Recently Seen

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:53 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:36 pm
Well, to be fair, you were (rightly) pointing out the way that he's just used as a recipient of exposition.

I was referring to the same scene as an example of the absurd limits of his passivity. Or maybe that's also what you kind of meant in your post?
Kind of, with the "he did almost nothing" part, but, in all fairness, the way you described his apathy was more in-depth/amusing than mine 8-)
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:56 pm

Stu wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:53 pm
Kind of, with the "he did almost nothing" part, but, in all fairness, the way you described his apathy was more in-depth/amusing than mine 8-)
"If I find
ONE MORE headless corpse in this house. . . . we will have a VERY serious family meeting!"
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:58 pm

I can forgive his reaction to that thing you just mentionned because it felt thematically relevant, at least. But they could have stretched the movie to give him more space, or maybe removed him, or not.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:05 am

Charles wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:58 pm
But they could have stretched the movie to give him more space, or maybe removed him, or not.
When you can say the above about a character, you know something didn't go quite right.

And I'm sure that when it came to the editing, there might have been more to his character that got cut in favor of the more central characters. But as it stands he feels pretty shallow.

I mean, it's not helped by the fact that Toni Collete is right there digging DEEP into her character and adding dimension at every turn.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:57 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:17 pm
Let's not forget:

*Finds decapitated mother-in-law's corpse in attic*
*Descends attic ladder*
*Sighs*
"I've just about had enough of this."
Well, yeah, you've just cited my favorite scene of the movie.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:28 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:56 pm
"If I find
ONE MORE headless corpse in this house. . . . we will have a VERY serious family meeting!"
Plus, there was that minor little detail of him,
for some inexplicable reason, not telling Annie when he learns that her mother's grave has been desecrated, a decision that made absolutely no sense, and further drove home what I felt to be Aster's overall sloppy, slap-dash approach when it came to the film.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2087
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:49 pm

Re: Hereditary,

I more or less agree about Byrne's character importance, or lack thereof, but I really wasn't that bothered by that cause he was never meant to be the focus of the story. Maybe...
...if they had strengthened his character, his demise would've been more than a "holy shit!" surprise moment, but I find myself so captivated by everything else regarding Annie, Peter, and Charlie, that I just don't mind.
I've only seen it once, but I also agree with everyone else who has said that it feels more carefully crafted than some people might think. There are tons of little details dropped early in the film that really come into focus once you see where everything's going that makes everything feel way more creepy than it seems.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2115
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:11 pm

Stu wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:28 am
Plus, there was that minor little detail of him,
for some inexplicable reason, not telling Annie when he learns that her mother's grave has been desecrated, a decision that made absolutely no sense, and further drove home what I felt to be Aster's overall sloppy, slap-dash approach when it came to the film.
Sloppy and slapdash are about as far from an apt description of Aster's films as possible. Like calling Ozu chaotic and fast-paced.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1930
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:21 pm

Thief wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:49 pm
I've only seen it once, but I also agree with everyone else who has said that it feels more carefully crafted than some people might think. There are tons of little details dropped early in the film that really come into focus once you see where everything's going that makes everything feel way more creepy than it seems.
I highly recommend revisiting it. It changes a whole lot upon rewatches, especially the first half hour or so which I initially had difficulty getting into on my first viewing.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:30 pm

Stu wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:28 am
Plus, there was that minor little detail of him,
for some inexplicable reason, not telling Annie when he learns that her mother's grave has been desecrated, a decision that made absolutely no sense, and further drove home what I felt to be Aster's overall sloppy, slap-dash approach when it came to the film.
I don't think that the film is sloppy. I actually think that it's pretty finely crafted, structurally/writing wise.

But Annie, Peter, and Charlie are such interesting and well-drawn characters that the father feels less real next to them.

I think that if he felt more real, his decisions (like the one you cited above) would actually make more sense because they'd have a person behind them. Him being so thinly sketched means that his decisions feel more like he's a pawn just doing what the script needs, and that's unfortunate.
User avatar
Patrick McGroin
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Patrick McGroin » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:17 pm

(The) Blood On Satan's Claw - 6.5/10 - This was produced by Tigon Studios, who were responsible for another project I need to see, Witchfinder General with Vincent Price. They fancied themselves as rivals of Hammer Studios and released quite a few low budget horror flicks.This one takes place in England during the early 1700's. There's even a passing reference to Bedlam Asylum. A farmer digs up a humanoid skeleton with one eye and patches of fur. From there people start going batshit and growing fur and there's a coven of teen aged witches led by a vampy blonde named Angel. They even use the old "throw a suspected witch in a lake to see if she'll float" gag. It's all very moody and lurid and of course entertaining.
My heart is still and awaits its hour.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:42 pm

I'm just gonna say this about Gabriel Byrne in Hereditary.
I have been the quiet, ineffectual, internally struggling man in a marriage with a volatile woman and Byrne portrayed that so effectively that it was hard for me to watch. I get the way some people are seeing it, but I can tell you that it was painful for me and I thought his portrayal and the character was on the nose. You don't get to see it much in movies as it's not a very appealing thing to look at, as it was not for my friends and family, and it really hit me hard and it hit me as very, very genuine and very, very true to the situation.
So, in that way, his character was essential to the movie in my mind and was exactly what the director was going for.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2115
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:53 am

Wooley wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:42 pm
I'm just gonna say this about Gabriel Byrne in Hereditary.
I have been the quiet, ineffectual, internally struggling man in a marriage with a volatile woman and Byrne portrayed that so effectively that it was hard for me to watch. I get the way some people are seeing it, but I can tell you that it was painful for me and I thought his portrayal and the character was on the nose. You don't get to see it much in movies as it's not a very appealing thing to look at, as it was not for my friends and family, and it really hit me hard and it hit me as very, very genuine and very, very true to the situation.
So, in that way, his character was essential to the movie in my mind and was exactly what the director was going for.
Wools, it feels like we have been on an agreement train with no signs of derailing.

[Edit] the Nun doesn't count. I feel no passion towards that film.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:57 am

Wooley wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:42 pm
I'm just gonna say this about Gabriel Byrne in Hereditary.
I have been the quiet, ineffectual, internally struggling man in a marriage with a volatile woman and Byrne portrayed that so effectively that it was hard for me to watch. I get the way some people are seeing it, but I can tell you that it was painful for me and I thought his portrayal and the character was on the nose. You don't get to see it much in movies as it's not a very appealing thing to look at, as it was not for my friends and family, and it really hit me hard and it hit me as very, very genuine and very, very true to the situation.
So, in that way, his character was essential to the movie in my mind and was exactly what the director was going for.
I don't have an issue with the performance, or even the idea of the character, but I missed seeing more of his own feelings. I understand (to a degree) the way that his actions and his focus are deferred in the face of his wife's intense drama, but there was some element of connection with the character that I was missing.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:34 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:57 am
I don't have an issue with the performance, or even the idea of the character, but I missed seeing more of his own feelings. I understand (to a degree) the way that his actions and his focus are deferred in the face of his wife's intense drama, but there was some element of connection with the character that I was missing.
I didn't miss it. It was like looking in a mirror.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4332
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:35 am

I finally watched The Seventh Victim last night. It was on my Criterion Channel watch list and the discussion on the previous page tipped it into my top slot.

Fascinating film. The pace and logic (or lack thereof) is so peculiar, even compared to the other Lewton films. The plotting barely makes sense and it has more characters than it knows what to do with, but a few key scenes are quietly thrilling and uncanny, and the essence throughout really makes it. Not to mention that final shot - god, so sublimely bleak and succinct. (I'd agree that it could have used a few more seconds to marinate, but I won't nitpick.)

Makes an interesting contrast with Hereditary, actually, since both are about devil-worship cults. It makes the blunt force trauma of that film seem like overkill.

I'll probably get around to Bedlam later this month, and then I'll have watched all the RKO/Lewton horror flicks.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:17 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:11 pm
Sloppy and slapdash are about as far from an apt description of Aster's films as possible. Like calling Ozu chaotic and fast-paced.
It's true, though; it may not be necessarily as obvious as the sloppiness of something like Fallen Kingdom, due to the sheen of class Hereditary has in certain technical aspects, such as some nicely creepy cinematography, the palpable atmosphere, the lovingly detailed production design, some strong performances, or the initially slow, restrained pacing, but looking back at it, it really was a haphazard film on a narrative level. I mean, I'll give Aster some credit for some good foreshadowing/attention-to-detail at certain points, like Annie talking about
her brother talking about her mother putting voices inside him,
a detail that's true significance isn't fully known until later, but that's outweighed by all the unnecessary holes/implausibilities, which I've brought up before, but just for the sake of jogging memory...
...again, relatively passive character or not, why on Earth did Steve keep the desecration of the mother's grave a secret from Annie? Why did Charlie's parents immediately ask if the chocolate bar she was eating had nuts in it, showing their hyper-awareness of her allergy, but both of them still forgot her Epipen, not just not in that scene, but a second time later in the film, even though that point never came back up, even though it obviously should've (i.e. Peter blaming Annie for forgetting it during their big fight, or vice versa)? For your cliched creepy Horror movie kid, why cast Milly Shapiro, an actress with an actual hereditary condition that is clearly visible, and then never have it come into play in a movie that's called Hereditary? Why the decapitation motif, whose significance Aster was unable to elaborate on when asked? Why is the cult so terrible at keeping a low profile, whether it be them publically stalking children, including invoking a demonic rite loud enough so a child at school can hear it from across a busy public street (but absolutely no one else happens to notice it, apparently), letting their members take home pictures of their rituals so their relatives can discover them later at narratively convenient points, or them showing up and doing creepy cult shit at members' funerals in numbers significant enough for Annie to publically remark on all the "unfamiliar faces" there, but then she (and no one else, for that matter) just apparently never asks a single one of them how they actually knew her mother?

The answer to all of these questions is, as far as I'm concerned, because Ari Aster didn't care about making a movie that made sense, he just wanted to throw as much as crap at us as possible in order to make the scariest movie of all time, but he forget to make one that was actually coherent in the process. And "cuz demonic influence" is not an answer, because you can use an excuse like that to wave away any plot hole in every supernatural Horror movie ever, I'm not going to stretch to fill in the holes in Aster's film for him, and he did little to establish the extent of Paimon's influence over the characters, and in fact, contradicted it at multiple points, like when Annie somehow didn't notice the effigy left burning in her backyard, after the film's already shown that she's aware of the cult's presence, or when an entire classroom of people outside the family witnesses the supernatural event of Peter having a serious allergic reaction when he's not allergic to anything, or when Steve catches on fire when Annie threw the sketchbook in the fireplace, even though she was the one who began to burn when she tried the exact same thing earlier.
It's all so very inconsistent, and so much of the film was clearly just made up as it went along. And anyway, Aster already admitted that he thought up the scary setpieces he wanted to feature first, and then wrote a story to try to connect them all, an ass-backwards approach to writing that is painfully obvious in the final product. Mind you, none of the holes were inherently deal-breakers for me with the film, as I felt the real main problem was with the obnoxious overall direction Aster took with it, but the general sloppiness they indicate is an additional issue for me, and I have no problem with anyone else liking (or loving, or whatever-ing) Hereditary on the whole, as there are plenty of movies that I've enjoyed that are filled with more holes than swiss cheese, but even fans should acknowledge that way too many of them ended up in the completed film, at least.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:38 am

Regarding Byrne's character choice:

I didn't find it very vexing that he didn't tell her. I mean, on a moral level, yes, but on the level of character coherence, no. The guy seems to be living within a dream of mediocrity within an otherwise fucked family, inadvertently contributing to the fucked-upness in the process. His wife's life is made up of a series of traumas and she's clearly only hanging on by a thread. Most of the time, he seems to be sleepwalking through their lives, ignoring unpleasant things in the hope (fingers crossed) that the waves will settle out in the end. It's a kind of denial born out of a guy who doesn't know how to process or resolve conflict. Not telling his wife that her mother's corpse was beheaded is the culmination of all this.
As for all the other "holes", I only feel a Hitchcock shrug. They feel super-nitpicky, especially when weighed against the judgment that Aster is insufferably disordered.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2115
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:25 pm

I was going to invoke Hitchcock's plausibles comment but Ergil beat me to it. You can find plot holes and contrivances in Vertigo but you're missing the point and the cinematically meticulous construction of the plot to create dread and unease. And the film doesn't have "some" foreshadowing in the beginning, virtually every frame and line at the beginning is informed by a theme or event that will build later in the film, right down to the color scheme. Hereditary is absolutely meticulous in it's attention to the most minute details but you're asking questions that filmmakers like Aster and Hitchcock don't care about. This isn't reality. It's cinema.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2087
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:23 pm

Stu wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:17 am
...again, relatively passive character or not, why on Earth did Steve keep the desecration of the mother's grave a secret from Annie? Why did Charlie's parents immediately ask if the chocolate bar she was eating had nuts in it, showing their hyper-awareness of her allergy, but both of them still forgot her Epipen, not just not in that scene, but a second time later in the film, even though that point never came back up, even though it obviously should've (i.e. Peter blaming Annie for forgetting it during their big fight, or vice versa)? For your cliched creepy Horror movie kid, why cast Milly Shapiro, an actress with an actual hereditary condition that is clearly visible, and then never have it come into play in a movie that's called Hereditary? Why the decapitation motif, whose significance Aster was unable to elaborate on when asked? Why is the cult so terrible at keeping a low profile, whether it be them publically stalking children, including invoking a demonic rite loud enough so a child at school can hear it from across a busy public street (but absolutely no one else happens to notice it, apparently), letting their members take home pictures of their rituals so their relatives can discover them later at narratively convenient points, or them showing up and doing creepy cult shit at members' funerals in numbers significant enough for Annie to publically remark on all the "unfamiliar faces" there, but then she (and no one else, for that matter) just apparently never asks a single one of them how they actually knew her mother?

The answer to all of these questions is, as far as I'm concerned, because Ari Aster didn't care about making a movie that made sense, he just wanted to throw as much as crap at us as possible in order to make the scariest movie of all time, but he forget to make one that was actually coherent in the process. And "cuz demonic influence" is not an answer, because you can use an excuse like that to wave away any plot hole in every supernatural Horror movie ever, I'm not going to stretch to fill in the holes in Aster's film for him, and he did little to establish the extent of Paimon's influence over the characters, and in fact, contradicted it at multiple points, like when Annie somehow didn't notice the effigy left burning in her backyard, after the film's already shown that she's aware of the cult's presence, or when an entire classroom of people outside the family witnesses the supernatural event of Peter having a serious allergic reaction when he's not allergic to anything, or when Steve catches on fire when Annie threw the sketchbook in the fireplace, even though she was the one who began to burn when she tried the exact same thing earlier.
Bearing in mind that there's an obvious sense of "doomed fate" over the family, with them being presented as pawns in a game, highlighted by the presence of the miniature models, these are some of my thoughts regarding these questions...
1) Ergill already addressed this, but I think it's pretty obvious that he is afraid of how Annie would react to the desecration. It seemed like the kind of thing we think "this is not the right moment to tell her".

2) I didn't see it as baffling that Charlie didn't have her EpiPen. Yes, they are aware of her allergies, but she is a 13-year old girl. At that age, they probably expect her to be responsible for that. Besides, we're not necessarily seeing everything that happened before they leave the house, so why not infer that her parents told her "don't forget your EpiPen!". I honestly don't remember at what other time they forgot the EpiPen, but I really don't see it as too big of an issue.

3) I don't see why Shapiro's condition should be an issue against her casting, or how her condition should've come into play on the film when the film is not about that. Yeah, I'm pretty sure her casting was in part because she has an "odd appearance", which fits the role, but other than that, why should it have come later into play? It's obvious that the title of the film doesn't have to do with the actress condition, but with the curse on the family, so it really seems like a stretch of a nitpick.

4) I don't care if Aster couldn't verbalize or elaborate on the "decapitation motif", but it is an important aspect and motif of various religions, from Hinduism to occultism. I'm hardly an expert, but a bit of research shows that in some beliefs, "decapitation" is equivalent to a sacrifice or a surrendering of one's self to whoever. And besides that, because decapitations are creepy and gory?

5) About the low profile, pictures, etc. I saw the album as a reflection of the banality of what the cult was doing, which seemed to go hand in hand with the apparent inoffensive image of Annie's mother. Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea of demonic cult members having pictures of their cults effectively bizarre, but plausible. About them showing up at the funeral, or doing whatever, I took it as Annie not really wanting to dig any deeper into her mother's life, which goes hand-in-hand with her general feelings about her, and not really wanting to look at her stuff until later. About the woman on the street, I felt that was supposed to play a bit "surreally", but one also has to wonder how often do we look at people on the street doing things?

6) I don't think that Peter's event in the classroom was meant to be presented as "supernatural", at least to the other students. As far as they're concerned, he just started acting strangely, which, considering all he's been through, would've been sorta expected to the school... and "smashed his own face into his desk", which is the only thing his father said later. There is no mention of them thinking he had an allergic reaction, that I remember.

7) The thing about Steve catching fire is meant to be the evil presence, Paimon, or whatever, getting rid of whoever might be obstructing his plan. At this point, Steve was the one threatening to call the police. Either way, I think the point is that there is some evil trickery at play, in order for the plan to be fulfilled. After this, Annie pretty much surrenders to her fate knowing that she doesn't have any control at all.
That's what I can offer right now.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4332
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:44 pm

I agree with Stu, insofar as I think the script of Hereditary could have used another round of edits and some streamlining. But on the whole I think Hereditary is a pretty well crafted piece of work.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1930
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:32 pm

As for the holes Stu mentioned, I wasn't bothered with them. Some plot holes are glaring in terms of how obviously distracting they are while others feel minor to the point that they seem like nitpicking. That's how I would classify them as I don't think they're really that significant to the film as a whole. While tightening the film up in those parts may make those scenes run smoother, I wouldn't say it's necessary to do so. The film fell into my general realm of believably.

As for the father,
the way I read his character was that the many years of living in a problematic family wore down on him over time to the point that he developed an attitude of avoiding/ignoring the problems when they came up due to thinking it would make things better or not wanting to get involved with the family drama. In reality though, he inadvertently made things worse in the process. The tragedy of the film is that, once he finally decided to do something about it, it was already too late. While I can understand having an issue with his personality, I disagree that it's a flaw of a the film.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:23 pm

Ergill wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:38 am
Regarding Byrne's character choice:

I didn't find it very vexing that he didn't tell her. I mean, on a moral level, yes, but on the level of character coherence, no. The guy seems to be living within a dream of mediocrity within an otherwise fucked family, inadvertently contributing to the fucked-upness in the process. His wife's life is made up of a series of traumas and she's clearly only hanging on by a thread. Most of the time, he seems to be sleepwalking through their lives, ignoring unpleasant things in the hope (fingers crossed) that the waves will settle out in the end. It's a kind of denial born out of a guy who doesn't know how to process or resolve conflict. Not telling his wife that her mother's corpse was beheaded is the culmination of all this.
As for all the other "holes", I only feel a Hitchcock shrug. They feel super-nitpicky, especially when weighed against the judgment that Aster is insufferably disordered.
It wasn't the culmination of his arc, though, as it happened
very early in the film, before any of the real supernaturnal shenanigans had gone down, back when even Charlie was still alive, and before Annie started going through her big personal breakdown, so him not telling her makes little sense, as it just feels like him being apathetic to the point of being borderline emotionally abusive to Annie (imagine if she had found out for herself firsthand by visiting the gravesite, and then she learned that he had kept it from her?).
And in a vacuum, on a case-by-case basis, and had they existed in a better film, I might have agreed with you that the holes are overly hair split-y, but, when all of them are taken together in the overall context of the film, they add up to being more than that for me.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:46 pm

Ergill wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:38 am
Regarding Byrne's character choice:

I didn't find it very vexing that he didn't tell her. I mean, on a moral level, yes, but on the level of character coherence, no. The guy seems to be living within a dream of mediocrity within an otherwise fucked family, inadvertently contributing to the fucked-upness in the process. His wife's life is made up of a series of traumas and she's clearly only hanging on by a thread. Most of the time, he seems to be sleepwalking through their lives, ignoring unpleasant things in the hope (fingers crossed) that the waves will settle out in the end. It's a kind of denial born out of a guy who doesn't know how to process or resolve conflict. Not telling his wife that her mother's corpse was beheaded is the culmination of all this.
As for all the other "holes", I only feel a Hitchcock shrug. They feel super-nitpicky, especially when weighed against the judgment that Aster is insufferably disordered.
I don't mind this either.

Again, what I'm missing from the character is just more depth for me to connect with. I believe those who identify with him and attest to the accuracy of the character/portrayal. But something got lost for me in terms of him feeling as real as the other characters around him. But that might just be an inevitable side-effect of being the quiet one in a family of drama llamas.
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:51 pm

On another note, I'm somewhat satisfied with the amount of
penis
we get in thie movie. Not enough of that in movies in general. It's always women.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2087
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:59 pm

Stu wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:23 pm
It wasn't the culmination of his arc, though, as it happened
very early in the film, before any of the real supernaturnal shenanigans had gone down, back when even Charlie was still alive, and before Annie started going through her big personal breakdown, so him not telling her makes little sense, as it just feels like him being apathetic to the point of being borderline emotionally abusive to Annie (imagine if she had found out for herself firsthand by visiting the gravesite, and then she learned that he had kept it from her?).
And in a vacuum, on a case-by-case basis, and had they existed in a better film, I might have agreed with you that the holes are overly hair split-y, but, when all of them are taken together in the overall context of the film, they add up to being more than that for me.
It happens shortly after her mother's death, and exactly after they've had some discussion about someone being on her mother's room. The phone call from the cemetery comes right after we see him closing the door of the old ladies room in front of her, demonstrating that no one will be able to open it, and she acknowledges meekly how "irrational" her worries are. There's a toooon of body language during this brief moment that hints that everything it's not ok with her and that he knows it. Right after this, Peter brings him the phone and there's a lot more body language between Annie and Peter showing how tense their relationship is, and the way Steve looks at them before being told about the desecration clearly makes us aware that this might not be the best moment to bring this up to her.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:38 pm

Charles wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:51 pm
On another note, I'm somewhat satisfied with the amount of
penis
we get in thie movie. Not enough of that in movies in general. It's always women.
When I first watched the movie I hadn't realized that the brightness settings on my TV were turned WAY down. I just assumed it was a really dark movie. So when my sister watched it and was like "Wasn't the
naked guy in the house creepy?
"

I was like "Who?".

So things I missed because my TV was too dark:
1) The ghost of the mom actually being in the room early on
2) All the people gathered around the house (in what is now my favorite shot of the whole film)
3) The naked man in the house


Rewatching the film was (pun intended) illuminating.

I just generally appreciated the
diversity of body types in terms of the nudity. It didn't feel like exploitative sexy naked young people nudity. And it also didn't feel like "Ha! Old people are gross!" nudity, which I also find off-putting.
User avatar
Patrick McGroin
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Patrick McGroin » Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:36 pm

The Hummingbird Project - 8/10 - It's not a perfect movie of course. The fact that the subject matter concerns high-frequency trading and ultra-low latency direct market access and therefore might be considered dull doesn't change the fact that the performances are all good to great. Even someone like Jesse Eisenberg, who consistently grates on my nerves, does a commendable job as hustler Vincent Zaleski. But it's Alexander Skarsgård, playing Vincent's tech wizard cousin Anton who surprises. The usually pulchritudinous actor is virtually unrecognizable playing a gangly egghead with borderline Aspergers. The two cousins undertake to build a high speed fiber optic line from the Kansas Electronic Exchange to the New York Stock Exchange and in the process make a mortal enemy of their ex-boss played effectively by Salma Hayek. Michael Mando of Better Call Saul rounds out the uniformly excellent cast. It's engaging and once started my interest didn't flag thanks mostly to the efforts of the cast and a decent script.
My heart is still and awaits its hour.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:26 am

Stu wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:23 pm
It wasn't the culmination of his arc, though, as it happened
very early in the film, before any of the real supernaturnal shenanigans had gone down, back when even Charlie was still alive, and before Annie started going through her big personal breakdown, so him not telling her makes little sense, as it just feels like him being apathetic to the point of being borderline emotionally abusive to Annie (imagine if she had found out for herself firsthand by visiting the gravesite, and then she learned that he had kept it from her?).
And in a vacuum, on a case-by-case basis, and had they existed in a better film, I might have agreed with you that the holes are overly hair split-y, but, when all of them are taken together in the overall context of the film, they add up to being more than that for me.
Narrative arc isn't really the sense of "culmination" I meant. I just meant it was one of the worst instances of a character trait evinced throughout the film--his fecklessness. You think the chocolate cake is the turning point and that he never would've given himself any eggshell excuses beforehand. I think it's clear that Annie is deeply troubled from scene one, and probably has been for all of her life. We get this when she talks about her brother's death and her troubled relationship with her mother (see also: creepiest miniature). We get this from her whole demeanor even before the shit hits the fan. Mix that with Steve's habit of sweeping conflict under the rug and you get what we got. Your parenthetical is asking me to consider the moral import of this, the worst sweep. I agree, it's fucked up. But that's kinda the point. This family is fucked up. But that's a different question from whether or not he's a comprehensible character.
Takoma1 wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:46 pm
I don't mind this either.

Again, what I'm missing from the character is just more depth for me to connect with. I believe those who identify with him and attest to the accuracy of the character/portrayal. But something got lost for me in terms of him feeling as real as the other characters around him. But that might just be an inevitable side-effect of being the quiet one in a family of drama llamas.
Same. I see what they were going for (Wooley's point is well taken), but I feel like he needed more fleshing out. He's overly sidelined.
User avatar
The Guy in the Trenchcoat
Posts: 1960
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:21 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Guy in the Trenchcoat » Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:34 am

Greener Grass 9/10
Go see this fucking movie. It'll be a cult classic in a few years.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:29 am

Thief wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:23 pm
Bearing in mind that there's an obvious sense of "doomed fate" over the family, with them being presented as pawns in a game, highlighted by the presence of the miniature models, these are some of my thoughts regarding these questions...
2) I didn't see it as baffling that Charlie didn't have her EpiPen. Yes, they are aware of her allergies, but she is a 13-year old girl. At that age, they probably expect her to be responsible for that. Besides, we're not necessarily seeing everything that happened before they leave the house, so why not infer that her parents told her "don't forget your EpiPen!". I honestly don't remember at what other time they forgot the EpiPen, but I really don't see it as too big of an issue.

3) I don't see why Shapiro's condition should be an issue against her casting, or how her condition should've come into play on the film when the film is not about that. Yeah, I'm pretty sure her casting was in part because she has an "odd appearance", which fits the role, but other than that, why should it have come later into play? It's obvious that the title of the film doesn't have to do with the actress condition, but with the curse on the family, so it really seems like a stretch of a nitpick.

4) I don't care if Aster couldn't verbalize or elaborate on the "decapitation motif", but it is an important aspect and motif of various religions, from Hinduism to occultism. I'm hardly an expert, but a bit of research shows that in some beliefs, "decapitation" is equivalent to a sacrifice or a surrendering of one's self to whoever. And besides that, because decapitations are creepy and gory?

5) About the low profile, pictures, etc. I saw the album as a reflection of the banality of what the cult was doing, which seemed to go hand in hand with the apparent inoffensive image of Annie's mother. Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea of demonic cult members having pictures of their cults effectively bizarre, but plausible. About them showing up at the funeral, or doing whatever, I took it as Annie not really wanting to dig any deeper into her mother's life, which goes hand-in-hand with her general feelings about her, and not really wanting to look at her stuff until later. About the woman on the street, I felt that was supposed to play a bit "surreally", but one also has to wonder how often do we look at people on the street doing things?

6) I don't think that Peter's event in the classroom was meant to be presented as "supernatural", at least to the other students. As far as they're concerned, he just started acting strangely, which, considering all he's been through, would've been sorta expected to the school... and "smashed his own face into his desk", which is the only thing his father said later. There is no mention of them thinking he had an allergic reaction, that I remember.

7) The thing about Steve catching fire is meant to be the evil presence, Paimon, or whatever, getting rid of whoever might be obstructing his plan. At this point, Steve was the one threatening to call the police. Either way, I think the point is that there is some evil trickery at play, in order for the plan to be fulfilled. After this, Annie pretty much surrenders to her fate knowing that she doesn't have any control at all.
That's what I can offer right now.
2. There's no indicators in the film that Charlie's parents expected her to carry her Epipen around her; when Annie saw Charlie eating the chocolate bar, she didn't say "That doesn't have nuts in it, does it? Because she doesn't have her Epipen with her", she said "We don't have her Epipen", showing that, even though they're still taking responsibility for the Epipen, and they're both super-aware of Charlie's allergies, they still somehow both forgot it once at the funeral, and then again later when she went off to the party. It would've been such an easy thing to fix/improve, too; just take out Annie's second line there at the funeral, maybe include the detail of Annie/Peter forgetting the Epipen because she was rushing him to take Charlie along to the party or something, and have it come back up during their big fight the way it should've (even though it didn't, for some reason), and voila! Alas, as it is, those scenes set up a pattern of Aster initially seeming to show a strong attention to detail with the set-up for Charlie's allergy, but it's actually just drawing more attention to the film's various implausibilities/holes without Aster realizing it.

3. It's an issue partly because it's just a fundamentally exploitative decision on Aster's part, so let's hope Milly is home-schooled, or else, in addition to the expected bullying she already would've had to endure due to her condition, she'll be receiving an additional dose of Jake Lloyd-style torment due to having been the creepy kid in Hereditary. Besides that, the film is clearly about drawing metaphors between the fictional horrors of the demonic curse that the Grahams are trapped in, and the real world horrors of inherited diseases/emotional resentments being passed down from generation to generation within families, so why not figure Milly's clearly visible hereditary condition into that? Even without making a connection between it and the shenanigans with Paimon, it's still weird that no one, not Charlie, the family, not any random strangers or kids ever remarked upon her obvious Cleidocranial Dysplasia in school, public, anywhere, so it's another case of Aster just throwing creepy shit into the film without thinking through the implications.

4. I would've respected it if Aster had just straight up admitted that he put the decapitations in the film just because they were creepy (that feels like the reason he justified most of the material in Hereditary anyway), but in light of the overall approach he took with the film (such coming up with a bunch of Horror setpieces he wanted to cram in it, and then trying to connect them all in a fundamentally incoherent fashion), the lack of detail in his response and his "leave it up the viewer" comment felt to me like he was playing coy in order to give the film a greater illusion of meaning, and was his way of letting other people fill in a substance for Hereditary that the film just didn't have, as, again, it felt like he just threw scary stuff in it at random with no greater thought behind it than that.

5. Plausibly bizarre or not, Annie discovering the photos of the rituals just waiting in plain sight in the photo album was an overly easy, convenient, contrived manner of exposition on Aster's part, and about the funeral scene, the film just showed Annie publically remarking upon all the strange faces with an impromptu comment she suddenly dropped in the middle of her mother's eulogy, so if she's curious enough to say that, why wouldn't she bother asking at least one of the strangers how they knew her mother later, face-to-face? It's another case of Aster seeming to pay attention to a small detail, and then just not thinking it through.

6. Whether they were aware of it or not, whether they realized that he was having what appeared to be the same sort of allergic reaction as his dead sister did (even though he's not allergic himself) the students were still witnesses to a supernatural event, which contradicts the way that everyone but Peter seemed to be deaf to the rite that Ann was screaming at him across the street; it's the same deal with Annie noticing the cultists at the funeral, but then somehow not seeing the effigy burning in her own backyard; just who can actually notice the cult/Paimon's doings, and why? If Aster isn't interested in the answer, then neither am I.

7. The scene with the sketchbook seems to be setting up the idea that Paimon's spirit has been tied to it, and Annie catching on fire is his way of defending the object from anyone who might try to destroy it because he now resides in it, but then he sets Steve (the non-offending party) on fire, and possesses Annie after it's been destroyed, so what was the point? Why didn't he just possess Annie right away? It's a complete narrative dead end that's just there to fit another Horror cliche (creepy kid drawings) into the film for no other reason than "cuz scury".
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:29 pm

Milly Shapiro was just a guest judge on Dragula, and she seems to be a pretty together, self-assured young woman.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:12 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:29 pm
Milly Shapiro was just a guest judge on Dragula, and she seems to be a pretty together, self-assured young woman.
Good, but I think that's far more likely to be despite the way she was used in the movie, not because of it.

:P
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2087
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:37 pm

MORE SPOILERS FOR HEREDITARY
Stu wrote:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:29 am
2. There's no indicators in the film that Charlie's parents expected her to carry her Epipen around her; when Annie saw Charlie eating the chocolate bar, she didn't say "That doesn't have nuts in it, does it? Because she doesn't have her Epipen with her", she said "We don't have her Epipen", showing that, even though they're still taking responsibility for the Epipen, and they're both super-aware of Charlie's allergies, they still somehow both forgot it once at the funeral, and then again later when she went off to the party. It would've been such an easy thing to fix/improve, too; just take out Annie's second line there at the funeral, maybe include the detail of Annie/Peter forgetting the Epipen because she was rushing him to take Charlie along to the party or something, and have it come back up during their big fight the way it should've (even though it didn't, for some reason), and voila! Alas, as it is, those scenes set up a pattern of Aster initially seeming to show a strong attention to detail with the set-up for Charlie's allergy, but it's actually just drawing more attention to the film's various implausibilities/holes without Aster realizing it.

3. It's an issue partly because it's just a fundamentally exploitative decision on Aster's part, so let's hope Milly is home-schooled, or else, in addition to the expected bullying she already would've had to endure due to her condition, she'll be receiving an additional dose of Jake Lloyd-style torment due to having been the creepy kid in Hereditary. Besides that, the film is clearly about drawing metaphors between the fictional horrors of the demonic curse that the Grahams are trapped in, and the real world horrors of inherited diseases/emotional resentments being passed down from generation to generation within families, so why not figure Milly's clearly visible hereditary condition into that? Even without making a connection between it and the shenanigans with Paimon, it's still weird that no one, not Charlie, the family, not any random strangers or kids ever remarked upon her obvious Cleidocranial Dysplasia in school, public, anywhere, so it's another case of Aster just throwing creepy shit into the film without thinking through the implications.

4. I would've respected it if Aster had just straight up admitted that he put the decapitations in the film just because they were creepy (that feels like the reason he justified most of the material in Hereditary anyway), but in light of the overall approach he took with the film (such coming up with a bunch of Horror setpieces he wanted to cram in it, and then trying to connect them all in a fundamentally incoherent fashion), the lack of detail in his response and his "leave it up the viewer" comment felt to me like he was playing coy in order to give the film a greater illusion of meaning, and was his way of letting other people fill in a substance for Hereditary that the film just didn't have, as, again, it felt like he just threw scary stuff in it at random with no greater thought behind it than that.

5. Plausibly bizarre or not, Annie discovering the photos of the rituals just waiting in plain sight in the photo album was an overly easy, convenient, contrived manner of exposition on Aster's part, and about the funeral scene, the film just showed Annie publically remarking upon all the strange faces with an impromptu comment she suddenly dropped in the middle of her mother's eulogy, so if she's curious enough to say that, why wouldn't she bother asking at least one of the strangers how they knew her mother later, face-to-face? It's another case of Aster seeming to pay attention to a small detail, and then just not thinking it through.

6. Whether they were aware of it or not, whether they realized that he was having what appeared to be the same sort of allergic reaction as his dead sister did (even though he's not allergic himself) the students were still witnesses to a supernatural event, which contradicts the way that everyone but Peter seemed to be deaf to the rite that Ann was screaming at him across the street; it's the same deal with Annie noticing the cultists at the funeral, but then somehow not seeing the effigy burning in her own backyard; just who can actually notice the cult/Paimon's doings, and why? If Aster isn't interested in the answer, then neither am I.

7. The scene with the sketchbook seems to be setting up the idea that Paimon's spirit has been tied to it, and Annie catching on fire is his way of defending the object from anyone who might try to destroy it because he now resides in it, but then he sets Steve (the non-offending party) on fire, and possesses Annie after it's been destroyed, so what was the point? Why didn't he just possess Annie right away? It's a complete narrative dead end that's just there to fit another Horror cliche (creepy kid drawings) into the film for no other reason than "cuz scury".
2. There are several ways I can look to the EpiPen issue. Either I cut some slack to Annie/Steve for one instance where they happen to mention they didn't have Charlie's EpiPen, while reminding myself that it was the funeral of Annie's mother, or I take this disregard of her safety as just another sign of a family that was already crumbling and falling apart. I'm ok with any of those.

3. I seriously fail to still see how the condition of Milly Shapiro, the actress, should factor into the implications of the plot revolving Charlie, the character. I didn't even know she had a condition until you brought it up, and thought she just had an odd appearance (which, if you see RL pictures of her, can deduce is mostly the result of makeup/wardrobe/performance choices). Anyway, it seems that Shapiro is vocal about her condition and of how those that have it can be empowered, so one can expect her to not be the victim of bullying, or at least have the tools to handle it. Regardless of that, the nature and decisions around her casting is something that's up to her, her parents, the studio, etc. and I don't see how it should factor into the end result (the film).

4. I didn't see the interview you mention with Aster not being able to explain the use of decapitations or talking about he came up with the setpieces, but like the above, it seems like just another instance of applying extra-textual information to what we see on screen. When I saw the film, I took it as face-value, which is that decapitations are gory, whether it is a creepy kid decapitating a bird, that kid being decapitated in a freak accident, a woman finding the decapitated body of her mother, or that woman decapitating herself with piano wire. I consider all those to be creepy as hell, and I thought they were all effectively used through the film as it escalated. Now, if Aster came up with horror setpieces and then wrote around them, I suppose it all worked for me. Obviously, it didn't work for you and that's valid, but I really didn't notice it (for a similar situation that didn't work at all for me, see Mission: Impossible 2).

5. I don't see the fact of Annie finding the photo album to be "convenient" or "contrived". It makes perfect sense for a daughter to pack up her deceased mother belongings, and it makes complete sense for her to go through that stuff at some point. The film even had her walking away from the stuff first, only to come back to it later in the film, which IMO makes it less contrived. About her mother approaching the strangers at the funeral, like I said, I think it's pretty obvious that Annie wanted to distance herself from the mother and didn't want anything to do with her life, so it makes perfect sense for her to walk away from them or ignore whatever they were doing.

6. When Steve told Annie about Peter's incident, he just said that he "smashed his face on the desk", so we can infer that's the information they gave him at the school. If they had seen it as an allergic reaction, I think he would've mentioned that. Based on that, I don't think anybody saw it as a "supernatural" event.

7. I think I should rewatch the film to get the order of events clear. I mean, it's obviously a red herring scene, but as far as I can remember, I think there's some logic to it. We can infer that either Annie is tied to the sketchbook, or that whatever's possessing the sketchbook is protecting itself. When Annie tries to burn it, it tries to burn her. But when later she is threatening to burn it again, Steven threatens her with calling the police. At this point, is obvious that something changed, maybe because it was after that seance, but at this moment, Steven might've seemed like the biggest threat. Either way, it's a demonic presence playing tricks on them so there's that also.
I'll add that I'm enjoying the discussion and digging into the film, so I hope you don't take my responses as confrontational.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1930
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:47 pm

Re: Hereditary
As far as burning the sketchbook goes, while we don't get a clear answer as to why the father burns instead of the wife (you could argue that the husband is the bigger threat in that moment, which is why he died instead, but that's just speculation), the way I read that moment was that the cult was cheating in order to get what they wanted. That's why I didn't mind any contradictions/implausibilities in the film's internal logic.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:38 am

I'm of the same mind regarding the sketchbook. We all very much want to have the logic laid out, to be in the on rules of the game. We'd like to know all the variables, thank you very much. But then there's the perfect helplessness of haha hoho you're inexplicably fucked! Certain characters also didn't have anything to do anymore.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2115
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:48 am

Ergill wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:38 am
I'm of the same mind regarding the sketchbook. We all very much want to have the logic laid out, to be in the on rules of the game. We'd like to know all the variables, thank you very much. But then there's the perfect helplessness of haha hoho you're inexplicably fucked! Certain characters also didn't have anything to do anymore.
There’s also the element of purposely harming Annie.
It's made clear that Paimon has to have his vessel weak or wounded for him to take over them. The connection of the book first burning her but then burning her husband seems to have less to do with the book itself and more like manipulation to hurt her enough to take over, which he does immediately after her husband d bursts into flames.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1930
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:56 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:48 am
There’s also the element of purposely harming Annie.
It's made clear that Paimon has to have his vessel weak or wounded for him to take over them. The connection of the book first burning her but then burning her husband seems to have less to do with the book itself and more like manipulation to hurt her enough to take over, which he does immediately after her husband d bursts into flames.
I didn't tie that in, but yeah, that's another good reading of the scene.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:03 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:48 am
There’s also the element of purposely harming Annie.
It's made clear that Paimon has to have his vessel weak or wounded for him to take over them. The connection of the book first burning her but then burning her husband seems to have less to do with the book itself and more like manipulation to hurt her enough to take over, which he does immediately after her husband d bursts into flames.
I, too, felt vulnerable and welcomed Paimon into my body.

That said, even if I think Stu is over-irritated with the movie, I understand some of his gripes. Midsommar plays more in to some of his criticisms than Hereditary. Though even in that case there's something to be said for taking it with a grain of salt.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:05 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:48 am
There’s also the element of purposely harming Annie.
It's made clear that Paimon has to have his vessel weak or wounded for him to take over them. The connection of the book first burning her but then burning her husband seems to have less to do with the book itself and more like manipulation to hurt her enough to take over, which he does immediately after her husband d bursts into flames.
I had also considered that
in the first scene, the ghost doesn't have quite as firm a grip, and so maybe the book was actually important to the spirit, so forcing Annie not to destroy the book was important. But by the time the end rolls around the spirit is much stronger and has Annie and Peter in its clutches, so it no longer needs to "save" the book as an act of self-preservation.

And, like you, I think that killing off the husband severs the final link to anyone who would stand in the way of what's about to happen and nicely serves as a final, horrible trauma to both Annie and Peter.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:49 am

Thief wrote:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:37 pm
MORE SPOILERS FOR HEREDITARY
2. There are several ways I can look to the EpiPen issue. Either I cut some slack to Annie/Steve for one instance where they happen to mention they didn't have Charlie's EpiPen, while reminding myself that it was the funeral of Annie's mother, or I take this disregard of her safety as just another sign of a family that was already crumbling and falling apart. I'm ok with any of those.
I'll add that I'm enjoying the discussion and digging into the film, so I hope you don't take my responses as confrontational.
I'm enjoying it too, but, in the interests of keeping this discussion at a sub-War And Peace length, I'm just going to respond to the first counterpoint you made last (for now, muahaha...):
2. They didn't just forget it just once though, as they also forgot to make Peter or Charlie bring it to the party, which creates the contradiction of them being highly vigilant of Charlie's allergy, and yet they're still constantly forgetting the pen (Peter not checking the cake at the party didn't bother me because there's sufficient justification for it, with him being a irresponsible, stoner sibling forced to bring his downer younger sis to a party full of older girls he's trying to hook up with). While there's potential excuses for the parents to forget both times, either due to grief, or them rushing their kids into a sudden decision, they're both weakened by the fact that neither parent is particularly distracted by grief at the funeral (Annie asked a very stoic Steve if she should be "feeling sadder" afterwards), along with there being a lot of hemming & hawing over the latter decision. Anyway, in the case of the funeral scene, there's no need for them to have forgotten the Epipen, as all we need to learn in that scene is that Charlie's allergic, and including the absence of the pen just makes them look like the worst parents ever for no reason. I already know she'd need an Epipen to deal with an attack, so there's no need to bring that up, and all you need is for them to forget it at the party, and it's also just weird that the detail of them forgetting it then just never came back up in a film that's supposedly so attentive to important details like that.
Ergill wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:03 am
I, too, felt vulnerable and welcomed Paimon into my body.

That said, even if I think Stu is over-irritated with the movie, I understand some of his gripes. Midsommar plays more in to some of his criticisms than Hereditary. Though even in that case there's something to be said for taking it with a grain of salt.
I know I've griped a ton about it here, probably more than any other movie ever, but it really was the most disappointing film I saw in 2018, and, like Thief said, I do think it's made for some interesting back-and-forths (that anyone who's not interested in any further can ignore by not clicking on the spoiler tags, of course), and with my job being needlessly stressful all the time, I think it's better for me to take my irritation out on this movie than out my co-workers, eh?

:D
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:00 pm

Regarding the Epipen:
Charlie's allergy is an incredibly common one: nuts.

I have had students who have had allergies such as these and who have Epipens.

The thing is, by the time kids get to a certain age, they are pretty good at avoiding foods that have nuts in them. All packaging clearly states if a food contains nuts.

It is not uncommon for parents to actually be a little lax (more than you'd expect!) about their child having an Epipen at all times. Also: Epipens are expensive AND they expire. Many families have one Epipen that stays at home and one Epipen that goes to the child's school and that's it. If that Epipen is usually in Mom's purse or something, it's easy to see how on a day that is different (like a funeral) it could be left behind.

Which is all to say that it didn't strike me as odd or wrong that they didn't have the Epipen at the funeral. The tone of voice when they talk to Charlie about the chocolate wasn't one of panic. That moment struck me more as people who are feeling anxious/unsettled just crabbily doing their due diligence as parents.

Later when they go to the party, it also doesn't surprise me that they don't have the Epipen. Everyone is distracted in that moment. And, again, kids with these allergies can be surprisingly blase about not having their Epipens.

One time on a field trip I was carrying the first aid backpack for my class. At one point, all of the students actually get to go off with their parents to roam around, go to museums, get lunch, etc. Well, I suddenly realized that I had one of my student's Epipens and he was off somewhere with his mother. This was a REALLY serious food allergy. I called his mother in a panic and was like "I HAVE JOE'S EPIPEN!!!!" and she was like "Yeah, and?". I insisted on bringing it to them, but neither mother nor son seemed that worried that they'd been without it.

And there's also the possibility that Charlie's reaction at the party is much more extreme than reactions she's had before. We never learn the scope of her allergies, and it's possible that the reaction we see is a much more serious attack. My co-worker's son had asthma, went to a social event without his inhaler, and actually died of an asthma attack.

Finally, Charlie has already seen that "light". She's already being influenced. This is one area where I'm actually pretty comfortable saying that I don't mind the idea that due to the influence of the coven, of the demon himself, or of the grandmother's spirit, Charlie might have been induced not to think of it. And Peter's a typical self-centered teenager who is socially anxious about the party, so it's not surprising that he doesn't think of it.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:03 pm

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - B / B-

As a fable-like story of resistance against authority, it's fine, but I couldn't help thinking, most of the time I was watching, that MacMurphy was fundamentally dangerous to these men, and the "relief" he was providing them was ill-considered, and that things like Billy losing his stutter thanks to some good sex seemed like a misunderstanding of how stutters develop and function. Within that, though, the flick features some fantastic acting work from Louise Fletcher, Brad Dourif, and Will Sampson as Chief. They all feel plausible, lived-in. Despite her presence on so many "villain" movie lists, I found Nurse Ratched empathetic up to a point (as a middle-aged single woman in 1975 in charge of a stressful mental health ward with many men who are there (by their own admission) voluntarily). I've seen two other films directed by Milos Forman, Amadaeus and Man on the Moon, and I find them significantly better. Still, it's a sign of his ability to direct with control and work with actors that, despite my concerns about the story's varying level of reality with regard to mental illness, the film caught my breath once or twice and made me almost cry during one tragic turn. (But also I'm an easy mark.)
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:41 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:00 pm
Which is all to say that it didn't strike me as odd or wrong that they didn't have the Epipen at the funeral. The tone of voice when they talk to Charlie about the chocolate wasn't one of panic. That moment struck me more as people who are feeling anxious/unsettled just crabbily doing their due diligence as parents.

Later when they go to the party, it also doesn't surprise me that they don't have the Epipen. Everyone is distracted in that moment. And, again, kids with these allergies can be surprisingly blase about not having their Epipens.
It's still a contradictory, unnecessary detail, as them not having it at the funeral never became relevant; it only mattered when they forget to bring it with them to the party, and, for the reasons I stated, I don't have any issue with Peter not remembering it then, or not checking the cake, because he was distracted and he didn't want to bring Charlie along anyway. It just doesn't make sense that, for whatever other details Aster bothered to pay attention to, the film never firmly establishes the detail of them having forgotten it then, like a scene of Annie rushing Charlie to go out, followed by a shot of the Epipen having been left behind in the house, which would've been much better foreshadowing on its own than the shot of the kid chopping nuts; imagine if that sequence had played out with just the shot of the forgotten pen well beforehand (so we have clear foreshadowing, but still plenty of time for it to slip our mind and be a surprise later), and without the scene of Peter drawing attention to the cake by telling Charlie to wait around for a slice, so we don't learn about it until it's too late, as Charlie is distractedly eating her piece, starts to have trouble breathing, and then she looks down to see the nuts lying inside it; BAM!

Anyway, the forgotten Epipen never coming up again when it should've is a big missed opportunity, especially when Peter & Annie were having their big fight at dinner (i.e. like Peter saying to her "Who forgot her Epipen?", rather than just "She didn't want to go to the party in the first place", as the former would've landed with SO much more weight, as some part of Annie surely would've partly blamed herself for the accident due to her having forgetten the pen, so not bringing that up was a huge missed opportunity for some vital, extra dramatic ammo to the scene (dammit Ari, stop making me fix your movie for you!).
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:20 pm

Stu wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:41 pm
It's still a contradictory, unnecessary detail, as them not having it at the funeral never became relevant; it only mattered when they forget to bring it with them to the party, and, for the reasons I stated, I don't have any issue with Peter not remembering it then, or not checking the cake, because he was distracted and he didn't want to bring Charlie along anyway. It just doesn't make sense that, for whatever other details Aster bothered to pay attention to, the film never firmly establishes the detail of them having forgotten it then, like a scene of Annie rushing Charlie to go out, followed by a shot of the Epipen having been left behind in the house, which would've been much better foreshadowing on its own than the shot of the kid chopping nuts; imagine if that sequence had played out with just the shot of the forgotten pen well beforehand, and without the scene of Peter drawing attention to the cake by telling Charlie to wait around for a slice, so we don't learn about it until it's too late, as Charlie is distractedly eating her piece, starts to have trouble breathing, and then she looks down to see the nuts lying inside it; BAM!

Anyway, the forgotten Epipen never coming up again when it should've is a big missed opportunity, especially when Peter & Annie were having their big fight at dinner (i.e. like Peter saying to her "Who forgot her Epipen?", rather than just "She didn't want to go to the party in the first place", as the former would've landed with SO much more weight, as some part of Annie surely would've partly blamed herself for the accident due to her having forgetten the pen, so not bringing that up was a huge missed opportunity for some vital, extra dramatic ammo to the scene (dammit Ari, stop making me fix your movie for you!).
I agree that
it would have been powerful to have the characters bring up the epipen during one of their arguments.

But I don't mind the way that the events are shown. The forgotten epipen at the funeral is just a way of establishing Charlie's allergy. I didn't need to see the epipen left behind. It's absolutely not surprising that it happened because they've established that this happens. The way they talk about it at the funeral makes it clear this isn't a one-time thing.

Would I have rather seen the nuts after Charlie starts to have her allergic reaction? Eh.

But in a way I think that it's actually kind of clever. There's such heavy emphasis on the allergy that you think that's the risk. But then that telephone pole and WHAM! I think that the foreshadowing does a nice job of misdirection and adds shock to that moment.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4332
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:09 pm

DaMU: If you haven't yet, you should check out the films Milos Forman made before he left Czechoslovakia. They are very different from his later work; they are far more modest in scale, for one. But I think his humanism and humor comes out at its purest in those. His Hollywood stuff is great in its own way, but Hollywood conventions occasionally get in the way and obscure what I like best about his work.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:23 pm

Macrology wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:09 pm
DaMU: If you haven't yet, you should check out the films Milos Forman made before he left Czechoslovakia. They are very different from his later work; they are far more modest in scale, for one. But I think his humanism and humor comes out at its purest in those. His Hollywood stuff is great in its own way, but Hollywood conventions occasionally get in the way and obscure what I like best about his work.
Thanks for the tip! Streaming options are pretty bunk, but a library near me has Loves of a Blonde and The Firemen's Ball.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:25 pm

DaMU wrote:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:23 pm
Thanks for the tip! Streaming options are pretty bunk, but a library near me has Loves of a Blonde and The Firemen's Ball.
You haven't seen Firemen's Ball? It's a real treat.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1930
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:42 pm

Firemen's Ball has been on my watchlist for some time.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4332
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:07 pm

Firemen's Ball is my favorite of his films. Both that and Loves of a Blonde have been released by Criterion, so they may be available on their streaming platform. I also love his even earlier film Konkurs (aka Audition/Talent Competition), which beautifully blurs documentary and fiction and deserves wider recognition. That one is probably harder to track down; the label SecondRun released it several years ago, if you have a region-free player (or live in the UK).
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
Post Reply