PDA

View Full Version : Great Moments in Film



DAYoung
31st December 06, 05:46 AM
Sometimes in film, there is a moment, or a scene, when it just simply works. It might be sparkling dialogue, brilliant acting, beautiful set design or a combination of these and more. For some, it's Rutger Hauer's monologue at the end of Blade Runner. For others, it's the sight of 'Rosebud' in Citizen Kane. For others still, it's the sight of Sharon Stone's uncrossed legs in Basic Instinct. These moments capture the power or profundity of the cinematic medium, and can enrich and enliven our lives.

http://www.25frames.org/media/screens/1218.jpgFor me, one such moment is the 'coffee' scene between Al Pacino and Robert De Niro in Heat (available here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjZ_A6ZNtyU)).

The scene is filled with tension, yet each character conducts himself with ease and even nonchalance. They’re comfortable in their antagonism. Indeed, they’re much closer than we might first expect. They’re both loners, capable of teamwork for short stints. They’re both adrenaline junkies, who long for some sort of human repose. They could be best friends, but they’re enemies.

The scene is a rich mixture of hope, as we see each man connect with a like-minded opposite; and sadness, as we realise than one will have to die (at the hands of another). It opens up all sorts of human possibilities, and shuts them down at the same time.

The dialogue is crackling yet epic in its resonances. The performances of Pacino and De Niro are substantial, yet restrained. It’s a thriller at it’s best, and easily one of the most memorable exchanges in film. And it begins with the line: 'Waddya say I buy you a cup of coffee?"

Does anyone else have a favourite scene or moment? And I'm not talking the stupidest, or cheesiest - I'm talking poignant, powerful, intense, and the like.

Yiktin Voxbane
31st December 06, 07:13 AM
The power of One ...

"You're a shit-eater aren't you boy"

Neatly summed up the nonchelance manner in which an entire race was treated on a generational scale. Both powerful and yet disappointing .

billy sol hurok
31st December 06, 08:44 AM
Okay, I'll bite.

"I AM the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker!" (2.21 - 4.00)

Top-ranking Jack; his best movie ever: The Last Detail.

23WtQ6W7odk

Shawarma
31st December 06, 08:52 AM
The kangaroo court in Fritz Lang's "M" - The best manipulation of the opinion of the viewer I've ever seen in a movie. Best part Peter Lorre ever had.

Also of note would be the "Factory machinery turning into a demon mouth and consuming the workers" scene from Metropolis, also a Lang film.

I like Lang.

Dark Helmet
31st December 06, 11:49 AM
So many great moments.So many to chose from.

But this scene from Catch22 may have had more influence on me to think about society from when I watch it at the age of 12.
5bjBAez9cm4
"It's better to live on your feet that to die on your knees".

Probably one of the best films of all time.

WarPhalange
31st December 06, 02:45 PM
The part in The Matrix when Neo dodges those bullets on the roof top. Frickin' awesome.

DAYoung
31st December 06, 07:05 PM
I can't believe this thread is so dead.

Present company excepted, of course.

bob
31st December 06, 08:25 PM
The end of Terry Gilliam's Brazil where Sam Lowry escapes... but only in his head. The imagination is the only thing they can never take away from us.

danno
1st January 07, 12:40 AM
TWO FUCKIN WORDS, FUCKER

BLUE MOTHERFUCKIN VELVET, FUCK

DON'T YOU FUCKIN LOOK AT ME

mD5ns64ACME

BABY WANTS TO FUCK

DAYoung
1st January 07, 12:58 AM
TWO FUCKIN WORDS, FUCKER

BLUE MOTHERFUCKIN VELVET, FUCK

DON'T YOU FUCKIN LOOK AT ME

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mD5ns64ACME

BABY WANTS TO FUCK

Your avatar wants Ariel Nitrate.

Anyway. Er. Thanks, Danno.

nihilist
1st January 07, 04:06 AM
Jack Nicholson's post-joint alien monologue in Easy Rider.

Iscariot
1st January 07, 09:29 PM
I'll stick with picking one for now.

Tyler Durden's dreamlike description of his post-society utopia to his concussed alter ego.

"In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.

You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower.

And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway."

frumpleswift
1st January 07, 10:23 PM
I am rather fond of Kenneth Branagh's Crispin's Day speach in Henry V.

There are some beautiful moments in Arsenic and Old Lace, like when Carry Grant cracks at the end.

The "oh fuck" moment in the Usual Suspects, when you first realize what's going on is truly a classic.

Zendetta
1st January 07, 10:42 PM
THe scene in Excalibur where Arthur drinks from the Grail and says "I never knew how empty my soul was until it was filled!" and then rides out to his last battle.

AAAhmed46
2nd January 07, 12:25 AM
The part in The Matrix when Neo dodges those bullets on the roof top. Frickin' awesome.

Ditto.

AAAhmed46
2nd January 07, 12:26 AM
THe scene in Excalibur where Arthur drinks from the Grail and says "I never knew how empty my soul was until it was filled!" and then rides out to his last battle.


Thats cool too.

JimmyTheHutt
2nd January 07, 12:58 AM
Roy Batty's final speech in Blade Runner:

"I've....seen things you people wouldn't believe.

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.

I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate.

All of these moments will be lost in time, like....tears in the rain.

Time to die."

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

bob
2nd January 07, 01:02 AM
This is by no means a great moment in film, in fact it's kinda corny but for some reason it's stuck with me - the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy takes the idol from the pedestal and replaces it with a bag of sand.

Every time I have to do something that requires manual dexterity I think of that scene. Especially picking up a sleeping baby without waking it.

WarPhalange
2nd January 07, 03:38 AM
Or without having a giant boulder come after you, huh?

Cormoran
2nd January 07, 05:45 AM
the conclusion to Marvs meeting with the padre in Sin City.

BANG
worth killing for.
BANG
worth dieing for.
BANG
worth going to hell for.
"Amen."

That and the rest of the movie is all basically a great moment in film.

Kiko
2nd January 07, 08:10 AM
This is by no means a great moment in film, in fact it's kinda corny but for some reason it's stuck with me - the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy takes the idol from the pedestal and replaces it with a bag of sand.

Every time I have to do something that requires manual dexterity I think of that scene. Especially picking up a sleeping baby without waking it.

Which leaves me with the (mistaken) mental image of someone else finding a bag of sand in the crib. Oke make that carseat....

Shawarma
2nd January 07, 08:11 AM
It certainly is a study in cinematic hardassery.

mrblackmagic
2nd January 07, 05:59 PM
I'd have to go with the scene in White Heat when James Cagney walks outside chewing on a drumstick and then asked a guy in the trunk of his car if he can breath okay. The guy says no then Cagney fires 4 into the trunk while still eating the chicken.

emboesso
2nd January 07, 08:08 PM
The kangaroo court in Fritz Lang's "M" - The best manipulation of the opinion of the viewer I've ever seen in a movie. Best part Peter Lorre ever had.

Also of note would be the "Factory machinery turning into a demon mouth and consuming the workers" scene from Metropolis, also a Lang film.

I like Lang.

As great as Lang was, "M" was all about Peter Lorre. That peformance so far ahead of its time, I don't think the rest of film acting caught up with it until about the 1970s.

I also think its still the yardstick by which all other film socio-psychopaths are measured against.

Letum
3rd January 07, 08:13 PM
Amadeus - The composition of the D minor motif, Lacrimosa. I was amazed at how retards thought it actually happened like that and didn't realise that the film was based on a fictional work.

Cassius
5th January 07, 01:06 AM
Tom Cruise getting heelhooked in the last samurai.

mrblackmagic
6th January 07, 10:55 AM
John Goodman in the Climax of Barton Fink.

"I'LL SHOW YOU THE LIFE OF THE MIND!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!1!

KidSpatula
11th January 07, 06:54 PM
Sometimes in film, there is a moment, or a scene, when it just simply works. It might be sparkling dialogue, brilliant acting, beautiful set design or a combination of these and more. For some, it's Rutger Hauer's monologue at the end of Blade Runner. For others, it's the sight of 'Rosebud' in Citizen Kane. For others still, it's the sight of Sharon Stone's uncrossed legs in Basic Instinct. These moments capture the power or profundity of the cinematic medium, and can enrich and enliven our lives.

http://www.25frames.org/media/screens/1218.jpgFor me, one such moment is the 'coffee' scene between Al Pacino and Robert De Niro in Heat (available here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjZ_A6ZNtyU)).

The scene is filled with tension, yet each character conducts himself with ease and even nonchalance. They’re comfortable in their antagonism. Indeed, they’re much closer than we might first expect. They’re both loners, capable of teamwork for short stints. They’re both adrenaline junkies, who long for some sort of human repose. They could be best friends, but they’re enemies.

The scene is a rich mixture of hope, as we see each man connect with a like-minded opposite; and sadness, as we realise than one will have to die (at the hands of another). It opens up all sorts of human possibilities, and shuts them down at the same time.

The dialogue is crackling yet epic in its resonances. The performances of Pacino and De Niro are substantial, yet restrained. It’s a thriller at it’s best, and easily one of the most memorable exchanges in film. And it begins with the line: 'Waddya say I buy you a cup of coffee?"

Does anyone else have a favourite scene or moment? And I'm not talking the stupidest, or cheesiest - I'm talking poignant, powerful, intense, and the like.


I liked this movie a lot. I think this was the first time Deniro and Pacino ever appeared on film together at the same time. Their acting styles complement eachother awesomely. I'd definitely agree with this being one of the greatest scenes in any movie.

One scene that really struck me as being great was in Apocalypse Now, where Marlon Brando talks to Martin Sheen about befriending horror.

_5npYWfRlkw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5npYWfRlkw

jill666
11th January 07, 09:16 PM
There are so many great single moments-

Forrest Gump "I guess sometimes there aren't enough rocks"

Humphrey Bogart falling apart on the stand in "The Caine Mutiny" and Jose Ferrer confronting the officers after the trial.

"Cape Fear"- Mitchum in the boat, menacing Jane Greer.

The initial scene in "Laura" between Clifton Webb and Dana Andrews I always thought was wonderful- and Andrews remains pitch-perfect the whole film. Call me a sucker for noir. The final scene in "Gaslight"- teriffic.

The bathtub scene in "Fight Club"- discussing being a "generation of men raised by women" is another favorite.

Rutger Hauers' monologue at the end of Blade Runner, yup gets a big vote. And Butch Cassidy- "The next time I say something like 'Let's go to Bolivia', let's go to Bolivia!"

billy sol hurok
11th January 07, 09:40 PM
-By7m5HoE_Q

Stick
12th January 07, 05:45 PM
You know, I made a video thread for just this topic a while back and it could use some more vids.... (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45632)

emboesso
12th January 07, 10:35 PM
I liked this movie a lot. I think this was the first time Deniro and Pacino ever appeared on film together at the same time. Their acting styles complement eachother awesomely. I'd definitely agree with this being one of the greatest scenes in any movie.

Completely disagree. This scene is grossly overrated. Both actors are merely mailing in their performances and being caricatures of themselves. Its only the names that have fans swooning.


One scene that really struck me as being great was in Apocalypse Now, where Marlon Brando talks to Martin Sheen about befriending horror.

Good scene, but completely upstaged by Dennis Hopper's eccentric performance.

"I'm nothing. .. .. he's everything.... I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas....and what will they say when he's gone? That he was a "kind man"? That he was a "good man?"

That brought in yet another T.S. Eliot poem, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufock", in addition to the "Hollow Men", which keeps the Conrad-Eliot circle spinning. "Mr. Kurtz, he dead," the introduction to "The Hollow Men". "The horror, the horror".

Genius.

DAYoung
12th January 07, 11:45 PM
Completely disagree. This scene is grossly overrated. Both actors are merely mailing in their performances and being caricatures of themselves. Its only the names that have fans swooning.

No. There's a bona fide tension, partly maintained by the mannerisms, partly by the voice inflections, and partly by the context (for which the actors have less responsibility).

In any case, the idea of criticisms is not merely to assert social response (e.g. being over-rated), but to reveal the qualities that are undermining the scene, or the absences that achieve the same effect (or in my case, the qualities that work). Otherwise, you run the risk of perpetuating precisely the kind of criticism Eliot sought to avoid: Romantic inclination, devoid of empirical reference.

I agree entirely with your comments on Apocalypse Now, including the Eliot references. 'Hollow Men' and 'Prufrock' are two of my favourite poems.

emboesso
13th January 07, 08:51 AM
No. There's a bona fide tension, partly maintained by the mannerisms, partly by the voice inflections, and partly by the context (for which the actors have less responsibility).

In any case, the idea of criticisms is not merely to assert social response (e.g. being over-rated), but to reveal the qualities that are undermining the scene, or the absences that achieve the same effect (or in my case, the qualities that work). Otherwise, you run the risk of perpetuating precisely the kind of criticism Eliot sought to avoid: Romantic inclination, devoid of empirical reference.

If I say it is overrated, that means the social response is not proportionate to the quality. Both actors fumbled around trying both to not overact and not be upstaged at the same time.

Remember in "Terminator 2", when they knocked the bad terminator into the molten steel and melted him? He kept popping back out of the molten steel and morphing into all the characters he'd changed into during the movie?

That was DeNiro and Pacino in this scene. You could see characters from past movies coming out of both of them. Like two fighters pulling out their best weapons in a fight. A hodgepodge mess of two clashing egos.


I agree entirely with your comments on Apocalypse Now, including the Eliot references. 'Hollow Men' and 'Prufrock' are two of my favourite poems.

Ironic juxtaposition. Eliot himself later became a pretentious caricature of himself also. He loaded up his works with obscure references making them accessible only to literature professors, giving them full-time jobs writing footnotes.

Shawarma
13th January 07, 09:45 AM
Remember in "Terminator 2", when they knocked the bad terminator into the molten steel and melted him? He kept popping back out of the molten steel and morphing into all the characters he'd changed into during the movie?

That was DeNiro and Pacino in this scene. You could see characters from past movies coming out of both of them. Like two fighters pulling out their best weapons in a fight. A hodgepodge mess of two clashing egos.
Wish Deniro had turned into Travis Bickle and Pacino into Tony Montana. The resulting mega-showdown would have made movie history!

billy sol hurok
13th January 07, 09:48 AM
If I say it is overrated, that means the social response is not proportionate to the quality. Both actors fumbled around trying both to not overact and not be upstaged at the same time.
*Ding! Ding! Ding!*
emboesso has clearly partaken of the fruit of the Clue Tree.


Remember in "Terminator 2", when they knocked the bad terminator into the molten steel and melted him? He kept popping back out of the molten steel and morphing into all the characters he'd changed into during the movie?

That was DeNiro and Pacino in this scene. You could see characters from past movies coming out of both of them. Like two fighters pulling out their best weapons in a fight. A hodgepodge mess of two clashing egos.
You make it sound like a good thing, though. Which, perhaps, it could have been in another director's hands.

I liked Mann a lot after Manhunter; it was mannered, but it had some nice insights underneath the slick surfaces. But Heat was a disaster, one that I saw under protest. It was as I feared, a mishmash of "favorites" without a decent unifying element. Like you asked a kid what the best meal ever would be, and he heaped together a bunch of his favorite dishes willy-nilly: "Yeah! Pigs-in-blankets, then pizza, and gummy bears, and freedom fries, and a banana split!"

Put, say, John Ford in charge of those egos and you might have had something. Though the script was pretty hackneyed to begin with; then again, so were plenty of Ford's horse operas. But a strong hand and a unifying vision can make a huge difference.

Geek alert. (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0803002/)


Ironic juxtaposition. Eliot himself later became a pretentious caricature of himself also. He loaded up his works with obscure references making them accessible only to literature professors, giving them full-time jobs writing footnotes.
And the hits just keep coming, folks!

For the record, I love Eliot as much as I could love any antisemite piece of shit because, despite the academic airs and deliberate obscurationism, that sumbitch could write. Even if you never looked at a footnote, even if you weren't moved to look up "shanti," that guy had flow.

Likewise Joyce, who is arguably even more dependent on "in jokes."

As for Heart Of Darkness* -- er, Apocalypse -- Hopper certainly pwns the film, though Duvall is funny as fuck in his bit. But my favorite scene belongs to Sheen, when the Chief has insisted on making a stop-and-search that goes horribly wrong, and then wants to take the surviving peasant for medical help:

<boom! ching>
<involuntary gasps, horrified expressions on crew's faces>
"I told you not to stop."

*Really, really annoyed me that Conrad never got so much as a tip-o-the-hat in the credits.

jill666
13th January 07, 11:04 AM
[quote=billy sol hurok] But my favorite scene belongs to Sheen, when the Chief has insisted on making a stop-and-search that goes horribly wrong, and then wants to take the surviving peasant for medical help:

<boom! ching>
<involuntary gasps, horrified expressions on crew's faces>
"I told you not to stop."

[quote]

Yup- that was perfect.

T.S. wrote wonderfully, some of Yeats, Service for poetry. Joyce I simply can't get through. Give me Hemingway (she said in words of one syllable).

I thought Heat had some serious directing and editing issues, but I had no issue with the acting. It was a movie that should have been far better.

Who in hell included The Last Samurai in this thread? What a rip-off, bullshit flick THAT was. Hated it. Not an origional moment is the whole fucking movie.

emboesso
13th January 07, 11:11 AM
good[/I] thing, though. Which, perhaps, it could have been in another director's hands.

I guess I have to work on my review writing skills. "A hodgepodge mess of two clashing egos" was not supposed to imply good things.


As for Heart Of Darkness* -- er, Apocalypse -- Hopper certainly pwns the film, though Duvall is funny as fuck in his bit. But my favorite scene belongs to Sheen, when the Chief has insisted on making a stop-and-search that goes horribly wrong, and then wants to take the surviving peasant for medical help

Hopper to Sheen, went something like this, "You're looking at the heads. Well, yeah, sometimes he does get carried away."

Lol.

Sheen to Brando: "I see no method".

emboesso
13th January 07, 11:31 AM
Wish Deniro had turned into Travis Bickle

I'm on dial up at the moment, so I'm not patient enough to watch the whole clip load, but I bet Travis was in there for a few words.

Some of DeNiro's schticks:

Reciting his lines in a cadence for effect, like Jake LaMotta here:

"If it didn't have something to do with me, then who did it have something to do with?"

Stretching his arms out, bouncing up and down to make a whiny point like Woody Allen, as in "Casino" and almost the entire "King of Comedy"

"You live in a townhouse, I live in hovel"

Getting tough by pointing his finger in peoples' faces.

Sticking out his tongue while beating people up.

My favorite Brando schtick was grabbing the lapels and jutting his chin out like Mussolini. If Stanley wore anything more complicated than a T-shirt he probably would have done it "A Streetcar Named Desire" as well.

Which brings me to one of my favorite supporting actors ever: Karl Malden

TheEdge883
13th January 07, 02:37 PM
Great scenes from a great movie.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KEioKnYL7CQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xN45hCghqi0

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HQQQ884taKA

Shit, might as well post the entire movie.

Shawarma
13th January 07, 05:35 PM
Alexandre....Dumbass?

DAYoung
13th January 07, 06:40 PM
If I say it is overrated, that means the social response is not proportionate to the quality. Both actors fumbled around trying both to not overact and not be upstaged at the same time.

Remember in "Terminator 2", when they knocked the bad terminator into the molten steel and melted him? He kept popping back out of the molten steel and morphing into all the characters he'd changed into during the movie?

That was DeNiro and Pacino in this scene. You could see characters from past movies coming out of both of them. Like two fighters pulling out their best weapons in a fight. A hodgepodge mess of two clashing egos.

Thanks for the explanation - it's very lucid.

We're getting to the heart of aesthetic criticism here. First, that a more general social response to the film was hollow doesn't necessarily mean the film doesn't have merits. It might mean that people had the right response for the wrong reasons (people rave about the Mona Lisa - they don't necessarily get why, but this doesn't mean it isn't a fine bit of portraiture).

Second, I don't think the actors' intentions can be inferred from the performances. It might make sense to speak of the actors' egos, but you'd have to demonstrate this with reference to their performances. I'm not sure you've accomplished this.

Third, you seem to be criticising De Niro and Pacino for having a finite and easily-recognisable set of 'tools'. Perhaps they lack the chameleonic qualities of Blanchet, but this doesn't mean their performances can't be compelling. Put another way, if I enjoy the delivery and manner of each, it's equally reasonable to enjoy these in tandem. That I've seen elements of these before doesn't detract from the enjoyment - novelty isn't the only virtue of acting.


Ironic juxtaposition. Eliot himself later became a pretentious caricature of himself also. He loaded up his works with obscure references making them accessible only to literature professors, giving them full-time jobs writing footnotes.


Opaque? Yes. Clumsy? Sometimes. Pretentious? No. You can only be pretentious if you're acting above your station (a vice of the lower middle-classes in particular). Eliot was the station.

jubei33
13th January 07, 07:39 PM
the scene at the end of the Usual Suspects where the cop looks around the room, remembers the conversation, then realizes he's been had. That was a good one.

sorry couldn't find a video of it.

MEGALEF
16th January 07, 09:13 AM
I cry when Simba's dad dies.

Slydermv
16th January 07, 02:50 PM
Al Pacino's speech in the restuarnat about the Bad Guy in Scarface.... love it. He's also got great lines in the movie. "I got two things in this world, my balls and my word, and I don't break em for nobody."

A lot of dialogs in Tarantino movie are good too. The tipping rant in Dogs, numerous scenes in Pulp Fiction, the Bride's rant on Bloody Vengance in Kill Bill II... all highly entertaining.

And although corny (I watched this movie alot as a kid...) William Wallaces speech in Bravehaeat when the battle was about to be deserted was cool.

Commodore Pipes
19th February 07, 06:10 AM
Lots of good films discussed. How about On the Water Front? When Charley and Terry Malloy are in the cab, heading toward Terry's execution, and Terry expresses all of his frustration and anger when he realizes that his brother hasn't protected him, but used him and left him a wrung out neverwas. And Charley realizes it to, and sends Terry away, and goes to his death in Terry's place.

Yeah, it's the source of almost every Marlon Brando cliche, but that's because it was GOOD.

Turns out that unprofessional prima donna Brando never showed up for the reshoots, and Rod Stiger had to do his close-up scenes against the empty air.

DAYoung
19th February 07, 06:19 AM
Youtube is your friend.

Commodore Pipes
19th February 07, 06:30 AM
Youtube is your friend.

Verily, sir. You are correct.

prXXOxCPNek

It's not the whole scene, but it's the best youtube had.



* Okay. Apparently I do not know how to imbed video, so I will just link. I am a bad person inside.

emboesso
19th February 07, 06:37 AM
Yeah, it's the source of almost every Marlon Brando cliche, but that's because it was GOOD.


To me, the Brando cliche is when he grabs his lapels and juts his jaw out.

Good thing Stanley Kowalski didn't have lapels on this t-shirt. Woulda looked awfully out of place.

Commodore Pipes
19th February 07, 06:39 AM
To me, the Brando cliche is when he grabs his lapels and juts his jaw out.

Good thing Stanley Kowalski didn't have lapels on this t-shirt. Woulda looked awfully out of place.

Yeah! You're right. He would just stand there and pose.

DAYoung
19th February 07, 05:30 PM
Verily, sir. You are correct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prXXOxCPNek

It's not the whole scene, but it's the best youtube had.

* Okay. Apparently I do not know how to imbed video, so I will just link. I am a bad person inside.

*watches, gets teary*

Shawarma
20th February 07, 12:17 PM
The scenes with the organ grinder and his fleas in La Cité des enfants perdus has made me shudder every time I come across one in the street. Most likely the creepiest scenes I've seen in a film.

polishillusion
20th February 07, 12:24 PM
whenever that Pokemon battle music plays, i get the chills. ever since i was like 12

Jeffrey
20th February 07, 08:43 PM
The business card scene from American Psycho is one of my favorites

qoIvd3zzu4Y

Also, the final scene in A Very Long Engagement is too profoundly wonderful to describe.

nihilist
21st February 07, 04:02 AM
whenever that Pokemon battle music plays, i get the chills. ever since i was like 12

Wow!, so for like a year now.

DAYoung
21st February 07, 04:53 AM
Tee hee.

Reese is polish remover.

polishillusion
21st February 07, 01:01 PM
im 21. mommy says so.

Stick
21st February 07, 01:30 PM
sound is extremely low, turn it up up up

Zqgo3nIl_wQ

KhorneliusPraxx
21st February 07, 01:33 PM
The family sitting down for their last meal in Signs.
http://www.signsmovie.co.uk/img/dinner_table.jpg

Boromir's death in Fellowship of the Ring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYoJhkiJ7zY

Plasma
21st February 07, 02:07 PM
Lobby Scene - The Martix
The Bobs Interview with Peter - Office Space

Iscariot
21st February 07, 03:01 PM
Another one, the epitome of love and respect done subtly, the interchanges between Clarice and Hannibal at the climax of Hannibal:

Lecter: Would they have you back, you think? The FBI? Those people you despise almost as much as they despise you. Would they give you a medal, Clarice, do you think? Would you have it professionally framed and hang it on your wall to look at and remind you of your courage....and incorruptibility?

All you would need for that, Clarice....

.... is a mirror.

Lecter: Would you ever say to me "Stop. If you love me, stop"?
Clarice: Not in a thousand years.
Lecter: "Not in a thousand years"?

....

That's my girl.

Shawarma
21st February 07, 03:44 PM
Christopher Walken presenting a young Bruce Willis with his father's priceless gold watch from Pulp Fiction.

emboesso
21st February 07, 09:51 PM
Sally Fields' tirade at Julia Roberts' funeral in "Steel Magnolias."






Bahhh! Gotcha!

Iscariot
21st February 07, 09:55 PM
You have just admitted watching Steel Magnolias, you lose all rights as a heterosexual male until you present a valid excuse.

JimmyTheHutt
22nd February 07, 12:00 AM
You have just admitted watching Steel Magnolias, you lose all rights as a heterosexual male until you present a valid excuse.

It got him laid?

(Steel Magnolias and The Piano both have that honor in my case).

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

billy sol hurok
23rd February 07, 09:14 PM
First, turn up the volume.

Okay, go:

poKujjQG9II

Bukow
23rd February 07, 10:13 PM
8zn0veJ5HTQ

bob
23rd February 07, 10:19 PM
'There are two kinds of people in this world....'


sXldafIl5DQ


Doesn't get much better than this.

mrblackmagic
24th February 07, 11:02 AM
Funniest part of the whole movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhSS5_uc33U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhSS5_uc33U

billy sol hurok
24th February 07, 11:37 AM
While we're at it, go Popeye!

WqRaLUN98aY

Stick
24th February 07, 07:36 PM
fFV-Y-9DI9Y

Steve
24th February 07, 08:27 PM
Kid mentioned Apocalypse Now earlier, one of my all time favorite films.

Esp this scene:

sAj6OAbVlOU

Shawarma
25th February 07, 05:29 AM
After reading the book by Conrad, Apocalypse Now seems extremely lame by comparison.

Note to self: Stop reading books.

billy sol hurok
25th February 07, 07:24 AM
The horror.

The horror.

billy sol hurok
2nd March 07, 09:52 AM
Well King of New York is not a great movie by any means, but it aims low and manages to be amusing along the way. I alluded to this scene in a "Favorite Fight Scenes" thread in BS last year; it has one of my favorite punchlines in any gangsta movie: "Dey fo the bullet holes, Puta!"

xjOCL00LIFY

emboesso
3rd March 07, 05:13 PM
kMdne2Uv4FM

This is an insightful look at the problems lurking beneath the French Provincial covers of American suburbia. Superb acting. Exceptionally well-written, walking that fine line to keep it all from appearing "over the top". Minimal budget well concealed by expert camera work.

KidSpatula
28th March 07, 10:55 PM
Great moments in film:

When Conan's father explains to him the story of Crom

When Conan Bangs the rust off the sword he finds in the tomb

When Conan and Subotai run through the fields from city to city

When Thulsa Doom explains to Conan the Riddle of Steel

When Conan, Subotia and Valeria steal the princess from Thulsa Doom's chambers

When Conan prays to Crom before the final battle

When Conan smashes his father's sword in the battle with Rexor

When Conan kills Thulsa Doom with his father's broken sword and tosses his head down the stairs

...pretty much every scene in Conan the Barbarian.

Steve
29th March 07, 02:36 AM
My #1 fav film for many years...

Commodore Pipes
29th March 07, 11:35 AM
Yes, I think it is fair to say that a great moment in film was when Conan the Barbarian was made.

Osiris
29th March 07, 09:01 PM
The mind hack from Ghost In the Shell: Innocence where Batou and the other guy are tricked into entering a mansion over and over again.

MaverickZ
29th March 07, 10:43 PM
Ass to ass!
http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/9110/requiem21dt2.jpg

KidSpatula
3rd April 07, 06:17 PM
The mind hack from Ghost In the Shell: Innocence where Batou and the other guy are tricked into entering a mansion over and over again.

They got tricked into smoking salvia

socratic
24th April 07, 06:47 PM
Robert DeNiro sitting in a jail cell, punching walls and muttering: "I'm not an animal". Now that I think about it, Raging Bull as it is was a great moment in movie history.

KhorneliusPraxx
25th April 07, 08:25 AM
I just uploaded this last weekend.

Some profanity in clip, FYI...
wnLnMiyGqDQ

Neildo
25th April 07, 10:42 AM
NSFW tag plz.

KhorneliusPraxx
25th April 07, 12:17 PM
Hardcore is rated R...not porn

Neildo
25th April 07, 02:06 PM
The language content is not suitable for all ages. Viewer discretion is advised tag then plz ;)

Shawarma
25th April 07, 02:14 PM
Now how was that a great moment in film?

KhorneliusPraxx
25th April 07, 03:30 PM
"I knew this was a scam! This is bullshit!"

...after seeing this film, I use that line all the time.

billy sol hurok
3rd May 07, 07:09 PM
wnHLsDuleAs

DerAuslander108
4th May 07, 02:18 PM
Christopher Walken is God.

emboesso
4th May 07, 02:48 PM
Now how was that a great moment in film?

That wasn't even a great moment in my afternoon. Now this, however, is pure genius.

NBFLn8zvsjY

bCg9Lr6G8VE

emboesso
4th May 07, 03:25 PM
And here too, pure genius. Peter Lorre in Fritz Lang's "M", playing a child molester/murderer captured by criminals, criminals hoping to get the increased police presence lessened by getting the notorious Lorre off of the streets.

This scene is the criminals holding a "courtoom trial" of Lorre.

One of the best film performances EVAH! IMO, the standard against which all film psychos should be measured.

gg_XvEuO-cE

nihilist
4th May 07, 03:47 PM
aiLvLsBjFwc

nihilist
4th May 07, 04:00 PM
NSFW
ErN6vE0nYdE

emboesso
4th May 07, 04:35 PM
NSFW
ErN6vE0nYdE

Pfttt. He did that same scene with his daughter.

nihilist
4th May 07, 06:22 PM
Sorry, with his daughter he sounded like a frustrated emoboy with erectile dysfunction.

danno
5th May 07, 08:34 AM
final scene from the bicycle thief.

first saw this while studying a film subject at uni. the short version: this man has his bike stolen early in the film and so loses his ability to earn money for his family and things look completely hopeless. it all comes to a head in this great scene:

9RNp0t3J-0M

we watched the whole thing in a lecture. i was almost moved to tears, while someone puts their hand up and asks "why was he so upset? it was just a bike..."

danno
5th May 07, 08:45 AM
NSFW

i can't decide if i would either take his advice in that situation or punch the fuckstain in the face.

emboesso
7th May 07, 05:19 AM
final scene from the bicycle thief.

we watched the whole thing in a lecture. i was almost moved to tears, while someone puts their hand up and asks "why was he so upset? it was just a bike..."

I wasn't aware of that film, so naturally when I saw "Bejing Bicycle" I wasn't aware it was an homage to "Bicycle Thief".

In "BB" it is the same story but deals with China's current issues of the emerging middle class status symbols, and the naive rural population moving into the cities desperate to earn money. "BB" can also drive you to tears.

XpKh79XngZU

Knave
8th May 07, 01:35 AM
Greetings.

I can't believe nobody has posted this semi-famous Monica Bellucci scene. Probably NSFW.

-1774409504436152256

And now, gentlemen, I give you the ultimate ladies' man from my favorite movie of all time.

nJKOIxP0thE

DAYoung
8th May 07, 03:27 AM
That is fucking disgusting - it makes me sick just watching it.

I have to keep telling myself it's just a movie, but I know that kind of evil exists.

I want it off my thread, but that's proably not going to happen.

Iscariot
8th May 07, 04:10 AM
That is fucking disgusting - it makes me sick just watching it.

I have to keep telling myself it's just a movie, but I know that kind of evil exists.

I want it off my thread, but that's proably not going to happen.
Have you actually seen the film?

DAYoung
8th May 07, 04:19 AM
Have you actually seen the film?

Nope. Does it make that any more sickening?

I doubt it.

bob
8th May 07, 04:33 AM
More about freedom...

0GDJXDGhae8

bob
8th May 07, 04:41 AM
"Hell of a thing killin' a man..."

GH0tlbAj8xw

Iscariot
8th May 07, 04:55 AM
Nope. Does it make that any more sickening?

I doubt it.
Actually it puts the scene into some sort of context. Irreversible is an excellent film in exploring structure and content. The film is actuallly run in episodes in reverse, this scene is from the middle of the film/narrative and is the causal event for the beginning/finale. The film then ends with the equilibrium from before these events.

Your reaction does raise interesting questions about violence in film, can film makers actually win when it comes to representing violence onscreen? More often than not film and other media are attacked for glamourising violence and making human suffering a disposable commodity, particularly after events like the VTech shootings, yet when (as in this case) they attempt to capture the actuality of violence they are accused of being sickening. This film also makes use of the unflinching eye to a great extent, the shock and horror is caused by being forced to view the event and the aftermath, rather than (as with Fight Club say) the images are suggested and the viewer fills in the horror from a subjective viewpoint.

DAYoung
8th May 07, 05:06 AM
I know all about the context - it's been reported quite a bit.

I'm not 'accusing' of being sickening - it is sickening.

Perhaps it's a novel structural achievement for film students. It certainly adds nothing to my life.

Iscariot
8th May 07, 05:10 AM
It's not a film to be watched, it's a film to be experienced.

The plot is irrelevent, it's your own reaction and provocations that are the important part of this cinematic experience.

DAYoung
8th May 07, 05:16 AM
Yay. I've experienced disgust.

What an achievement.

Imagine what it'd be like in a reverse order.

Wow.

socratic
8th May 07, 05:29 AM
Have you actually seen the film?

Would you say it's worth watching? It didn't particularly seem like it, but I guess maybe starting our experience of it with the sexual assault was a bad idea.

Iscariot
8th May 07, 06:55 AM
Yay. I've experienced disgust.

What an achievement.

Imagine what it'd be like in a reverse order.

Wow.
I'm surprised by your apparent closed mindedness to this piece, based on viewing one scene alone from the narrative and presentation.


Would you say it's worth watching? It didn't particularly seem like it, but I guess maybe starting our experience of it with the sexual assault was a bad idea.
There's not a lot I don't consider worth watching, particularly if I haven't seen something. I, however, am very well versed in cinema, and don't shock easily if at all.

This isn't a blockbuster film, you can't passively absorb it. It must be taken head-on by someone expects to be challenged by their cinema. By that I don't mean watching Gattaca and then pondering how bad it would be to have a capitalist genetically tiered society, I mean cinema that quite literally rearranges your reality. This film should scare and revolt you, not because of what appears, but on what you see about yourself and others after it. It is visceral, you might not 'enjoy' it, either the narrative or the process of viewing but there will be an appreciation of the journey. That's my opinion at least.

It is not psuedo-porn masquerading as 'art', if you want that go watch Baise-Moi.

Your comment about your starting with the sexual assault making the film unappealing is actually quite funny in context, the film begins (and therefore the story ends) with a second assault, non sexual this time. This cased hardened critics to walk out of the screening at Cannes.

It is a violent and difficult film, there's a reason it has an 18 certificate. Though in all seriousness, I though AI was a much more shocking film given its certificate and marketed audience.

Watch it, don't watch it, it makes no difference to me. I do tend to believe that people shouldn't judge a work without watching it or having an informed opinion - giving the latest Adam Sandler film a miss because of you expectations based on the other films of his you've seen is understandable, missing this film based upon the reactionary comments of outraged critics or based on the viewing of only one scene is.... not good.

DAYoung
8th May 07, 07:19 AM
I wasn't closed-minded. I watched it. I was effected by it. And the affects were of dubious worth.

If the film is 'of a piece', then I'll be as sickened by the whole.

I'm not suggesting it's a bad movie - for all I know it's a fine cinematic achievement.

But I doubt it'll add anything to my life whatsoever, and that's my criterion for value.

Commodore Pipes
8th May 07, 08:31 AM
Irreversible is the worst kind of post modern tripe, that would only be produced by a luxurious society. Yeah, it's so awesome to subvert the traditional narrative... *YAWN* It is no more thrilling now than it was 30 years ago, when the counterculture failed to reinvent humanity.




It is not psuedo-porn masquerading as 'art', if you want that go watch Baise-Moi.



That's true, but I didn't find a claim more compelling than teenage naval gazing, and without a specific truth to relate, wouldn't such a scene be exploitation? And as such, inseperable from porn?




missing this film based upon the reactionary comments of outraged critics or based on the viewing of only one scene is.... not good.



That's also true, but what can DAYoung do? Knave specifically selected that scene as a classic and apparently the greatest scene in the film and one of the greatest in cinema itself. It's not as though he isolated that scene; someone else did it for him. If you want to criticize anyone, criticize Knave.

billy sol hurok
8th May 07, 10:07 AM
Watch it, don't watch it, it makes no difference to me. I do tend to believe that people shouldn't judge a work without watching it or having an informed opinion - giving the latest Adam Sandler film a miss because of you expectations based on the other films of his you've seen is understandable, missing this film based upon the reactionary comments of outraged critics or based on the viewing of only one scene is.... not good.
I mostly agree. I certainly agree in the case of this film. It didn't make my Top 25 Of All Time, nor my Top 100.

Nonetheless, the violence is not gratuitous. The filmmaker had a number of points to make, and made them quite artfully (albeit with a sledgehammer).

The scene could rightly be called "classic" from this perspective: it is the least erotic rape scene I've ever viewed, and among maybe half-a-dozen in the history of cinema that was not eroticized by the filmmaker.

The other violence -- not giving away anything that Iscariot hasn't alluded to already -- is also stomach-turning, and appropriately so. The craft that Noe uses to achieve that is notable; it harkens back to Clockwork Orange's Ludovico Technique.

See it or not. But without seeing it, you're really in no position to discuss it.

OTOH, there are films that I refuse to see so that the filmmaker will earn no revenue from me. Distinguishable point, I think.

MaverickZ
8th May 07, 10:51 AM
Disclaimer: I have not seen all of Irreversible.

On the grounds of principle I have to agree with DAYoung. I have not seen the entire Irreversible movie, but I have seen that rape scene. I have also seen the entirety of Requiem for a Dream, and from that movie the decline of Marion was one of the most difficult things I've had to watch and I've watched documentary footage of very violent acts. It brought nothing to me emotionally or intellectually. The abuse and exploitation of women, especially sexually, is something that disturbs me greatly down in my lizard brain. And to have it filmed, however simulated, as a work of "art" is sickening.

mrblackmagic
8th May 07, 11:30 AM
Errrup....and now for something completely different a

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo-X3fqklCw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo-X3fqklCw

Iscariot
8th May 07, 12:07 PM
That's true, but I didn't find a claim more compelling than teenage naval gazing, and without a specific truth to relate, wouldn't such a scene be exploitation? And as such, inseperable from porn?
So without an intentional and obvious message a film is worthless? I must bring that up next time I talk about the entirety of Surrealist Cinema....


That's also true, but what can DAYoung do? Knave specifically selected that scene as a classic and apparently the greatest scene in the film and one of the greatest in cinema itself. It's not as though he isolated that scene; someone else did it for him. If you want to criticize anyone, criticize Knave.
The greatest moment in The Usual Suspects is the end where the identity of Keyser Soze is revealed (I think this is on the thread somewhere), if you just say that one scene, with no context you'd never understand it and be only able to view what you see, in that case you'd be bored, in this you're shocked. I don't know about anyone else, but this thread is a highlight reel, the important points of impressive films brought up for everyone to see. Something to jog the memory of those who've seen them. The majority make no sense to those who haven't seen them, including this one.

If someone was shown the ending of The Usual Suspects in this thread without ever seeing the film they'd never get why it's lauded and respected, same applies here. Knave is doing what everyone else who's put a thread here has done.


OTOH, there are films that I refuse to see so that the filmmaker will earn no revenue from me. Distinguishable point, I think.
Agree, but.... www.tv-links.co.uk ;)


On the grounds of principle I have to agree with DAYoung. I have not seen the entire Irreversible movie, but I have seen that rape scene. I have also seen the entirety of Requiem for a Dream, and from that movie the decline of Marion was one of the most difficult things I've had to watch and I've watched documentary footage of very violent acts. It brought nothing to me emotionally or intellectually. The abuse and exploitation of women, especially sexually, is something that disturbs me greatly down in my lizard brain. And to have it filmed, however simulated, as a work of "art" is sickening.
Should we not film anything then that could sicken or distress?

As far as the scene goes, this is the same as seeing just the Catherine in the well sequence from The Silence of The Lambs, or the rape from Straw Dogs, one scene out of context and the entire film judged on it.


Errrup....and now for something completely different a

Jo-X3fqklCw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo-X3fqklCw
Good God Newbie, do I have to fix everything around here?

MaverickZ
8th May 07, 12:52 PM
Should we not film anything then that could sicken or distress?
The intent is what matters. Was the director's goal to show us the horrors of rape?

Would Reservoir Dogs have been that much better if we were shown the eat being cut off explicitly?

Iscariot
8th May 07, 01:13 PM
The intent is what matters. Was the director's goal to show us the horrors of rape?
Whose intent? Film is a collaborative process. An editor, executive producer, PR guy, DP, Focus Puller can all change what a director calls for on set whether deliberately or not.

Intent isn't important on the basis of that's not what we're seeing, we're seeing the film and that's all. Uwe Boll might intend to make a good film, I don't much care about his intentions, as the thing I have to sit and watch is a pile of crap.


Would Reservoir Dogs have been that much better if we were shown the eat being cut off explicitly?
Better? That's very vague.

Commodore Pipes
8th May 07, 02:18 PM
So without an intentional and obvious message a film is worthless? I must bring that up next time I talk about the entirety of Surrealist Cinema....



Intentional, yes. Obvious, no. I do believe that a deliberate attempt to express a specific 'truth' about human nature determines what exactly constitutes art. It doesn't have to be something I agree with, but it needs to be comprehensive, consistent and comprehendable. Maybe I just missed the point of Irreversible, which is easily possible, but it seemed like the message was 'Time is fleeting. All men die. Time marches inexorably onward.'

Well, NO FUCKING SHIT.

In the face of something so trite, that sort of rape scene becomes exploitation. Rather than a sexual eroticism, it becomes an emotional exploitation. If the movie had been specifically about the impact of rape, then you would have something there. But it seemed to be more about V. Cassel's reaction than the actual violation of Monica, and it seems to me that Monica becomes a plot device, a provocative victim. In some way, isn't that an exploitation of rape? If the very act is reduced to a plot device?

Look, the herky jerky camera work in the first five minutes left me nauseated, and I had to turn away from the screen a few times just to keep from getting vertigo. So I didn't like it from the get go. Maybe there's a lot more there, but I didn't see anything that suggested there was any more profound insight into the human condition that 'Your opinions change the more info you learn.'

You will probably be able to defend this film more thoroughly than I can criticize it. Like I said, my viewing experience wasn't emotionally or physically tolerable, really.

Oh, and I agree that you can't judge a film from a single scene, but again, DAYoung didn't bring it up, someone else did.

billy sol hurok
8th May 07, 02:35 PM
The intent is what matters.

I completely agree. Which is why it's impossible for those who haven't seen the movie to judge that . . .


Was the director's goal to show us the horrors of rape?

Well, he doesn't exactly spoon-feed you the moral of the story. (Which I suppose is one of the things that makes it an "art" film: it doesn't have a single Moral, delivered by an omniscient narrator or a key character.)

But my reading would be that yes, among other things he intended to show the horrors of violence, of which rape is a subset. This is a point that is often lost in the fetishization of rape in cinema. Likewise, the stylization of violence.

I'm grossly oversimplifying so as to answer your question as directly as possible -- there is much more going on in the movie than that. But were the violent scenes excessive? Perhaps; reasonable people could differ. Were they gratuitous and exploitative? I thought not.

billy sol hurok
8th May 07, 02:54 PM
Look, the herky jerky camera work in the first five minutes left me nauseated, and I had to turn away from the screen a few times just to keep from getting vertigo. So I didn't like it from the get go.
This was the shout-out to the Ludovico Technique that I mentioned earlier.

Noe begins by turning your stomach with visuals, and setting your teeth on edge with an extremely grating soundtrack. That disorientation and nausea stay with you through the early assault scene, and become part of your reaction to it -- just as Little Alex has been nauseated chemically and forced to detest violence (and Beethoven) through the state-sponsored aversion therapy. The same soundtrack accompanies the rape scene, with the apparent intention of "helping" you feel physically ill by association.

Again, this is technique, not message. But I think it helps clarify that the director had more in mind than shocking and/or titillating.

This was not, IMO, a great film. It is ambitious, however, and I'm glad to have seen it.

Disclaimer: I did not rewatch the scene posted above, nor am I in a hurry to rewatch the film -- though my wife and I did rewatch some of it the day after our first viewing, to clarify some points that were ambiguous.

Iscariot
8th May 07, 02:56 PM
Intentional, yes. Obvious, no. I do believe that a deliberate attempt to express a specific 'truth' about human nature determines what exactly constitutes art. It doesn't have to be something I agree with, but it needs to be comprehensive, consistent and comprehendable.
Who argued that it was art? I said cinema. Cinema does not have to have a focussed message, just because it can be used to deliver messages in a very effective way compared to other media does not mean it has to.


Maybe I just missed the point of Irreversible, which is easily possible, but it seemed like the message was 'Time is fleeting. All men die. Time marches inexorably onward.'

Well, NO FUCKING SHIT.
So everything has to have an original or highly complex message? Great, that should stop Michael Bay producing shite.


In the face of something so trite, that sort of rape scene becomes exploitation. Rather than a sexual eroticism, it becomes an emotional exploitation. If the movie had been specifically about the impact of rape, then you would have something there. But it seemed to be more about V. Cassel's reaction than the actual violation of Monica, and it seems to me that Monica becomes a plot device, a provocative victim. In some way, isn't that an exploitation of rape? If the very act is reduced to a plot device?
What did you want his character to do exactly? Based on his characterisation it'd be his natural reaction and the film held to that unflinchingly. You may not agree with his reaction, or the way you were forced as a voyeur to deal with it, but, tough, that's part of what the film is trying to put across.


Look, the herky jerky camera work in the first five minutes left me nauseated, and I had to turn away from the screen a few times just to keep from getting vertigo. So I didn't like it from the get go. Maybe there's a lot more there, but I didn't see anything that suggested there was any more profound insight into the human condition that 'Your opinions change the more info you learn.'
I believe it's the sound that causes the nausea.....

Ah yes:

The first 30 minutes of the film has a background noise with a frequency of 28Hz (low frequency, almost inaudible), similar to the noise produced by an earthquake. In humans, it causes nausea, sickness and vertigo. It was the main cause of people walking out of the theaters during the first part of the film in places like Cannes and San Sebastian. In fact, it was added with the purpose of getting this reaction.

Some quotes I saw on the comments page of the IMDB that I think are relevent:

"Irreversible is that rare beast, a self-contained experience which goes beyond the cinematic and aesthetic to show something real, both touching and frightening, beautiful and horrific, simple and innovative. The first twenty minutes are among the toughest you will encounter on the screen. The sound whines and hums, the camera spins in all directions, disorientating and showing glimpses of the scene. Dialogue is sparse, the same lines being repeated over and over again. The subject matter is unpleasant, taking place in a seedy gay club, the protagonists (Dupontel and Cassel) searching for someone called the Tenia (named after a tape-worm). And when they find him, there is a sequence which lasts maybe two minutes which is incredibly difficult to watch, yet difficult not to watch. Almost in disbelief, you cannot believe what you are watching is happening, yet marvel at how real it is, both technically and in terms of human character."

"There are some, I imagine, who might object to this film on moral grounds, feeling that it is little more than a cynical exploitation picture with artistic pretensions. Yet that condemnation would do a disservice to the makers of this film who, I believe, do not want us to revel in the sordidness of what we see, but rather to be appalled by the unspeakably brutal way in which human beings can treat their fellow human beings. By having us sit and witness every moment of this brutality without the comforting filter of cutaway shots or easy dissolves, Noe forces us to face the ugly truths about ourselves as a species. The reverse-order structure of the film heightens the tragic nature of the story for it allows us to see just how happy and hopeful these characters are in the time right before the rape shatters their lives. The latter half of the film contains no physical violence, yet watching it unfold is an ineffably sad experience, for we, unlike the characters themselves, are privy to the Sword of Damocles so precariously poised over their unsuspecting heads, yet find ourselves helpless in being able to rescue them from the inevitable destruction it will cause. Thus, the structure robs us of even the remotest option of hoping against hope that the tragedy can somehow be avoided - for we have seen it as an already completed action."

"Also the infamous crime scene that started it all is so easy to be judged as "unacceptable" and, even more laughably, "pornographic", as now it is nothing less than effective and useful for its purpose, useful to show the nature of sexual violence and how it really is, ugly, nauseating, sadistic and without respect for human life. If someone asks why such a long scene of rape must be filmed as those kind of things happen in real world all the time, the answer is a new question: since those things happen around us all the time and other tools have not been able to stop them or other violence in our world, why couldn't an artist try his own extremely powerful tool (cinema, image and sound) to change and affect things and people? Can there be enough weapons to stop those things happening around us and why the attempts of cinema and a film maker so often are overlooked and not given the acceptance and importance they deserved? Perhaps because they show too much about our very selves and to admit it, that everyone of us is just a human, is too difficult for many."

"Both movies make a mockery of supposedly "difficult" Hollywood fare like 'American Psycho', 'Fight Club', 'Boys Don't Cry' and 'Requiem For A Dream', which are pure Disney compared to Noe's work!"

MaverickZ
8th May 07, 03:14 PM
It appears the critics who wrote those paragraphs don't get enough of the human experience of pain and suffering in their daily lives. They would be better served seeing what's out there than watching it on a screen.

Commodore Pipes
8th May 07, 03:55 PM
What did you want his character to do exactly? Based on his characterisation it'd be his natural reaction and the film held to that unflinchingly. You may not agree with his reaction, or the way you were forced as a voyeur to deal with it, but, tough, that's part of what the film is trying to put across.



It has nothing to do with whether his reaction was appropriate or not. It has everything to do with the explicit depiction of a woman's rape and then no further information on how that rape affected that WOMAN. So Cassel tries to beat up her attacker and gets owned by an unconvincing armbar. If the movie had been about how his flowery love of Christ made him forgive her attackers, it would still be emotional exploitation, because after Bellucci is raped SHE DISAPPEARS FROM THE FILM. (Chronologically.)

If the film had opened with the rape and then spent the rest of the time filling in Bellucci's character, it would say more about the violence of that particular act than it does now. Right now (it seems to me) the film is about Cassel, so Bellucci is reduced to a plot device. The film ITSELF treats her like an object - so how is that not exploitation?


It appears the critics who wrote those paragraphs don't get enough of the human experience of pain and suffering in their daily lives. They would be better served seeing what's out there than watching it on a screen.

Yes, sir. This film's very existence is a luxury. If someone made a film about rape and 'honor' killing in Iraq, that would reveal and challenge cultural tropes. So who is Noe trying to reach here? The narrow segment of the population who don't think rape is a hideous enormity? No, it's provacative and vacuous, a tale told by an idiot, filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing.*


*Yes, this flowery paraphrase of Shakespeare does not support my argument, but I do love it so.

DAYoung
8th May 07, 04:51 PM
I think this is an excellent discussion.

As I said, I'll not make any definitive judgements about the film - I've not seen it.

To me, it seems like needless, exploitative suffering, unredeemed by the transformative activity of art. It suggests nothing other than its own violence, pain and ignominy.

If I imagine how it might be rendered worthwhile, I think of Coetzee's Disgrace. It's painful, unnerving and horrid, but it offers a much more sophisticated and generous experience.

Knave
8th May 07, 09:24 PM
Greetings.

IMO, if it was just about posting a gratuitously violent scene from the movie, I would've posted the fire extinguisher scene. Viewing it by itself, I think it is less meaningful than the rape scene since to me it banks on the coolness factor of beating a guy's face in with a fire extinguisher because you think he raped your friend. IMO getting revenge for a hot girl is a theme that resonates with alot of men, so the violence in that scene seems glorified to me when viewed on its own (as in, until you find out he beats the wrong guy). Of course, IMO that's one of the points it means to get across, but again just by viewing the extinguisher scene on its own it doesn't happen which IMO makes it a gratuitously violent scene without much meaning.

The rape scene for me is different. As a guy watching it for the first time not realizing that it was about to happen, there was a guilt factor for me. You see her and think "Wow, I'd like to fuck her." And then not minutes later she's being brutally raped. Not porno raped or implied but not shown raped or erotica fiction teehee it's kinky raped. Real deal knifepoint bloody screaming beatdown raped.

It's amplified by the difficulty in identifying with the characters in the scene. It's not so bad watching a guy beat up another guy to get revenge for a rape victim. It's pretty easy for most guys to identify with that kind of dominant angry hero mentality. But for me again there's a guilt factor in watching the rape scene for the first time being able to identify with the rapist more than the victim. That is to say I've thought and talked about before how women who dress provocatively shouldn't be surprised when they receive unwanted attention from men, and of course when first seeing her in the movie I/other guys even give her what might be unwanted attention in thinking "Wow, I'd like to fuck her" (and all the possibly degrading details that might go along with those thoughts). But then the scene forces you to watch the reality of it without it being eroticized, and for me maybe it affected me the way it did because at that point I was forced to confront my inner rapist so to speak. So the first time I saw it I was disgusted with myself. That for me was a powerful and unique feeling that no other movie has duplicated for me. I've been disgusted by scenes before, disgusted by characters or disgusted by people that I associate with those characters, but no other movie has made me disgusted with myself for the part of me that identifies with a character. To me that by itself is enough for it to be a "great" moments in film.

So I agree that it's a disgusting scene, but I don't think that means it's meaningless or gratuitous.

frumpleswift
8th May 07, 09:44 PM
Um...I watched maybe half of the clip...and not only did I die a little inside...I am seriously tempted to register Republican now and join the christian coalition* in an attempt to get that shit off the air. That was some fucked up shit.

I am also tempted to burn my Bab5 DVDs.^

Edit:

*The sad thing is, this is just afer having watched Jesus Camp...which REALLY made me hate fundies.

^Yes this is wholly irrational, and based on a purely emotional guilt by association reaction. I think my wife's morning sickness is screwing with me hormones.

MaverickZ
8th May 07, 10:30 PM
Knave, what's missing your sentences is that "Wow, I'd like to fuck her with her consent." is what's really being said. That is an important point.

frumpleswift
8th May 07, 10:33 PM
Knave, what's missing your sentences is that "Wow, I'd like to fuck her with her consent." is what's really being said. That is an important point.

Sadly, not for everyone. I think Knave's explanation is very insightful...even if I still find the scene itself exceptionally wrong.

MaverickZ
8th May 07, 10:47 PM
Sadly, not for everyone. I think Knave's explanation is very insightful...even if I still find the scene itself exceptionally wrong.
I'm a softy on the inside.

DerAuslander108
9th May 07, 12:30 AM
Look...this who thing could have been avoided with a bit of a disclaimer.

You post up a video in a video thread, and people will watch it. Mentioning it's semi-famous Monica Bellucci scene that might be NSFW means nothing. We're all still gonna watch it.

And...out of context...or hell...even in context....a lot of us are going to be disturbed.

You can say that was the point of the scene, or the the artistic aim, and you may be right.

You're still a fucking asshole for not warning us.

Had you said "this scene is a graphic presentation of rape, which is noticable for the fact that it does not fetishize rape, but rather, as a part of a movie reflecting on the horrible violence humanity perpetrates on itself...bla bla bla..."

You know what?

I might have thought decent things about you.

And not fucking watched that scene.

All of your justifications for how good or innovative this movie may be are pointless because you didn't give us the option of not watching it until it was too late.

I'm going to go poor myself a drink now and look at jpgs of kittens & puppies & bunny rabbits to get that filth out of my skull.

And you...well...

You're a fuckchop.

nihilist
9th May 07, 01:53 AM
I'm not saying she was asking for it but look at the way she was dressed.

Knave
9th May 07, 02:04 AM
Greetings.


I might have thought decent things about you.

So..you're saying you now think indecent things about me? Could..you maybe describe them for me?


you didn't give us the option of not watching it until it was too late

You make it sound like she's walking down the street minding her own business turns a corner AHH ANAL RAPE!!!! There's a good 2 or 3 minutes leading up to it.


I'm not saying she was asking for it but look at the way she was dressed.

For real.

DerAuslander108
9th May 07, 02:13 AM
So..you're saying you now think indecent things about me? Could..you maybe describe them for me?

Depends.

Do you like Patrick Swayze movies?


You make it sound like she's walking down the street minding her own business turns a corner AHH ANAL RAPE!!!! There's a good 2 or 3 minutes leading up to it.

Do you really want me to deconstruct your previous statements and make you look like a fuckchop?

DAYoung
9th May 07, 02:15 AM
Greetings.

IMO, if it was just about posting a gratuitously violent scene from the movie, I would've posted the fire extinguisher scene. Viewing it by itself, I think it is less meaningful than the rape scene since to me it banks on the coolness factor of beating a guy's face in with a fire extinguisher because you think he raped your friend. IMO getting revenge for a hot girl is a theme that resonates with alot of men, so the violence in that scene seems glorified to me when viewed on its own (as in, until you find out he beats the wrong guy). Of course, IMO that's one of the points it means to get across, but again just by viewing the extinguisher scene on its own it doesn't happen which IMO makes it a gratuitously violent scene without much meaning.

The rape scene for me is different. As a guy watching it for the first time not realizing that it was about to happen, there was a guilt factor for me. You see her and think "Wow, I'd like to fuck her." And then not minutes later she's being brutally raped. Not porno raped or implied but not shown raped or erotica fiction teehee it's kinky raped. Real deal knifepoint bloody screaming beatdown raped.

It's amplified by the difficulty in identifying with the characters in the scene. It's not so bad watching a guy beat up another guy to get revenge for a rape victim. It's pretty easy for most guys to identify with that kind of dominant angry hero mentality. But for me again there's a guilt factor in watching the rape scene for the first time being able to identify with the rapist more than the victim. That is to say I've thought and talked about before how women who dress provocatively shouldn't be surprised when they receive unwanted attention from men, and of course when first seeing her in the movie I/other guys even give her what might be unwanted attention in thinking "Wow, I'd like to fuck her" (and all the possibly degrading details that might go along with those thoughts). But then the scene forces you to watch the reality of it without it being eroticized, and for me maybe it affected me the way it did because at that point I was forced to confront my inner rapist so to speak. So the first time I saw it I was disgusted with myself. That for me was a powerful and unique feeling that no other movie has duplicated for me. I've been disgusted by scenes before, disgusted by characters or disgusted by people that I associate with those characters, but no other movie has made me disgusted with myself for the part of me that identifies with a character. To me that by itself is enough for it to be a "great" moments in film.

So I agree that it's a disgusting scene, but I don't think that means it's meaningless or gratuitous.

Thanks.

I don't agree, but thanks anyway.

Knave
9th May 07, 02:25 AM
Greetings.


Do you really want me to deconstruct your previous statements and make you look like a fuckchop?

Yes please.

And yes, I do like Patrick Swayze movies. Red Dawn? Donnie Darko? POINT BREAK? It has Gary freaking Busey. Awesome.

nihilist
9th May 07, 02:53 AM
A great question at this point would be for everyone here to explain exactly why they didn't just turn it off when it was apparent that it was going to be a sickening scene.

DAYoung
9th May 07, 03:56 AM
In my case, it was a misguided attempt at courage.

I didn't want to be too afraid to watch.

I regret watching it.

nihilist
9th May 07, 04:13 AM
Perhaps the film makers didn't want to be too afraid to show it.

Whether or not they regret making it or not is another story.

It was after all, just acting.

Who exactly are you or any of us to judge the tipping point of good taste or whether or not graphicly vivid material has merit?

Food for thought.

DAYoung
9th May 07, 04:18 AM
Who exactly are you or any of us to judge the tipping point of good taste or whether or not graphicly vivid material has merit?

I don't think it's an issue of authority (or of 'taste', for that matter).

All we can do is be conscious of our emotional reactions, and try to assess the relationship between these and the work in question (or portions thereof).

This is what I've done.

socratic
9th May 07, 04:23 AM
A great question at this point would be for everyone here to explain exactly why they didn't just turn it off when it was apparent that it was going to be a sickening scene.
Now, I like to think I have pretty thick skin when it comes to film, so I guess it means something that I couldn't watch it (the scene) through to the end. I kept watching thinking it was going to cut at the obvious points. When it didn't, I skipped ahead to the end. Then I skipped the bit where he bashed her face in. I think what makes it so confronting is a total lack of 'aesthetization' of the violence; it's realistic, and there's no avoiding it. I'll admit I expected something a little more false and flowery, say, with a cut before it got nasty or something. Oh, and yeah, that wasn't 'maybe' NSFW, that was fucking definitely NSFW.

Iscariot, I was more asking because you had seen it and at the time I'd felt, I'll admit, repelled. You make it seem like there might be some insight (or at least some feeling) to be gained from watching it, so I think I probably will.

bob
9th May 07, 05:27 AM
A great question at this point would be for everyone here to explain exactly why they didn't just turn it off when it was apparent that it was going to be a sickening scene.

I actually stopped within seconds for several reasons. Firstly, I knew exactly how that scene would make me feel and I don't need it. For all the intellectualisation that you can embroider it with, the main point of a scene like that is the visceral reaction it provokes. It's hard to get past that and the only way you really can is to step back and say, 'well it's only a movie'. Which defeats the purpose of cinema.

Secondly, for all of us (presumably) it's an abstract issue that we can pontificate on at leisure. But I've had several close friends who've been sexually assaulted and I can only imagine the sheer horror a scene like that would be for them.

Finally, this thread is about great moments in film. I defy anyone to find me a definition of 'great' that would encompass that scene.

MaverickZ
9th May 07, 06:28 AM
Perhaps the film makers didn't want to be too afraid to show it.

Whether or not they regret making it or not is another story.

It was after all, just acting.

Who exactly are you or any of us to judge the tipping point of good taste or whether or not graphicly vivid material has merit?

Food for thought.
While "good taste" is subjective, it is certainly determined by regular people, us. Who else but "us" is there to do it?

Commodore Pipes
9th May 07, 07:58 AM
Perhaps the film makers didn't want to be too afraid to show it.

Whether or not they regret making it or not is another story.

It was after all, just acting.

Who exactly are you or any of us to judge the tipping point of good taste or whether or not graphicly vivid material has merit?

Food for thought.

I thought I outlined why the scene was exploitative, and why the graphically vivid material didn't have enough merit to justify fucking with the audience like that.

mrblackmagic
9th May 07, 09:13 AM
edit. I forgot I was abstaining from this argument because high minded french shock cinema is always considered "art" and American action splatterfest are considered "entertainment."

Marrt
9th May 07, 09:56 AM
the scene in Striptease when William Stanton walks into the hotel room to see Burt Reynolds moments before Reynolds' character is due to give a speech to a Senior Citizens group.


Erb Crandal: Why are you all shiny?

Congressman David Dilbeck: It's Vaseline!

Erb Crandal: Oh ho! Ohhh! It's Vas . . . great . . . it's Vaseline!

Congressman David Dilbeck: You've never covered yourself with Vaseline?

Erb Crandal: No, no, not unless I have third degree burns, no.


I know, I know, just as contentious as Irreversible.

MaverickZ
9th May 07, 10:21 AM
suQTVq731c8

Iscariot
9th May 07, 12:11 PM
As much as I'm enjoying this discussion, it's turning this thread into a clusterfuck, if it continues I think we'd be better off shifting it to its own thread.

And on with the stupidly long response:


It appears the critics who wrote those paragraphs don't get enough of the human experience of pain and suffering in their daily lives. They would be better served seeing what's out there than watching it on a screen.
That is, of course, your perogative to believe that, personally if given the choice of watching my own life disintergrate because my girlfriend's been raped and I've beaten the guy who did it to death and watching a fictional version onscreen, I'll be breaking out the DVD every time. Personal choice I know.


because after Bellucci is raped SHE DISAPPEARS FROM THE FILM.
And your point is? Cassel is the main protagonist, it is his actions we follow. The rape is the causative event, not the plot of the film. Also the lack of Bellucci appears deliberate (in part due to structure and suspense) to not give the audience any formative resolution. It causes them to formulate their own consequences founded on the event and the realism it was grounded in.


Right now (it seems to me) the film is about Cassel, so Bellucci is reduced to a plot device. The film ITSELF treats her like an object - so how is that not exploitation?
The film is about Cassel, he's our protagonist, however calling the rape sequence exploitative when compared to his later actions is absurd.


If someone made a film about rape and 'honor' killing in Iraq, that would reveal and challenge cultural tropes. So who is Noe trying to reach here? The narrow segment of the population who don't think rape is a hideous enormity? No, it's provacative and vacuous, a tale told by an idiot, filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing.
You have failed to grasp the fundamental point of this film, it does reveal and challenge 'cultural tropes', and in a blatantly revelatory fashion. It shows, unflinchingly, the capability of human beings in the modern 'civilised' world. As well as demonstrating the random nature of what could be termed 'evil'.


As I said, I'll not make any definitive judgements about the film - I've not seen it.

To me, it seems like needless, exploitative suffering, unredeemed by the transformative activity of art. It suggests nothing other than its own violence, pain and ignominy.
Now it's much clearer, when I read your earlier post it seemed to me as you were dismissing the film purely on the grounds that it disturbed you.

The sequence you have seen is the most violent from the film, there is one other violent section, but that's pretty much it. It is the contrast between extremes that the film makes, especially as it is told in reverse. We see Cassel beat people to death, yet we don't understand. We arrive at the rape scene and then understand the reason, and our perception paradigm shifts. For the rest of the film the viewer is forced to watch the blossoming relationship between Bellucci and Cassel with full knowledge of what has/will happen and is powerless to prevent or change events. The film is about the viewer, the plot and its characters are a conduit to the places your mind doesn't normally want to go.


I am also tempted to burn my Bab5 DVDs.
Such art should not be destroyed. To help you with your guilt I shall allow you to send them to me, it's the least I can do to help.


The sad thing is, this is just afer having watched Jesus Camp...which REALLY made me hate fundies.
I almost turned off Saved!, even though it had exceptional amounts of Jena Malone. After the first 20 minutes the "Yay Christianity!" had subsided. Thankfully.


Sadly, not for everyone. I think Knave's explanation is very insightful...even if I still find the scene itself exceptionally wrong.
Precisely the type of reaction this film is trying to get you to see. The degree of human potential.


A great question at this point would be for everyone here to explain exactly why they didn't just turn it off when it was apparent that it was going to be a sickening scene.
Proponents of cinema have been trying to point this out for years, it hasn't worked yet.


Who exactly are you or any of us to judge the tipping point of good taste or whether or not graphicly vivid material has merit?
Me, I do have a qualification in critical film analysis ;)

Seriously though, the point is valid, the film is in no way illegal and until it is successfully challenged by the courts of the major powers of the western world the film makers are entitled (and expected and encouraged) to continue to push the boundaries of technology, spectacle, art, intent and sanity.


All we can do is be conscious of our emotional reactions, and try to assess the relationship between these and the work in question (or portions thereof).
It is my contention that the film is actively trying to provoke this response. You have however only seen a small portion of the film, it's like only hearing 20 seconds of the crescendo of a symphony and judging the entirety of the piece on that basis. Such a judgement is inherently flawed.


Iscariot, I was more asking because you had seen it and at the time I'd felt, I'll admit, repelled. You make it seem like there might be some insight (or at least some feeling) to be gained from watching it, so I think I probably will.
It will not be over quickly. You will not enjoy it. I am not the resident film critic.

Had to put a 300 reference in, the fanboys will be feeling left out otherwise.

It's not a film to be taken lightly, but if you cope with viewing such images will having your boundaries and beliefs assaulted then go for it.


Finally, this thread is about great moments in film. I defy anyone to find me a definition of 'great' that would encompass that scene.
Film, like any other form of media is about communication. If by the actions of a couple of actors you are able to concieve of the horror of rape better then you did before, even if you are disgusted by doing so then the film is a success in this manner.

It's probably the most realistic fictional portrayal of rape in cinema, it makes The Accused and Straw Dogs look like Disney cartoons, and that's saying a lot considering the content of those films. Due to this exceptional realism and power to suggest emotion I'd class it as a cinematic achievement and therefore worthy of a place in this thread. Just because the scene isn't enjoyable or reassuring doesn't disqualify it from meeting the definition of great.


While "good taste" is subjective, it is certainly determined by regular people, us. Who else but "us" is there to do it?
It is the purpose of Art to challenge or reinforce these societological norms by portraying them in various ways. By viewing these images the people in this thread have had their views on violent rape exposed to their conscious mind and (I hope) have reinforced their disgust of the act and those who commit the act.


I thought I outlined why the scene was exploitative, and why the graphically vivid material didn't have enough merit to justify fucking with the audience like that.
You've got it completely backwards, it's the actuality of fucking with the audience's heads that justifies the imagery.


I forgot I was abstaining from this argument because high minded french shock cinema is always considered "art" and American action splatterfest are considered "entertainment."
I think that's more to do with the perception of the different forms of violence. Here it is a vile act, when John McClane runs around it's a disposable form of entertainment.


And what I personally think is the best scene in the Conan films, to get us back on track:
V30tyaXv6EI

nihilist
9th May 07, 12:18 PM
Maybe I just missed the point of Irreversible, which is easily possible...


It is the fact that the material is unflinching that allows one to experience and hence thououghly consider the subject without doing so a priori.

If you were in a courtroom as a juror, you would not be given a happy fun-time version of what happened; they show you the actual photos, films and graphic descriptions because it is necessary.

Yes the scene was grotesque but look at the discussion it has provoked.

It has influence, power and therefore merit, though not in a traditional sense.

Commodore Pipes
9th May 07, 01:46 PM
I would hope that 'human potential' and the capability of violence and evil are confronted daily, just in the choices you make. What was that General Crook said in that TV show 'Deadwood?'

"We all have bloody thoughts."

Even if Noe does challenge us to examine rape unflinchingly, I am not sure what he has accomplished by that. I do not think that rape is any worse than before I saw the film; I always thought it was fucking terrible.

If fucking with my mind was the point, I don't see how that makes this image any less exploitative. If fucking with my mind was his sole goal, than picking rape as the most traumatic and horrifying human experience and displaying it to trigger a reaction - even a considerate reaction - is pure exploitation, and is frankly insulting, to boot.

Why didn't he just make a documentary about any of the real, vicious acts of humanity and show it unflinchingly? The most brutal fictional murder I have ever seen has never provoked more thought than the aftermath of the strikebreaking in the documentary 'Harlan County, USA,' when the camera crew photographs the site where a deputized strikebreaker shot a miner in the face with a shotgun. We have never met the man, but we have seen the sherrif and his thugs try to intimidate the camera person, and in light of this they scan the area where the man was shot and you can see a piece of head lying in the grass.

That was a real man, who was really shot. And far from exploiting him, it made him sympathetic. I mean, this was 1974, in the USA, and law enforcement could shot down citizens in broad daylight with impunity?

That was challenging. That was powerful. This was positively juvenile in comparison.

EDIT:

You know what, though? I have to concede that no interview with a real-life rape victim would be able to instill the visceral disgust in someone as that scene, and if Noe is indeed trying to make real the hideous violence of that act, all my protests are rendered moot. However, I think he undermines his own position with the lame-ass time tricks and film-school chicanery that marks the rest of the film.

frumpleswift
9th May 07, 04:53 PM
Such art should not be destroyed. To help you with your guilt I shall allow you to send them to me, it's the least I can do to help.


Sure thing...just let me finish digitally changing all of the white stars into fireflies.

Shawarma
10th May 07, 10:55 AM
You know what, though? I have to concede that no interview with a real-life rape victim would be able to instill the visceral disgust in someone as that scene
Strange, that scene never bothered me. Having these interviews with female aquaintances of mine who are rape victims did, however. One thing is on screen, another is a person you know with her existence befouled. No comparision, if you ask me.

Commodore Pipes
10th May 07, 02:22 PM
Strange, that scene never bothered me. Having these interviews with female aquaintances of mine who are rape victims did, however. One thing is on screen, another is a person you know with her existence befouled. No comparision, if you ask me.

No comparison between an acquaintence and a stranger's stories, true. Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'no interview.'

billy sol hurok
11th May 07, 06:52 PM
Commodore Pipes, I think there was a lot more going on besides "rape is bad, mmmkay?"

Here are some other themes that I thought were embodied: foremost, the viral nature of violence. How it can spread in rapid and unexpected ways, how it can afflict/affect people who least expect it (and people whom we'd least expect to be afflicted/affected), how attempts to harness it can be cruelly foiled by fate or ineptitude or blind bloodlust.

The reverse-chron tactic helped to highlight the many, many bad decisions that led us to the film's appalling conclusion. So many exit ramps untaken!

It also deepened the sense of loss, in a way that a standard linear narrative mightn't have. Watching the lovers' lives become more mundane and innocent was all the more poignant.

Finally, it offers an odd sense of omniscient detachment from the plot, by removing the "what's gonna happen next?" aspect of watching the events unwind, or rewind, or whatever. You know the what, though not the why . . . and that's what keeps you watching.

Not saying you shouldn't hate the movie, just throwing out some thoughts.

Again, not a great film by my measure, but I thought it had more to say than "you die, then life sux."

Edit: Clusterfuck point taken -- for some more satisfying violence, heeeeeere's Jake!

"I was right, too much weights, not enough speed work."

pbvFTXz_p5M

DAYoung
11th May 07, 08:43 PM
pwned by bobba fettz

lolz

emboesso
18th May 07, 12:42 PM
Getting awfully heavy 'round these here parts.

Classic stage bit brought to the screen, music by the brilliant Leroy Anderson.

a7ySmnxy29Q&

socratic
29th May 07, 05:24 AM
K27yZzsvdCo

You're entering a whole new world of pain my friend...

The Big Lebowski in and of itself is a great moment in film, but I thought this was a particular classic. Walter's sheer psychotic behaviour is used for great lulz, especially in this scene.

Plus, it doesn't spoil much. Uh, warning for swearing maybe, in case you're at work or something.

emboesso
29th May 07, 05:40 AM
Augustus McRae is not a man to be trifled with:

pVBjBClBSao

23UhypY-pUg