Film Talk (WARNING: Spoilers!)

[The Knize]

I had sort of forgotten about this thread, and Phil's concept of having a place to have a deeper discussion of films that afforded by the other movie threads. I admit that I am a little scared off by Phil's masterful and incisive analysis of The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. I do not know that I am able to present that kind of analysis of any film!

I do find myself thinking a lot about Dragged Across Concrete and noir in general in all of its forms and vintages. I am wondering whether DAC is worthy of a deeper discussion and whether enough folks have seen it to talk about it without spoiling it for too many people even given the spoiler warnings. I do think it is a great film example of sort of anti-heroes. Protagonists that are not all that likeable. Who are flawed. But nevertheless mostly try to live by some code that they have internalized, and the lessons in how that works out for them. That and the darkness morally and in the lighting of the film itself, and violence of this piece of film-making.

I suppose the question is what is all of this supposed to mean? Anything? Or is this just a metaphor for life being essentially struggle and meaninglessness?

 

[luvmysuper]

I had sort of forgotten about this thread, and Phil's concept of having a place to have a deeper discussion of films that afforded by the other movie threads. I admit that I am a little scared off by Phil's masterful and incisive analysis of The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. I do not know that I am able to present that kind of analysis of any film!

I do find myself thinking a lot about Dragged Across Concrete and noir in general in all of its forms and vintages. I am wondering whether DAC is worthy of a deeper discussion and whether enough folks have seen it to talk about it without spoiling it for too many people even given the spoiler warnings. I do think it is a great film example of sort of anti-heroes. Protagonists that are not all that likeable. Who are flawed. But nevertheless mostly try to live by some code that they have internalized, and the lessons in how that works out for them. That and the darkness morally and in the lighting of the film itself, and violence of this piece of film-making.

I suppose the question is what is all of this supposed to mean? Anything? Or is this just a metaphor for life being essentially struggle and meaninglessness?

I've been meaning to watch it, but I just haven't gotten around to it just yet. I just did a three movie run of "John Wick 1", "Nobody" and "Sisu" to compare the approach applied to show an unknown master of his art coming out of his shell and returning to full "kill everything" mode due to circumstances brought to them rather than seeking it.
I'll try to get something posted about that soon, and watch Dragged Across Concrete as well so I can talk about it with some familiarity.

 

[The Knize]

Yay! I look forward to it. I will try to watch Nobody and Sisu in the meantime.

I admit that I am really not that familiar with the John Wick series. Would you consider it to have enough serious content to discuss? If so, I will try to give that series a shot, too.

I think there is one thing that is intentionally going on in DAC that is hard to talk about no matter what is race. But I have not managed to think through what is really being said about race. Of course, all good drama tends to explore different facets of matters without really drawing conclusions, much as Shakespeare does, often subtlety, throughout his works. I often think of the famous, brilliant, and oft quoted expression in As You Like It of the seven ages of man, the final age, leaving a man as a helpless infant: "Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything." Yet the old man of the play is Duke Senior, who is well-loved and respected, and while for much of the play he has little of material value, he is very much content with what he does have, and is the very embodiment of wisdom, kindness, grace. So which is it Bill S? Is being old a terrible condition and the old people worthy of being mocked? Or is old age a time of happiness and peace and leadership?

Good stuff!

 

[luvmysuper]

Yay! I look forward to it. I will try to watch Nobody and Sisu in the meantime.

I admit that I am really not that familiar with the John Wick series. Would you consider it to have enough serious content to discuss? If so, I will try to give that series a shot, too.

I think there is one thing that is intentionally going on in DAC that is hard to talk about no matter what is race. But I have not managed to think through what is really being said about race. Of course, all good drama tends to explore different facets of matters without really drawing conclusions, much as Shakespeare does, often subtlety, throughout his works. I often think of the famous, brilliant, and oft quoted expression in As You Like It of the seven ages of man, the final age, leaving a man as a helpless infant: "Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything." Yet the old man of the play is Duke Senior, who is well-loved and respected, and while for much of the play he has little of material value, he is very much content with what he does have, and is the very embodiment of wisdom, kindness, grace. So which is it Bill S? Is being old a terrible condition and the old people worthy of being mocked? Or is old age a time of happiness and peace and leadership?

Good stuff!

I think, in old age, that the sharing/passing of wisdom and demonstration of leadership is at a stage which is before the return to infancy.
I don't recall my infancy, I don't know that anyone really does. I have heard some claim to, but what is described can easily be attributed to implanted memories from stories told in youth.
And that in itself is a telling bit of truth, that we do not remember our infancy, we were happy at the time, but have no conscious knowledge of it.
The return to infancy in old age is, in my opinion, not one to be looked upon with fear and loathing, or to be concerned that others may mock you or look upon you with disdain.
Consider the position of infants that you have been aware of. For the most part, happy and content. Coddled, taken care of, cooed to and snuggled. Aside from the few people who are dregs of society, those who care for infants do so out of love, caring and a desire to ensure that the infant has all it needs and wants.
A return to that position in old age as we get ready to move on to the next plane is not so bad a thing if you ask me!

 

[The Knize]

<I think, in old age, that the sharing/passing of wisdom and demonstration of leadership is at a stage which is before the return to infancy.>

A fair point. Shakespeare describes stages five and six of the seven stages as follows:

And then the justice
In fair round belly, with good capon lin'd,
With eyes severe, and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws, and modern instances,
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose, and pouch on side,
His youthful hose well sav'd, a world too wide,
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again towards childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound.

I read WS as pretty much mocking man at each stage. but "full of wise saws, and modern instances" can be read as dispensing wise advice as applied to current conditions, even if WS may be indicating there is some arrogance there. Duke Senior is, of course, well beyond having a fair round belly filled with good food, severe eyes, and a beard of formal cut. He is pretty much a fragile old man.

I think your points fit well with mine. WS describes the infant as mewling and puking, helplessly, I suppose, in the nurse's arms. I read that as kind of heartwarming/cute. As triggering feelings of wanting to take care of that infant. So, yes, indeed, being such an infant, or such an old man, is not so bad at all. There is no doubt that Duke Senior is well taken care of and loved. WS is really talking about good and bad at the same time. He purports to be talking about how bad old age is, while at the same time illustrating the opposite. He is saying both are the human condition.

Tying back to DAC, I suppose, are our protagonists very bad people? Assuredly so! Are the also good people? Men of honor? Caring people? Brave in the face of extraordinary danger? Resourceful? Yes, all of this, and their own worst enemies, too, as well as hapless victims of fate.

 

[luvmysuper]

Three Movies alike... but not.

I recently watched the movie Sisu and I was of course reminded of recent similar films. On the face of it, the movies John Wick, Nobody and Sisu share a common theme. A skilled killer returns to action after hiatus with stunning dexterity.
But these movies are very different and I'd like to point out my observations of what makes them different, and what makes them similar.
John Wick is portrayed as a skilled assassin who returns to action because thugs kill the dog that was the last gift to him from his dead wife. A woman that he cared so much for that he gave up his life of violence to be with her.
We feel his return to violence is justified, he's going after selfish, brutal puppy killers afterall.
He does so, knowing before he fully embarks on the endeavor, that the lead thug is the son of a powerful Russian Mobster, and that pursuing his action will draw him back into the world that he successfully exited.
To him, and to the audience, it is justified. He seeks the revenge despite knowing that it is going to land him in a world of persecution from the people he used to deal with, and he reluctantly, it seems, accepts that fact to make things "right".

In Nobody, Hutch Mansell is also a skilled assassin (which we do not initially know), but his return to action is not fueled by a righteous need to right a wrong, it is fueled by his own misery in the life he has adopted after leaving his work as a Government "clean-up" man.
Hutch returns to his violent life as a means to justify his own existence. He seeks revenge on an unassociated group of people (who are worthy of pummeling) who had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident that started him on his path, a robbery at his house. Hutch discovers afterwards that the thugs he has attacked and beaten are also connected to a Russian Mobster. But Hutch does not look at this connection as an inevitable byproduct of doing justice, Hutch looks at this connection as a bonus. It affords him the opportunity to continue the life which he loved, and which he so dearly misses.
At any point he could have ended the conflict. The lead Russian Mobster wanted out. Hutch could have easily facilitated that, but instead, he paints the Mobster into an inescapable corner where direct conflict is ensured. Whereas John Wick was justifying his violence to right the wrong he felt had been done, Hutch welcomed the opportunity, and thrust himself into it with full knowledge that it placed his wife, children and father at peril. John Wick felt noble. Hutch Mansell felt selfish.

In Sisu, Aatami Korpi is a semi-retired Finnish Commando who fought a bloody war against Russian invaders to his homeland. He has given up the life and makes his way in the countryside as a gold prospector with only his horse and his dog as his companions.
Korpi seeks no confrontation, but has it thrust upon him nonetheless. Like John Wick, and unlike Hitch Mansell, Aatami Korpi wants to mind his own business and enjoy the luck of his gold strike without bothering anyone. The trouble is thrust upon him, as it is with John Wick. Unlike Nobody, Korpi is satisfied with his life, he doesn't desire a return to violence. Unlike John Wick, Korpi seeks to minimize the violence and to avoid further conflict if possible. He'd be happy to ride away on his own, leaving all the nasty Nazi's behind if they'd just let him - but of course they won't. They pursue him mercilessly, forcing him to continue the violence simply to stay alive.
Korpi is not driven by devil may care revenge, as John Wick was. Korpi is not driven by a selfish longing for his old life as Hutch Mansell was. Korpi seems to just want to go cash in his gold and live his life in peace if they'd just let him.

All three Films are very intriguing, and while they share the theme of a skilled warrior re-awakening their unused skills, the reasons for each doing so are very very different.

I also want to mention a bit about the violence and the action in the three films.

John Wick
John Wick, while making him seem like almost a superman, is done in a "if you squint your eyes a little" way that is believable. There are no real superhuman feats done by John Wick, it seems as though what he accomplished could be expected from a master, skilled assassin who has a little bit of luck on his side. He is neither altruistic nor inherently evil. He seems most like a normal, everyday guy that just happens to have a very unusual skill set.

Nobody
Hutch Mansell initially appears to be in the same boat. In the first fight scene on the bus, he manages to dish out only slightly more damage than is given to him, and he carries on through sheer determination. As the movie progresses, his luck and his ability to avoid injury ratchet up significantly up to the final point that he becomes a walking Claymore Mine.
Ok, how did he know the clear plastic was Lexan and not Acrylic? Even so, a Claymore Mine needs 50 feet of clearance BEHIND the mine for safe detonation. So, in Nobody, one must really exercise their ability to suspend belief if they want to enjoy the film.

Sisu
Aatami Korpi starts right off the bat with a need to suspend belief and the need to do so grows exponentially with each minute that passes. Sisu is a Finnish word that means resilience, dogged determination, bravery, tenacity. Korpi displays all of these features in spades. He removes his own shrapnel, uses barbed wire to stitch up a gaping wound, is able to survive being hung by the neck in a noose for extended periods of time, can hold his breath underwater for incredible periods of time, and use the air from cut Nazi throats to stay submerged. It gets to the point that you must believe that this characters "sisu" is so abundant that he is capable of surviving a devastating nose in, full acceleration airplane crash.

I would recommend each of these films, as they are all quite good. I enjoyed each of them for different reasons. Each requires a slightly different perspective to be fully enjoyed, but they are all quite enjoyable.

 

[airmech]

I need to see Sisu, I enjoyed John Wick and Nobody. I do agree with you assessment of both and that is why enjoyed them!!!

Tom

 

[The Knize]

Three Movies alike... but not.

I recently watched the movie Sisu and I was of course reminded of recent similar films. On the face of it, the movies John Wick, Nobody and Sisu share a common theme. A skilled killer returns to action after hiatus with stunning dexterity.
But these movies are very different and I'd like to point out my observations of what makes them different, and what makes them similar.
John Wick is portrayed as a skilled assassin who returns to action because thugs kill the dog that was the last gift to him from his dead wife. A woman that he cared so much for that he gave up his life of violence to be with her.
We feel his return to violence is justified, he's going after selfish, brutal puppy killers afterall.
He does so, knowing before he fully embarks on the endeavor, that the lead thug is the son of a powerful Russian Mobster, and that pursuing his action will draw him back into the world that he successfully exited.
To him, and to the audience, it is justified. He seeks the revenge despite knowing that it is going to land him in a world of persecution from the people he used to deal with, and he reluctantly, it seems, accepts that fact to make things "right".

In Nobody, Hutch Mansell is also a skilled assassin (which we do not initially know), but his return to action is not fueled by a righteous need to right a wrong, it is fueled by his own misery in the life he has adopted after leaving his work as a Government "clean-up" man.
Hutch returns to his violent life as a means to justify his own existence. He seeks revenge on an unassociated group of people (who are worthy of pummeling) who had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident that started him on his path, a robbery at his house. Hutch discovers afterwards that the thugs he has attacked and beaten are also connected to a Russian Mobster. But Hutch does not look at this connection as an inevitable byproduct of doing justice, Hutch looks at this connection as a bonus. It affords him the opportunity to continue the life which he loved, and which he so dearly misses.
At any point he could have ended the conflict. The lead Russian Mobster wanted out. Hutch could have easily facilitated that, but instead, he paints the Mobster into an inescapable corner where direct conflict is ensured. Whereas John Wick was justifying his violence to right the wrong he felt had been done, Hutch welcomed the opportunity, and thrust himself into it with full knowledge that it placed his wife, children and father at peril. John Wick felt noble. Hutch Mansell felt selfish.

In Sisu, Aatami Korpi is a semi-retired Finnish Commando who fought a bloody war against Russian invaders to his homeland. He has given up the life and makes his way in the countryside as a gold prospector with only his horse and his dog as his companions.
Korpi seeks no confrontation, but has it thrust upon him nonetheless. Like John Wick, and unlike Hitch Mansell, Aatami Korpi wants to mind his own business and enjoy the luck of his gold strike without bothering anyone. The trouble is thrust upon him, as it is with John Wick. Unlike Nobody, Korpi is satisfied with his life, he doesn't desire a return to violence. Unlike John Wick, Korpi seeks to minimize the violence and to avoid further conflict if possible. He'd be happy to ride away on his own, leaving all the nasty Nazi's behind if they'd just let him - but of course they won't. They pursue him mercilessly, forcing him to continue the violence simply to stay alive.
Korpi is not driven by devil may care revenge, as John Wick was. Korpi is not driven by a selfish longing for his old life as Hutch Mansell was. Korpi seems to just want to go cash in his gold and live his life in peace if they'd just let him.

All three Films are very intriguing, and while they share the theme of a skilled warrior re-awakening their unused skills, the reasons for each doing so are very very different.

I also want to mention a bit about the violence and the action in the three films.

John Wick
John Wick, while making him seem like almost a superman, is done in a "if you squint your eyes a little" way that is believable. There are no real superhuman feats done by John Wick, it seems as though what he accomplished could be expected from a master, skilled assassin who has a little bit of luck on his side. He is neither altruistic nor inherently evil. He seems most like a normal, everyday guy that just happens to have a very unusual skill set.

Nobody
Hutch Mansell initially appears to be in the same boat. In the first fight scene on the bus, he manages to dish out only slightly more damage than is given to him, and he carries on through sheer determination. As the movie progresses, his luck and his ability to avoid injury ratchet up significantly up to the final point that he becomes a walking Claymore Mine.
Ok, how did he know the clear plastic was Lexan and not Acrylic? Even so, a Claymore Mine needs 50 feet of clearance BEHIND the mine for safe detonation. So, in Nobody, one must really exercise their ability to suspend belief if they want to enjoy the film.

Sisu
Aatami Korpi starts right off the bat with a need to suspend belief and the need to do so grows exponentially with each minute that passes. Sisu is a Finnish word that means resilience, dogged determination, bravery, tenacity. Korpi displays all of these features in spades. He removes his own shrapnel, uses barbed wire to stitch up a gaping wound, is able to survive being hung by the neck in a noose for extended periods of time, can hold his breath underwater for incredible periods of time, and use the air from cut Nazi throats to stay submerged. It gets to the point that you must believe that this characters "sisu" is so abundant that he is capable of surviving a devastating nose in, full acceleration airplane crash.

I would recommend each of these films, as they are all quite good. I enjoyed each of them for different reasons. Each requires a slightly different perspective to be fully enjoyed, but they are all quite enjoyable.

I feel bad that there has not been much response to this wonderful write up. And I would very much like to see this thread keep going. I have not seen any of these three movies. But I will!

 

[luvmysuper]

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3

If you are a fan of Guardians of the Galaxy in the previous two movies, then this final chapter in their trilogy will be one you absolutely hate and absolutely love.

You will hate it because it is reportedly the very last GOTG film with this group, but a bit more on that later.
You will love it because it has kept the spirit of the previous movies and gone more in depth to their character and their interaction with each other.

Guardians has been one of the few Hollywood franchises that has not been just destroyed by stupid decisions. It's has been action packed, funny and touching in many different ways without surrendering it's soul. James Gunn has done a superb job of wrapping this up in a way that gives a final note to the story, and leaves you wishing for more. That's the sign of a good film, you don't want it to end, and you want there to be more.

This last installment is a slightly different take on the previous two films, and really does pull at the heart strings. It's calculated, and meticulously planned to be that way. If you can get through the first half of the film without feeling the sadness and despair of Rocket and his early friends, then you are a cold, heartless fiend.

Having said that - the very calculating plan to use the abuse of cute, cuddly, innocent creatures as fodder for emotional response has put some people off. Do I think the abuse is horrendous? Yes. Without a doubt. James Gunn was specifically trying to portray this films villain as one without any redeeming value at all, and he succeeded. The villain is a mass murderer with no more concern for the living creatures around him than he would be for specs of dust or pieces of garbage. He's a villain you truly want to see get his just deserts.

The emotions of the crew are laid out in this film with much more intensity than in the previous two. Drax seems to be upset that people think he's stupid. Mantis is no longer willing to take the verbal abuse and lashes back out verbally, though she reverts to character ultimately and "fixes" the comments she has made that hurt others.

The mid film exchange between Gamora, Peter Quill and Nebula is quite entertaining, and it is a wonder to see that the characteristics of Gamora and Nebula have completely switched between the two by this last film. Gamora, previously seen as the caring sister has become the calculating stand-offish stranger, and Nebula - the walking cyborg has evolved emotionally to a supportive and genuinely caring member of the crew.

There are the expected fan rewards in the film with cameos such as Howard the Duck playing cards alongside The Broker from the first film. There's another brief appearance by Sylvester Stallone as a Ravager Commander, and he is typically underutilized again in this film. Perhaps he negotiated a "by the line pay scale" so they kept it to a minimum.
Michael Rooker as Yondu makes a brief appearance to give some well needed advice to Kraglin on the use of the Whistle Arrow. As an aside note - I had no idea whatsoever until recently that Sean Gunn, who plays Kraglin is the brother of James Gunn.

Overall it's an action packed movie that rings all the bells and pushes all the buttons. James Gunn has done a superb job wrapping this up for us, and I'm grateful he didn't change the crew to something unrecognizable as has been the case with almost every other Marvel Universe character.

The closing scenes of the film, as are now tradition in the Marvel Super Hero movies, shows us mid credit scenes, where the "New" Guardians of the Galaxy step up to the plate. The new leader Rocket, the new younger and more muscular Groot, Kraglin who has finally mastered his control of the Whistle Arrow, Cosmo the telepathic soviet space dog, Adam Warlock who is still an emotional child, and a rescued child named Phyla who is likely Phyla-Vell (related to the original Captain Marvel). They may at some future point be featured in their own films, though not by James Gunn, who is reportedly now working with DC Comics to bring his version of Superman to the screen.

There is also a screen blurb that tells us that we have not seen the last of "Star Lord". So whether Chris Pratt returns as some new implementation of Peter Quill or some other actor takes up the mantle remains to be seen.

A really enjoyable film, despite the cuddly animal cruelty which I think plays an important role in grabbing your attention early on and lets you know that this one is going to be a bit different from the joke filled laugh-a-thons that the others have been.

 

[DrStrange]

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3

If you are a fan of Guardians of the Galaxy in the previous two movies, then this final chapter in their trilogy will be one you absolutely hate and absolutely love.

You will hate it because it is reportedly the very last GOTG film with this group, but a bit more on that later.
You will love it because it has kept the spirit of the previous movies and gone more in depth to their character and their interaction with each other.

Guardians has been one of the few Hollywood franchises that has not been just destroyed by stupid decisions. It's has been action packed, funny and touching in many different ways without surrendering it's soul. James Gunn has done a superb job of wrapping this up in a way that gives a final note to the story, and leaves you wishing for more. That's the sign of a good film, you don't want it to end, and you want there to be more.

This last installment is a slightly different take on the previous two films, and really does pull at the heart strings. It's calculated, and meticulously planned to be that way. If you can get through the first half of the film without feeling the sadness and despair of Rocket and his early friends, then you are a cold, heartless fiend.

Having said that - the very calculating plan to use the abuse of cute, cuddly, innocent creatures as fodder for emotional response has put some people off. Do I think the abuse is horrendous? Yes. Without a doubt. James Gunn was specifically trying to portray this films villain as one without any redeeming value at all, and he succeeded. The villain is a mass murderer with no more concern for the living creatures around him than he would be for specs of dust or pieces of garbage. He's a villain you truly want to see get his just deserts.

The emotions of the crew are laid out in this film with much more intensity than in the previous two. Drax seems to be upset that people think he's stupid. Mantis is no longer willing to take the verbal abuse and lashes back out verbally, though she reverts to character ultimately and "fixes" the comments she has made that hurt others.

The mid film exchange between Gamora, Peter Quill and Nebula is quite entertaining, and it is a wonder to see that the characteristics of Gamora and Nebula have completely switched between the two by this last film. Gamora, previously seen as the caring sister has become the calculating stand-offish stranger, and Nebula - the walking cyborg has evolved emotionally to a supportive and genuinely caring member of the crew.

There are the expected fan rewards in the film with cameos such as Howard the Duck playing cards alongside The Broker from the first film. There's another brief appearance by Sylvester Stallone as a Ravager Commander, and he is typically underutilized again in this film. Perhaps he negotiated a "by the line pay scale" so they kept it to a minimum.
Michael Rooker as Yondu makes a brief appearance to give some well needed advice to Kraglin on the use of the Whistle Arrow. As an aside note - I had no idea whatsoever until recently that Sean Gunn, who plays Kraglin is the brother of James Gunn.

Overall it's an action packed movie that rings all the bells and pushes all the buttons. James Gunn has done a superb job wrapping this up for us, and I'm grateful he didn't change the crew to something unrecognizable as has been the case with almost every other Marvel Universe character.

The closing scenes of the film, as are now tradition in the Marvel Super Hero movies, shows us mid credit scenes, where the "New" Guardians of the Galaxy step up to the plate. The new leader Rocket, the new younger and more muscular Groot, Kraglin who has finally mastered his control of the Whistle Arrow, Cosmo the telepathic soviet space dog, Adam Warlock who is still an emotional child, and a rescued child named Phyla who is likely Phyla-Vell (related to the original Captain Marvel). They may at some future point be featured in their own films, though not by James Gunn, who is reportedly now working with DC Comics to bring his version of Superman to the screen.

There is also a screen blurb that tells us that we have not seen the last of "Star Lord". So whether Chris Pratt returns as some new implementation of Peter Quill or some other actor takes up the mantle remains to be seen.

A really enjoyable film, despite the cuddly animal cruelty which I think plays an important role in grabbing your attention early on and lets you know that this one is going to be a bit different from the joke filled laugh-a-thons that the others have been.

Does a brain wiped Gamora
imply a brain wiped Natalie Romanoff?

 

[luvmysuper]

Does a brain wiped Gamora
imply a brain wiped Natalie Romanoff?

Two separate answers:

1. Natalie went back in time and actually wound up sacrificing herself and dying before Gamora was killed by Thanos for the Soul Stone. Because Gamora was from the earlier timeline, she didn't die from the snap, she was a replacement from the earlier timeline, so she doesn't remember Quill and her relationship.
Natalie survived the snap, so it's possible for her to remember what happened if the timeline was changed so she didn't have to die to get the Soul Stone.

2. They have plans to use Natalie Romanoff in future films, but Guardians of the Galaxy is done, so she's disposable and Natalie isn't.

 

[The Knize]

Maybe I should not be commenting, because I have nothing to say, but I am loving this thread!

 

[Messygoon]

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

I mentioned I had re-watched "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs" by the Coen Brothers who created such iconic films such as Raising Arizona, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, No Country for Old Men, and True Grit with Jeff Bridges.
I had previously taken the last of the 6 separate stories on it's face value and had concluded that it was just an awkward finishing piece during my previous viewings.
For some reason, several things clicked in my last viewing, partially because I was watching it with the wife, and had paused the film several times, each time while I waited for her return, I noticed things that had somehow escaped me before and which led me to a completely different interpretation of this last story than I had previously held.
Much like my experience with the Mel Gibson film "Signs", where I came to believe that the story intended by the maker was that the "aliens" in the film were not Aliens from another planet at all, but Demons set upon the earth, a concept that was not readily apparent upon face value.
Perhaps my observations are not a revelation to those more astute than I, but here is my take on The Ballad of Buster Scruggs last vignette.
I believe that the three passengers (the Trapper, the Gambler, and the Elderly Wife) were dead, and this coach ride was their transportation to the portal to the hereafter. A sort of purgatory where souls are sorted out and directed to their final destination.
In the previous 5 stories, death was a vital part of each story. Death was a common thread of all of the stories. Who, where, how and why. In the final story, no one died. Why? Because they were already dead.
The two "Bounty Hunters", who had described themselves as Reapers, were actually manifestations of the Grim Reaper.
They state clearly that in their business, there are only two kinds of people: Alive and Dead.
Mrs. Betjamin kept referring to her husband, who was waiting for her to join him, in the past tense.
The buildings across the street from the hotel are clearly just building fronts, a cheap show to calm arriving passengers until they work out what was really going on.
The Coachman would not stop the coach. As said by one of the Reapers "The Coachman won't stop. He never does. Policy".
The description by that same Reaper of watching the eyes of the dead as they slowly realize that they are transitioning from living to dead.
The comments by the Reapers, back and forth when asked about their employment:
“I like to say that we’re… reapers.” says one. “Harvesters of souls,” clarifies the other, “We help people who have been adjudged to be ripe.”
The reluctance of the passengers to disembark from the coach, a crowded uncomfortable spot, and proceed to the hotel entrance.
The orange glow of the lights in the basement of the hotel representing hell and the white glow of light coming down the staircase leading to the upper level of the hotel representing heaven.
The plates above the door of the hotel itself confirm this, with an angel above the left door, and a devil above the right.
That the coach, rather than riding on to a stop, turned around and went back the way it came.
Finally, that the coach departed without unloading any baggage for the three passengers who had just been dropped off at the hotel.
No need for luggage, they wouldn't need any.

What do you think?

Phil:

What do I think? Well, because of your review I finally watched this movie last night, and loved it. Your spot-on insights made the last vignette rich and full. I also noticed the sun sets during the scene, slowly changing the light in the stagecoach cabin from warm orange glow of life to a cold blue of death.

My American Literature teacher opened my eyes to the joy of such discovery when we read Herman Melville’s short story Bartleby the Scrivener, and then dissected the story as a class with its rich symbolism. It was an “ah ha” moment in my life. And you gave me an “ah ha” glorious moment last night.

Thank you for a review that led to a great movie experience. One I will watch again.

 

[Messygoon]

The Natural

Years ago, I was blessed to spend time with a Hollywood filmographer. He somehow had access to pre-releases, which he would premiere to a few church buddies, and then follow up with observations of the film's symbolism. He made me approach movies in a much deeper way.

Some say The Natural is based on Homer, or the legend of King Arthur. I see it as a study dualism: good versus evil… where day, light, and good are linked together, and in direct opposition to night, darkness, and evil.

Clothing

• The bad guys are dressed primarily in black: The Judge (Robert Proskey), the hero stalker Harriet Bird (Barbara Hershey), the gold digger Memo Paris (Kim Basinger), the bookmaker Gus Sands (uncredited Darren McGavin).
• The good guys are primarily dressed in white: The pure farm girl Iris Gaines (Glenn Close), Roy Hobbs (Robert Redford), Pop Fisher (Wilford Brimley), Red Blow (Richard Farnsworth), teammates.
• Those caught in the middle are dressed in mutted colors: Sports writer Max Mercy (Robert Duvall), The Whammer (Joe Don Baker), alcoholic mentor/coach Sam Simpson (John Finnegan).

Good happens in the light

• Roy, surrounded by white steam, using just 3 pitched balls into the setting sun to strike out The Whammer, winning a bet for Sam and presumably costing evil Gus Sands $100,000.
• Setting sun lighting up the Iris's translucent hat, creating an angelic halo.

Evil happens in the dark

• Harriet Bird flirts with Roy in the dining car, then completely disappears as the lights flicker and go out.
• Other than when at the ballpark (and even then usually in the shadows), Memo and Gus Sands only appear in darkened rooms and at night.
• The Judge hides in the dark, whether in his office or slithering into the hospital at night to offer a bribe.

Transitioning from Dark to Light

• Hobbs walking down the clubhouse hallway to the field and the light of day.
• Roy finally sharing his dark past with Iris, transitioning from dark to light.
• Could there be a more perfect name for a team torn between good (Pop Fisher) and bad (The Judge) than the Knights - phonetically evil, but conjuring images of heroes who overcome tyranny.

Good/Light overcoming Evil/Dark

• Roy turning on the light as he leaves The Judge's office, exposing and making the judge writhe.
• Roy hitting the ball amidst the darkened sky and into the lights, is then showered in the sparks, dashing the evil intentions of The Judge and Gus Sands.
• And as we follow the trajectory of the ball through the night, it passes into the glorious light of day and into a glove. Roy and his son are playing catch, in the illumination that life is not about hearing, "There goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was," but rather about being with those you love.

The Natural is not just a baseball movie. It is a study of light and dark. Good and evil. And it drives home the message that love is eternal, and the things of the world are temporal.

 

[luvmysuper]

The Natural

Years ago, I was blessed to spend time with a Hollywood filmographer. He somehow had access to pre-releases, which he would premiere to a few church buddies, and then follow up with observations of the film's symbolism. He made me approach movies in a much deeper way.

Some say The Natural is based on Homer, or the legend of King Arthur. I see it as a study dualism: good versus evil… where day, light, and good are linked together, and in direct opposition to night, darkness, and evil.

Clothing

• The bad guys are dressed primarily in black: The Judge (Robert Proskey), the hero stalker Harriet Bird (Barbara Hershey), the gold digger Memo Paris (Kim Basinger), the bookmaker Gus Sands (uncredited Darren McGavin).
• The good guys are primarily dressed in white: The pure farm girl Iris Gaines (Glenn Close), Roy Hobbs (Robert Redford), Pop Fisher (Wilford Brimley), Red Blow (Richard Farnsworth), teammates.
• Those caught in the middle are dressed in mutted colors: Sports writer Max Mercy (Robert Duvall), The Whammer (Joe Don Baker), alcoholic mentor/coach Sam Simpson (John Finnegan).

Good happens in the light

• Roy, surrounded by white steam, using just 3 pitched balls into the setting sun to strike out The Whammer, winning a bet for Sam and presumably costing evil Gus Sands $100,000.
• Setting sun lighting up the Iris's translucent hat, creating an angelic halo.

Evil happens in the dark

• Harriet Bird flirts with Roy in the dining car, then completely disappears as the lights flicker and go out.
• Other than when at the ballpark (and even then usually in the shadows), Memo and Gus Sands only appear in darkened rooms and at night.
• The Judge hides in the dark, whether in his office or slithering into the hospital at night to offer a bribe.

Transitioning from Dark to Light

• Hobbs walking down the clubhouse hallway to the field and the light of day.
• Roy finally sharing his dark past with Iris, transitioning from dark to light.
• Could there be a more perfect name for a team torn between good (Pop Fisher) and bad (The Judge) than the Knights - phonetically evil, but conjuring images of heroes who overcome tyranny.

Good/Light overcoming Evil/Dark

• Roy turning on the light as he leaves The Judge's office, exposing and making the judge writhe.
• Roy hitting the ball amidst the darkened sky and into the lights, is then showered in the sparks, dashing the evil intentions of The Judge and Gus Sands.
• And as we follow the trajectory of the ball through the night, it passes into the glorious light of day and into a glove. Roy and his son are playing catch, in the illumination that life is not about hearing, "There goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was," but rather about being with those you love.

The Natural is not just a baseball movie. It is a study of light and dark. Good and evil. And it drives home the message that love is eternal, and the things of the world are temporal.

View attachment 1678002View attachment 1678003View attachment 1678004
View attachment 1678240View attachment 1678241View attachment 1678243

I don't think I've ever seen the film, I tend to not be interested in sports based movies.
I'll put it on my "to watch" list.
Thanks!

 

[Bobovata]

The Natural

By complete coincidence I have The Natural lined up to watch. So I skipped the comments on it here until I have watched it.

I don't think I've ever seen the film, I tend to not be interested in sports based movies.

Usually not my cup of tea either. But a good one I saw recently is the docu-drama Moneyball, which is about the first baseball team to use statistical analysis to select players. More about changing times than about sport itself.

 

[The Knize]

I tend to not be interested in sports based movies.

I am having trouble remembering it, but I do not think The Natural was really a sports movie. Not like Field of Dreams was, as an example, anyway. (The reviews I just looked at on-line seem to disagree with me thought!)

I think Messygoon's analysis is about right. The film is highly symbolic and purports to address very big issues. Arguably too much so to the point of excess self-importance/heavy handedness, and I love film!

Actually, Roger Ebert gave it two stars and called it "idolatry on behalf of Robert Redford." Siskel gabve it four stars. Ebert's review is, to me, a wonderful piece of movie criticism! The Natural movie review & film summary (1984) | Roger Ebert - https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-natural-1984 I sure miss Roger Ebert. I will say that I remember liking the movie more than Ebert did.

 

[luvmysuper]

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

There's been a lot of bad press on this film, some deserved and some not, I feel. Here's my impressions.

The opening first 20 minutes is clearly a nostalgic tribute to fans. A very well done Spielbergian scene with a CGI "younging" of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones in his Heyday Raiders of the Lost Ark persona.

Battling Nazi's with his own special style of bravado and cunning that works best because he is, at his core, a guy that shoots the bad-guy swordsman rather than fighting him, and I mean that in a good way.

If they could have carried the spirit, if not necessarily the action, exhibited in the first 20 minutes for another hour and 10 minutes - potential critics would have been left silenced.

It is a little disheartening to see the film proceed to portray an Indiana Jones who isn't Indiana Jones anymore. He is Professor Henry Jones, an aging, tired, grumpy old man on the cusp of retirement, no longer able to inspire his students, but merely capable of boring them. A Professor

He has apparently been transformed into a drunk who tips bourbon into his 8 am coffee after having fallen asleep the night before with a glass in his hand in front of the TV, and who immediately heads to his local pub to imbibe after his unwanted retirement party.

From props and pictures, the filmaker shows that he is obviously in the process of a divorce from Marion, whom he married at the end of the last film.

Into this sad and desperate life steps Helena Shaw whom he last saw when she was 12 years old, and who is the daughter of the deceased partner we met in the first 20 minutes.

This is a point in the film where a fan of the franchise might believe that things start to go wrong. Not because of Phoebe Waller-Bridge specifically, any actor would have faced the same difficulty. We are introduced to this major character in the film with no knowledge of her whatsoever.

There was no attempt made in any way for us to get to know her, to identify with her or to sympathize with the sudden partnership that these two characters were about to embark upon.

It would have been easy to slip in Mutt from the last film (though the filmmaker has disavowed the last film so vehemently that Mutt was killed while serving in the Army against the wishes of Indiana and Marion, which apparently led to their separation).

This killing off of Mutt is to let you know that - no. You will not be seeing him. Which is a shame, because (though I despise Shia LaBeouf), Mutt would have been the perfect known character to carry this forward.

I don't know if some critics are right or wrong when they say that the placement of Helena Shaw as the counterpoint to Dr. Jones is a manifestation of the times that a strong female character MUST be in every action film or not, but I know that without any attempt to let us get to know Helena Shaw, and without a known returning character we are familiar with, the partnership between Shaw and Jones is strained and unbelievable from the start. But this would have been true with ANY unknown actor in the position.

It does get better. There are retro-active introduction shots done via flashbacks, but it really takes quite a long time before you go from not liking the character at all to being able to accept and tolerate her.

Part of that is the introduction but part of it also it that it is as if they can't decide whether they want Helena Shaw to be a cold hardened criminal, a quick witted jokester with a snappy line, or a sentimental sidekick with a sentimental sidekick.

I decided to believe, whether it was intended or accidental, that the story evolved as an example of the changes we all either go through or witness in our own lives.

A despondent Indiana Jones, heartbroken by the loss of his son, unable to comfort his wife and the mother of his son, sees his life fall apart before his eyes.

An encounter with his god-daughter who seems to be an uncaring, money grubbing thief.

But the ordeal makes it apparent that Helena Shaw turns out to have a heart afterall, brought out by the struggle that she shares with Indiana, and that the struggles also brings Indiana Jones out of his self pitying slide downwards, and brings back a bit of the humanity, spark and character that we all loved so much in his other films.

The closing with the reunification of the older and less grumpy Indiana Jones and Marion in a repeat scene of he and Marion going through the infamous “Where doesn’t it hurt?” routine from the original Raiders of the Lost Ark makes a nice loop back to the beginning of this film, and we begin to believe that the Indiana Jones we knew and loved from the beginning was there all along, he was just hidden.

This is not the perfect “Last” Indiana Jones movie. There are plenty of things to be critical about.

Car chase scenes that go on way, way too long.

A villain who is more of an annoyance than a villain, who is easily foiled time and time again, and who can magically appear at just the right moment to keep the plot moving along.

Entire senseless scenes which add nothing to the picture and just make it seem to drag on for no known reason, such as the auction of stolen antiquities thing.

In the end, I liked the film. There’s enough there for the rare individual who has never heard of Indiana Jones to like, and perhaps interest them in looking back at the previous films.

There’s enough there so that the occasional fan who enjoyed the movies won’t be disappointed by this one.

There’s enough there so that those who are true franchise fans can tip their hat to the salute at the beginning and ending of the film to the nostalgia and canon that was preserved.

It’s not a great Indiana Jones movie, but it’s a good Indiana Jones movie. It’s a better movie than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I think some critics have been overly harsh with the film. It’s an entertaining romp even if it isn’t the Indy we knew and loved before.

The hat grab at the end, in Indiana Jones style was a very nice send-off. And who knows, what with Indy tripping through time as he did, perhaps some disturbance in the timeline was interjected. Could that mean his son didn’t wind up being killed? Could it allow for a continuation of adventures – not with a Harrison Ford Indiana Jones, but some variation? Who knows?

 

[luvmysuper]

I keep wanting to come back here and add something, but I'm not exactly sure of what it is.
I enjoyed the film, but ultimately it made me a bit sad.
Why?
Maybe that Indiana Jones is really dead. The actor who plays him (and no one else could afterwards) is 80 years old.
Perhaps what that fact means about me and my advancing age, and that my first thrill ride with Indy was 42 years ago.
Perhaps that I know that I'll never see another one, and that this last one, and my farewell to him should have, and could have been so much better.
Perhaps I'm a little miffed that they drug him out for what may very well be a last minute money grab before he kicks it, and didn't give him material that was worthy of the character.
I enjoyed the film. I love the character. I just feel like something, somehow was missing.
As if it was a counterfeit version, amusing and shiny on the surface, but when examined in a little better light, shows the cheap material, fake gold paint, and shoddy stitching.

 

[Butch Waxx]

I keep wanting to come back here and add something, but I'm not exactly sure of what it is.
I enjoyed the film, but ultimately it made me a bit sad.
Why?
Maybe that Indiana Jones is really dead. The actor who plays him (and no one else could afterwards) is 80 years old.
Perhaps what that fact means about me and my advancing age, and that my first thrill ride with Indy was 42 years ago.
Perhaps that I know that I'll never see another one, and that this last one, and my farewell to him should have, and could have been so much better.
Perhaps I'm a little miffed that they drug him out for what may very well be a last minute money grab before he kicks it, and didn't give him material that was worthy of the character.
I enjoyed the film. I love the character. I just feel like something, somehow was missing.
As if it was a counterfeit version, amusing and shiny on the surface, but when examined in a little better light, shows the cheap material, fake gold paint, and shoddy stitching.

Well summarized! I concur with your thoughts as the LOTH and I have now seen the movie 4 times as of yesterday afternoon and still awaiting the “next hat to drop”