|
>>I thought the plot was pretty simple: >> >>-tortured/battle-scarred soul adrift, finds >direction/purpose >>via meglomaniacal leader/savior figure who is able to seek >out >>those people for his own purposes > >Okay, but what was he tortured by or from? There really was >no background story to his mania, as far as I can remember. > he just got back from a war.
>>-once the subject gets a longer look behind the curtain >>Wizard-of-Oz style he realizes that isn't it either > >I wouldn't particularly say he came to that conclusion on his >own volition. The son had to really put him on. He was all >in before that moment. > I'm not even remembering the part you're referring to since it's been awhile since I've seen it but it was happening at least from their arrest if not before.
>>-pupil forced to get over the hurt of another façade >crumbling >>and/or the feeling that he'd been used/deceived > >I forgot what it was that got him kicked out of the group or >exactly what was the reason for him leaving, but, I don't >remember Joaquin's character being any kind of truthseeker. >More of a troublemaking wayward soul who just happened to luck >up on someone who was willing to invest time in him and his >idiosyncrasies. > that's fine either way.
>And, honestly, out of everyone affiliated with that cult, I'd >say Joaquin's character was the least taken advantage of. >Hoffman's character seemed to truly care about him and his >well being. > they do sorta make that a murky area because there's probably some truth to both.
>>-he embraces a more world-weary cynical viewpoint, by the >>final scene he's now exploring how to make his old teacher's >>line of bullshit work for him. > >THAT part I don't remember. I remember him going back to >visit Hoffman and I know he had got into a relationship with >some chick, but, I don't remember there being any kind of >awakening or aha moment or anything like that. I'll have to >rewatch to see if maybe I missed it because of my >disappointment with the film by that juncture. > The last scene where he pulls the chick & has her in bed with him, then starts doing some of those questionare-esque-exercises old boy had used on him.
>>That felt clear to me, I don't think the 'vision' or dogma >>espoused by the group he joined was ever really all that >>important or supposed to be. > >Well, wasn't as clear to me. And, I never really felt the >dogma was that important either. To me, the main thing was >Hoffman and Phoenix's relationship, where it kind of came off >slightly homoerotic at times. > definitely.
>>The plot is basically just those three acts each reflecting >a >>different stage in one man's mindstate: abandonment, >>salvation, acceptance > >Not saying that those things can't be true, because films, >like art, are meant to be interpreted differently by each >viewer, but I DEFINITELY did not get any of those things, >especially not the abandonment part. If he was abandoned in >any way, it was by his own choosing. > abandonment is the PTSD state that he's in at the beginning of the movie, salvation is the cult, acceptance is him breaking away & coming to terms with things on some level at the end.
>>Not to mention it looks incredible, has a style all its own, >>is incredibly acted and there are some tremendously >memorable >>and/or affecting scenes along the way. > >It is shot very well. I'll give you that, along with the >acting, but, I don't truly find it's style all that too >unique. When I think of unique, I think of something like >Enter The Void or City of God or something else that's genre >defining or at least makes a unique statement visually that >others copy. But, maybe my standards are just different. > >>I actually thought this was his strongest & most direct >flick >>since Boogie Nights. > >Haven't seen much of his more recent output. Still need to >watch There Will Be Blood, which I think should be good. > I liked this better even though There Will Be Blood tends to get more praise due to its literary underpinnings, Daniel-Day Lewis' scenery-chewing, large chunks of movie without dialogue, Johnny Greenwood's nails-on-a-chalkboard/awkward-ass-score/oh-but-oh-wait-he's-in-radiohead-we-love-it, etc.
>>But if the scenes/look/feel/character-study-and-interplay >>doesn't entertain you as a viewer than the 'plot' isn't >going >>to hold water (no pun intended for a movie so steeped in >>maritime/ship-at-sea/navigational coordinate imagery) for >>you. > >The scenes WERE entertaining to me and I did find it visually >pleasing, but, that, along with the great acting, is where it >stops. It's just missing that important piece of good plot. >And, it's not like totally confusing like a Mulholland Drive >or anything like that, but, it just kind of fizzles out >without truly tying up any kind of loose ends or giving the >entire journey of watching it any purpose. It was kind of >like driving somewhere only to turn right back around and not >even get out the car when you get there. That type of >feeling. > >>I only saw it in the theater, just even thinking about it >for >>a few minutes here again in typing this out made me realize >>I'm up for a re-watch. >> > >I know they're already planning to give it a bunch of awards >at the Oscars this year. Hoffman deserves a nod, but that's >about it. I don't see it winning Best Film or Director or >anything like that. If it does, I'll be there scratching my >head. > The Oscars for which it was a candidate already came & went.
It didn't even get nominated for Best Picture or Best Director.
Hoffman got a nod for Supporting, Phoenix for Lead, Adams for Supporting Actress.
To me it was better than Argo or Silver Linings Playbook pretty damn easily but this wasn't a movie I'd expect to take home those kind of awards.
>I'm all about indie films and the artsy stuff, but, don't drag >me along for no reason, which this film does. > respectfully & wholeheartedly disagree, this one to me told a story, was well acted, beautifully shot & had emotional layers/depth to it.
I look forward to seeing it again.
|