.trafford.com/clientimage...1425120320.jpg
"Hitlerjunge Salomon" aka Europa, Europa.. A horrible TRUE story about a Jewish orphan boy who first fights with the Red Army, then gets adopted by a German couple who sends him to a Nazi boarding school. The man is still alive and lives in Israel.
http://img4.abload.de/img/29405smllxh.jpg
EDIT -- I found the Russian film I was talking about earlier. "You are not an orphan". But no subs unfortunately..
http://photoload.ru/data/36/fb/4d/36...bbac2e50f0.jpg
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Смею посоветовать вам фильм Долгие проводы. Я про фильмы не умею говорить, особенно на языках не моих, итак просто перепишу его synopsis, вот:
Quote:
Саша был смыслом всей ее жизни. Теперь, когда сын подрос, у нее появилось больше свободного времени - и она позволяла чуткому Николаю Сергеевичу ухаживать за собой. После летней поездки сына к отцу, она стала замечать в Саше перемены. Тайком прочитав письмо его отца, поняла, что сын хочет уехать. Ей не хватило мудрости для правильного поведения и понимания не своей жизни. А Саша оказался тоньше и сильнее матери. Поняв, что мать страдает, он отказался от своего решения.
Можно посмотреть отрывок из фильма сюда: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no1jzz05tvI
(Кстати, «она позволяла чуткому Николаю Сергеевичу ухаживать за собой» звучит очень странно для меня, а для русских нормально?)
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zubr
Смею посоветовать вам фильм
Долгие проводы. Я про фильмы не умею говорить, особенно на языках не моих, итак просто перепишу его синопсис
(краткое описание/содержание, аннотацию), вот: <...> Можно посмотреть отрывок из фильма [s:29h892v8]сюда[/s:29h892v8]
здесь:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no1jzz05tvI
(Кстати, «она позволяла чуткому Николаю Сергеевичу ухаживать за собой» звучит очень странно для меня, а для русских нормально?)
1)
Несовершенный вид: можно посмотреть здесь/там, ходить здесь/там
Совершенный вид: обязательно посмотрите сюда/туда, пойти туда/сюда
2)
Фраза нормальная. А что в ней смущает?
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Саша был смыслом всей ее жизни. Теперь, когда сын подрос, у нее появилось больше свободного времени - и она позволяла чуткому Николаю Сергеевичу ухаживать за собой. После летней поездки сына к отцу, она стала замечать в Саше перемены. Тайком прочитав письмо его отца, поняла, что сын хочет уехать. Ей не хватило мудрости для правильного поведения и понимания не своей жизни. А Саша оказался тоньше и сильнее матери. Поняв, что мать страдает, он отказался от своего решения.
The main idea of the film is monstrous for me. A mother is a life, and a death, is a death for an individuality will.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Звездочёт
2)
Фраза нормальная. А что в ней смущает?
Кажется, в ней местоимение собой указывает не на мать, а на Николая Сергеевича.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Аааа. :)
С точки зрения грамматика ты, вообще-то, прав. Хотя из-за контекста я эту ошибку не заметил, и вряд ли кто из носителей (если только он не очень щепетилен) заметит.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zubr
...(Кстати, «она позволяла чуткому Николаю Сергеевичу ухаживать за собой» звучит очень странно для меня, а для русских нормально?)
Если бы местоимение собой указывало не на мать, а на Николая Сергеевича, то фраза звучала бы так: она позволяла ...Николаю Сергеевичу ухаживать за самим собой.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
Если бы местоимение собой указывало не на мать, а на Николая Сергеевича, то фраза звучала бы так: она позволяла ...Николаю Сергеевичу ухаживать за самим собой.
Ммм... думаю, это не обязательно. Просто выражение распространено, и глагол "ухаживать" в таком контексте применим обычно к женщине. Поэтому ясно, о чём идёт речь.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Звездочёт
Хотя из-за контекста я эту ошибку не заметил, и вряд ли кто из носителей (если только он не очень щепетилен) заметит.
Я не вижу тут ошибки. "Она позволяла ухаживать за собой". Совершенно нормальная фраза. С точки зрения грамматики она не ошибочная, а двусмысленная. Но с точки зрения контекста тут никакой двусмысленности нет.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
I met Kenny Johnson YEARS ago when I first started to study film in LA. His son, David, attended the same college I was at and we were in several classes together. At that time, Kenny was filming his TV mini-series "V" and it was the first location set I "remember" being on. Interestingly enough, there is a remake of "V" coming out this year on ABC yet he has nothing to do with that remake as the studios own the TV series rights!
For all of you SciFi buffs, he will be in Moscow in a week!
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/5/27288.jpg
http://www.kennethjohnson.us/Classes.html (English)
Quote:
http://www.cinemotion.ru/cinemotion/main_article_cont
Кеннет Джонсон — создатель, сценарист, продюсер и режиссер таких сериалов, как «Невероятный Халк» и «V», римейк которого выходит в этом сезоне на одном из главных каналов США — «ABC». Кеннет неоднократно был номинирован на различные премии, в том числе на Премию Гильдии Сценаристов. В 1996 году он получил награду журнала «Sci-fi Universe» за многочисленные достижения (Lifetime Achievement Award).
29 октября. Кеннет Джонсон. «Создание пилотного эпизода. Как рождаются сериалы»
Мы предлагаем вам уникальную возможность лично встретиться с автором, работавшим более чем над 10 сериалами.
Вы сможете узнать:
В чем специфика сценария пилотного эпизода?
Как написать сценарий пилотного эпизода так, чтобы заинтересовать продюсеров и каналы?
Как представить персонажей и ввести в пилотный эпизод завязки будущих сюжетов?
Какие идеи имеют потенциал развития на протяжении нескольких сезонов?
Какие элементы обязательно должны быть в пилоте?
Насколько проработанным должен быть мир сериала до написания пилота?
Кроме того, у вас будет возможность задать другие интересующие вас вопросы.
Мастер-классы проводятся по адресу: Москва, Филипповский пер., д. 8, стр. 1. (м. Арбатская, Кропоткинская) с 19 до 22 часов.
Стоимость одного мастер-класса составляет 4 200 рублей. При ранней регистрации (до 11 октября) — 3 500 рублей.
Стоимость посещения двух мастер-классов Пола Брауна — 6 200 рублей.
Стоимость посещения трёх мастер-классов — 8 500 рублей.
Подробную информацию вы можете получить по телефону +7 495 411–74–77 (Лиза Вайнер), e-mail:
courses@cinemotion.ru
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
Let's talk a little bit about Russians invasion to Hollywood. Couple-three days ago I was in a store and saw a DVD box from which an unshaved man wearing a horn-rimmed glasses fixed with a tape looked at me holding tightly in his hands a guitar and a sword. My mind was flashed with the memory of the movie I've seen ten yeas ago. I grabbed the DVD straightaway and put myself into the stream of the movie entitled "Six-String Samurai".
Quote:
Six-String Samurai is a post-apocalyptic kung-fu-rock & roll road movie depicting America where guitar-slinging swordsmen wage battle to succeed a recently deceased Elvis as the king of Lost Vegas.
Even though the movie start point is the fact that a Russian nuclear bomb made the US to be a desert and during some scenes the main character defeated the Red Army, these points are just the screenplay features which I am sure were not intended to put a black spot on Russia but to put the main character in more troubles than one can expect.
So, if the Red Army is not the Russian invasion to Hollywood I am talking about, what else in the movie the Russian invasion is? It is the music! The entire movie is accompanied with the music by the Russian based band "Red Elvises". You even can see them in the movie: the guys with "nice shoes".
Some fun stuff: Red Elvises being Russian speak English in the movie's scenes while the actors for Red Army general and lieutenants being non-Russian speak Russian with remarkable accent.
-
Re: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!
The power of good acting, of an audience, and a big screen.
Last night, I attended a film festival and was reminded of a few things.
First, I was reminded that sometimes you really need to see a movie in a movie theater WITH people to properly experience and appreciate the film. To have people around you sniveling and crying. To hear them laughing through their tears. Or muttering “that little slut” at the same time you are thinking it.
Secondly, I witnessed firsthand how good acting can save a movie. Last night I witnessed something amazing. During one of the screenings a film which started off really poorly, bad sound, bad camera work and even some really poor casting (two adult siblings … one was Hispanic and the other was Black... the audience actually laughed at that one)… and yet… part way through this film… magic happened. The audience, who was ready to rip this film apart, fell in love with this film and was actually crying at the end and it was all due to the acting.
I have seen this particular film before, yet never with a large audience and never on a large screen. So for me this experience of seeing it with people was new and very interesting. It actually changed my perception of this film. I now understand WHY this film does so well in festivals. Before, last night I just could not for the life of me understand why it had won awards. Technically, the film is a train wreck (I should be fair and say it is by a first time director). The acting I always thought was fairly good, yet I had no idea it sucked people in SO much that it help people to forgive all the negative things. During all the other films screened last night, there was NO audience reaction and yet with this film, there was right from the start (as I mentioned they laughed at the bad casting) and then when the main star came on, she drew the audience in and made them care about her and forget all about the bad technical work and focus on her. Her body language. Her lines. Her. And the audience fell for her hook line and sinker. I would not have believed it if I had not seen and heard it with my own eyes. People laughing out loud at all the right moments in the film and then crying at the end and then finally trying to laugh through their tears when she delivered perfectly two final witty lines.
This actress saved this film and now after seeing this film WITH and audience and in a big theater, I finally understand WHY it does so well.
Finally, it makes me wonder about other films we have been discussing. Would I change my mind about them if I had seen them in a theater with an audience??? :unknown: