Does Discourse have a Reveal All Spoilers type feature? (It really should, if it doesn’t already.) Or is it safe to assume a spoiler zone once posts start veering in that direction?
I love your reading of this movie, but I can’t help but think the burning was fueled by newfound hatred, whereas taking care of the dog was borne of love. It’s the duality of those emotions, tied to the same thing, that stands out for me. But then I also ended a longstanding kinship (far less dramatically) a couple years ago, so maybe we all see what we’re familiar with…
That’s a good question, and I didn’t mean to make anyone feel bad for spoilering their posts, since I know you’re all doing it out of thoughtfulness!
I don’t think there’s any agreed convention, but it seems to me selective spoilering is appropriate for something like a TV show, where people’s viewing habits vary, so what is and isn’t a spoiler will be staggered among various tiers of people in the discussion. In those situations, I sort of understand the “heavily redacted document” look. But for me personally, if I’m in a thread reading a discussion about a movie or TV show, it’s almost always because I’ve seen the whole thing.
But again, that’s just me and I know a lot of you are perfectly happy skimming threads for movies you haven’t seen. So for you guys, those selective spoilers are probably very helpful. But I tend to just post either with spoilers or without, and if it’s with spoilers and it might not be obvious from the context in the discussion, I’ll just label is as such at the top of the post, and then blather freely from then on. Like here. And it seems if someone does that loudly enough, it sets the tone for the rest of the thread?
So, again, I wasn’t try to make anyone feel bad for spoilering their posts. Just grousing about my own personal opinion. :)
Just saw Banshees the other night and we are still thinking about it. Spectacular performances, especially the way that Farrell and Gleason can act so well using only facial expressions. But dark, and sad, and nearly inscrutable. Appreciate the thoughts and different takes above.
The Anti-In Bruges. Very different from what I expected, very well made, great acting, cinematography, fitting music, but the characters were too uninteresting to carry such a non-story. Certainly my least favourite McDonagh film, but I wouldn’t call it bad.
edit: I found reading this thread more interesting than the film, kudos
I think that’s a valid criticism from the viewer, but it’s also fundamental to the plot. It’s why the friendship is cast aside in the first place!
And yeah, I have no interest in watching this one again. In Bruges, on the other hand, is the first movie we’re going to watch in our new house, when we finally connect the magnepan speakers to the TV. (It has an exceptionally lovely acoustic soundtrack.)
wtf is with all the low stone walls there? I was there last May, and wondered about it, and then this movie the other night brought it back. Do these people have nothing to do but build low stone walls everywhere by hand?
Suppose you’re a farmer and you live in place with very shallow topsoil and lots and lots of rocks. When you get your fields ready for planting, you take out all the rocks the earth heaves up and get them out of the field so they don’t get in the way of your farming.
Since rocks are heavy, you don’t move them any farther than you need to.
So you end up building stone walls around the fields with them, whether you need stone walls around your fields or not.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him, But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather He said it for himself. I see him there Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed. He moves in darkness as it seems to me, Not of woods only and the shade of trees. He will not go behind his father’s saying, And he likes having thought of it so well He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors’
I watched last night and man, it went to a place I wasn’t expecting in the second half, but I was enthralled. Honestly it was a bit much, I want to rewatch In Bruges again instead of this for more of the same, but less challenging emotionally. Also, when I did watch Bruges it was on DVD, there’s an extra that’s just a boat ride around the city, highly recommended.
I adored the dialogue and performances in this, but ultimately didn’t care for the script, and therefore the movie as a whole. It’s a lovely parable, but for me, it has the same pitfall as most parables: if you focus on the characters, if you transplant the action into our own reality, if you wander from the point to explore it as a narrative, it can fall apart. And that’s what happened for me with this movie.
For instance, Gleeson invokes Mozart to explain his motivation, but I’m sure Mozart had plenty of dull friends with whom he was capable of tactfully interacting. Why can’t Gleeson’s character manage the same?
Well, because we’re in a parable where the point is the point, not believable character motivations, actual human emotions, or even recognizable settings. When we talk about The Prodigal Son, we don’t ask why the family is no longer angry or resentful about the son’s initial departure. When someone relates The Parable of the Sower, no one points out it would be really dumb for any farmer to throw seeds in sand. Parables are points, not narratives. Treating them as narratives can be problematic, and I feel that’s what McDonagh’s script has done.
Which leaves me with a story about one man’s extreme cruelty to another man he once counted as a friend. And given how effective the performances were, and how good McDonagh is with dialogue, this ratchets up the cruelty even more. So I didn’t enjoy it, or even see much point in it. I would have much rather read The Parable Of The Man Who Broke Up With His Dull Friend as a short text treatment instead of watching this heartfelt presentation of emotion by two remarkable actors with unmistakable chemistry, against the backdrop of such a lovely countryside. What should have been a thought-provoking parable about legacy and the creative process and friendship and community was, to me, just a movie about Brendon Gleeson being a dick.
I love the McDonaghs as writers, but this is a rare case where I prefer John’s latest, The Forgiven, over Martin’s.
I just learned Michael is his middle name. I’ll have to finish round 4 of this sibling rivalry.
That’s a valid criticism, and I think it goes a long way towards explaining why several of us were let down by the middle stretch, which makes little intrinsic sense, and found it redeemed itself in the end, since its justification is somewhat artificial.
