On Screen Now! The 2019 Movie Thread

TrudyTrudy Heaven Host
A fresh new place to discuss what you've been watching on-screen. We will move the old movie discussion thread to Limbo for reference purposes.
«13456

Comments

  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    It's still stinking hot (over 40 degrees C) here in inland Australia, so air-conditioned cinemas are doing good business.

    Yesterday wife and I went to see The Favourite, a comedy-drama set in the court of Queen Anne (i.e. c. 1700). In essence, two ladies in waiting vie for the Queen's affection and patronage. That much is historically accurate, but very little of the detail is. The film is dominated by the three female leads (who all acted well, especially Olivia Colman as the queen) . There are even a few mild lesbian sex scenes, but I can't say that bothered me as a man. In fact, it was the men who hammed it up even more, in excess makeup. Instead I just laughed and gasped as the story unfolded.

    And a word of praise for the director and cinematographer who beautifully captured the feel of small people in a big house (palace). Less so for the obtrusive drum-beat in the "background music".

    The film has already won a few prizes and large audiences and could well gain more of both. Well worth a look, though not suitable for children.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited January 17
    We went to see "Stan and Ollie". Not as funny as I expected, in fact quite sad. Magnificent performances by the two leads. Recommended (and they got the trains and buses right!)
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 18
    I normally don't post blurbs about second, third, etc viewings, but I'm gonna make an exception for The Big Kahuna, because its themes are fairly Ship-friendly, and I had slightly different impressions this time around.

    The plot...
    Three salesmen at a convention try to make contact with a potential buyer nicknamed the Big Kahuna, but when the Christian among them manages to do so, he fails to make any sales pitch, instead prefering to spend all his time talking about Jesus, thus annoying the hell out of his colleagues.

    (Some stuff below could probably also be considered minor spoilers)

    I still think its one of the more respectful and credible portrayals of a believing Christian in a film not specifically concerned with spreading the Christian message. It's not hard to imagine Christians who are like the Baptist research department guy, and the script doesn't go overboard in making him a fire-breathing stereotype(eg. he's conservative about drinking, but admits without embarrassment to the odd beer, and is happy to bartend in the hosptiality suite).

    And, while on previous screenings I had thought it defied credibility somewhat to imagine that he'd be that recalcitrant about doing his job, this time around it seemed somewhat more plausible, as I took note that he was not a salesman per se, and had probably never had to do anything like that before.

    He still gets a little bit too strident about denouncing the insincerity of sales culture, but then, that kind of defensiveness is possibly to be expected by someone who privately realizes that he did the wrong thing, but still feels compelled to justify himself to his peers.

    On a more negative note, the midlife-themed conversations between DeVito and Spacey seemed a little cocktail napkin, especially the parts where DeVito expresses a possible belief in God. I'm also not sure that they connected thematically to the rest of the story, except that they involved religion.

    And, despite what I've heard some crtitics say, it isn't really like David Mamet at all, except that it involves mostly men, and takes place in the world of sales(the latter of which certainly does not apply to all Mamet anyway.) Much lighter and, ultimately, more optimistic.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I don’t go to the cinema, I don’t like the adverts and I hate watching and listening to other people eating!

    But we have just got a huge TV, Amazon Prime movies and a sound system.

    So I’d love some recommendations please. :smile:
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 18
    Boogie wrote: »
    I don’t go to the cinema, I don’t like the adverts and I hate watching and listening to other people eating!

    But we have just got a huge TV, Amazon Prime movies and a sound system.

    So I’d love some recommendations please. :smile:

    So, what kind of genres do you like, and how wide a selection does Amazon Prime give you? I'm assuming the latter falls somewhere between "Only a dozen or so current faves" and "Any film ever made since Edison".

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 18
    Amazon Prime seems to offer films which are about two years old.

    I like any genre except horror :smile:

    I watched ‘Manchester by the Sea’ last night and loved it. I’ve just seen that ‘Sully’ is on there - anyone watched it?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Yep, I've seen both Manchester and Sully.

    I think you'd probably like Sully. It's well-made, well-acted, and like a lot of Eastwood's more recent stuff, examines the way in which notions of masculine heroism are constructed, without denying the validity of those notions.

    And hey, it's hard to go wrong with Tom Hanks. (Well, I coulda done without Forrest Gump, but apart from that...)
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    If you're interested in binge-worthy television, I highly recommend "Un village français (A French Village)." A neighbor loaned it to me on DVD, but I believe it's available through Amazon Prime. It's set in a fictional French town in the Jura, near the Swiss border, from 1940 to 1945, and explores how a variety of characters deal with the German occupation, in all shades from the Resistance to collaboration. It's beautifully done, and very gripping.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Glass

    I didn't hate this as much as some people seemed to, in fact, I was brought to tears at the denoument(admittedly, I cry easily during even the sappiest set-ups). But I think Shyamalan woulda done better to just make this a sequel to Unbreakable, and forget about the Split tie-in, because McAvoy's never ending multiple-personality routine gets real grating real fast.

    Other than that, you could probably slate this into another MNS meditation upon the nature of mythology in relation to modern popular culture, which is how I usually try and redeem his work. Caveat, though, most critics seem to really dislike this, so, if this review inspires you to watch it, you're on your own.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 19
    Oh, and I wanted to comment on this earlier...
    Boogie wrote: »
    I watched ‘Manchester by the Sea’ last night and loved it.

    I liked MBTS as well, but one thing I noticed was that the music on the soundtrack did not seem to be anything like the kind of music that the characters would be interested in(as indicated, for example, an amateur rock band is shown rehearsing), whereas there usually would be such a connection, in a film with a regionalist orientation.

    I wondered if this was meant to create a degree of distance between the creators of the story and the people they were portraying.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 20
    Lizzie

    About Miss Borden. Fairly watchable period piece, that probably takes a couple of liberties with reality, in service of modern box-office sensibilities. I don't think it's lookist, for example, to suggest that an actress resembling Miss Borden's general appearance would not usually be
    cast by Hollywood in TNA and lesbian-sex scenes,
    so this film does it with Chloe Sevigny instead. It also seems far from established that such events took place at all, though there are some theories.

    Interestingly, the film eschews a more contemporary feminist analysis by
    portraying Borden as the undisputed killer, and suggesting that her motive was money, even while acknowleding that the old man was kind of a jerk. Also states as a fact, in the closing credits, that she was acquitted because the all-male jury refused to believe a woman could do such a thing, thus implying that woman did occassionally benefit from the old patriarchal ethos.

    If you like period pieces, historical true crime, or movies where
    well-proportioned actresses get naked and hack people up with axes,
    you may very well enjoy this one. Caution, though, some critics apparently find it somewhat slow-moving.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I'd like to crowdsource some advice here.

    I will likely be watching Rashomon some time in the next week or so, simply because it's supposed to be a milestone, I've never seen it before, and I found a cheap copy of it somewhere. The issue...

    I often have difficulty following movies which are a) set in pre-industrial societies, or b) feature varying perspectives of different characters, and I'm taken to understand that Rashomon checks both those boxes.

    So, I'm thinking I should read a brief synopsis of the story before I watch it. But of course, that's like subjecting yourself to spoilers, so I don't want to, unless I have to. Can someone who's seen the film speculate about how difficult it would be for me to follow with a cold screening?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    If you're interested in binge-worthy television, I highly recommend "Un village français (A French Village)." A neighbor loaned it to me on DVD, but I believe it's available through Amazon Prime. It's set in a fictional French town in the Jura, near the Swiss border, from 1940 to 1945, and explores how a variety of characters deal with the German occupation, in all shades from the Resistance to collaboration. It's beautifully done, and very gripping.

    Thank you, I will :smile:

  • Not without reason is it called one of the greatest films ever made. However, it really doesn't feature different perspectives, it is different perspectives. It is layered and intertwined, so might cause difficulty.
  • BelisariusBelisarius Admin Emeritus
    Also, the movie's reached the level that many people who haven't seen it know how it ends, so a few spoilers probably won't matter that much.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Belisarius wrote: »
    Also, the movie's reached the level that many people who haven't seen it know how it ends, so a few spoilers probably won't matter that much.

    Yeah, but I myself have no idea how it ends, or even what it's about, really. So if I familarize myself with the plot, it would be a spoiler.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Not without reason is it called one of the greatest films ever made. However, it really doesn't feature different perspectives, it is different perspectives. It is layered and intertwined, so might cause difficulty.

    Thanks. I'll take that as indicating I should maybe preview the plot.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 22
    stetson wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Not without reason is it called one of the greatest films ever made. However, it really doesn't feature different perspectives, it is different perspectives. It is layered and intertwined, so might cause difficulty.

    Thanks. I'll take that as indicating I should maybe preview the plot.
    No worries.

    A man is killed in the woods and his wife raped. The witness tell their stories of what happened and there are flashbacks from their perspective. The plot is simple, it is the construction of the individual narratives and their variations that make this an interesting film.

  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    Green Book

    A feelgood film set in the USA of 1962, roughly based on fact. A New York bouncer is hired by a black concert pianist to drive (and bodyguard ) him on a tour of the then segregationist Deep South. Well acted and worth watching though a bit predictable. I was a bit surprised that a succession of all-white "culturally elite" audiences in the South would have even booked and paid for such an act, but that seems to have been the case.

    Also predicable : its nomination for various Oscars. Not sure if best musical score is among them, but the music was certainly good.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    Have any shipmates seen Roma ?

    It has been nominated for numerous Oscars, but I have heard it is one of those very slow moving films which have interminable slow dwells - an effect which I hate (e.g. it prompted me to walk out of in Carol) .
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 26
    Tukai wrote: »
    Green Book

    A feelgood film set in the USA of 1962, roughly based on fact. A New York bouncer is hired by a black concert pianist to drive (and bodyguard ) him on a tour of the then segregationist Deep South. Well acted and worth watching though a bit predictable. I was a bit surprised that a succession of all-white "culturally elite" audiences in the South would have even booked and paid for such an act, but that seems to have been the case.
    Well, I guess the film makes clear that, while they were willing to pay to see the guy perform, they would have been reluctant to have him eat in the same room as them.

    Which I suppose might not have been entirely implausible. H.L. Mencken, who lived in Baltimore and had a relatively liberal attitude on racial matters, mentions in his diary that when he had black guests over for dinner, his Alabama-born wife would leave the house, rather than eat at the same table as them. But given that she was married to Mencken, she likely supported, or at least was not totally scandalized by, the idea of racial integration.

    What I thought somewhat strained credibility was that the bouncer at the beginning doesn't even want blacks drinking from the same cups in his house, but is almost completely unfazed by interracial gay sex at the YMCA, and just shrugs it off with "Hey, I've seen that kinda stuff in New York nightclubs all the time."

  • Tukai wrote: »
    Have any shipmates seen Roma ?

    It has been nominated for numerous Oscars, but I have heard it is one of those very slow moving films which have interminable slow dwells - an effect which I hate (e.g. it prompted me to walk out of in Carol) .

    I have seen it and enjoyed it. Based on your stated preferences, though, I think you probably wouldn't! Yes, it is slow.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    A friend and I went to see The Favourite this evening. It's beautifully done (if frequently anachronistic in its dialogue) in terms of its acting, sets, and costumes, but it's a dark worldview indeed, and ultimately rather depressing. I'm still glad I saw it, and I hope to see Olivia Colman as ER II in the fullness of time.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    The Life Before Her Eyes

    You know it's a ham-fisted setup when the TITLE of the movie gives away the twist.

    The plot involves the long-term romantic and family life of a girl who survives a school-shooting. Yes, it's the chick-flick version of
    Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge.
    And just in case we're too slow on the uptake, the soundtrack gives us a few hits of
    "She's Not There".
    Because, like,
    she's not there.

    All that said, there's some nicely rendered low-key eerieness in amongst all the epistemological bombast, and what seem like some fairly sincere efforts to grapple with religion: both protestantism and Catholicism are portrayed, and the script is diligent about maintaining their distinct trappings, which is rare for Hollywood.

    The portrayal of an actual academic philosopher, however, is pretty half-assed(which is COMMON for Hollywood). It's stated that he will be giving an endowed lecture called "The Problem Of Good And The Problem Of Evil", which in itself sounds pretty first-year, and then when he actually delivers it, it comes off like something by Tony Robbins.

    Recommended if you're channel-surfing one night and stumble across it, and there's nothing else on. Other than that, don't go out of your way.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    I saw the (new version of) A Star Is Born earlier this week. Was very satisfied with it. Bradley Cooper is solid when it comes to singing and Lady Gaga is solid when it comes to acting.

    And, for a movie that's over 2 hours in length, it succeeded in not having dead spots or any point where I thought they had dragged things out unnecessarily.
  • An outing to the cinema - should have been a joy but picked a real turkey in the shape of Bohemian Rhapsody. The film as a whole is not good and Rami Malek in the title role is ... laughable, if only he weren't so self-consciously convinced he is giving a great performance. Truly terrible.
  • MMMMMM Shipmate
    We went to see Tulip Fever last night. Beautifully filmed but tedious, tedious, tedious. There were only 4 of us in the auditorium, and I’m not surprised.

    I genuinely thought it must be about two and a half hours long, but looking at my watch walking home, realised it was only about one and a half.

    MMM
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    An outing to the cinema - should have been a joy but picked a real turkey in the shape of Bohemian Rhapsody. The film as a whole is not good and Rami Malek in the title role is ... laughable, if only he weren't so self-consciously convinced he is giving a great performance. Truly terrible.

    Yeah, like I said, earlier, I thought it was okay, but about on par with a made-for-TV movie.

    However, you would not believe how popular that movie, and by extension Queen, now are in the Republic Of Korea. The movie has been in theatres since at least some time in November(rare for a foreign film to go this long on a first-run), and Queen songs are now being played all over the place as background music. I've got children coming to my classes and performing the opening claps of We Will Rock You on their desks.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 3
    Parkland

    Relatively recent film set in Dallas on the day Kennedy was assassinated, featuring several broadly non-fiction plot strands which don't entirely tie together, except that they all ensue from the murder. Despite the title, a number of the strands don't directly involve the referenced hospital.

    Fairly good performances from a noteworthy cast, though at times it does start to feel like one of those 1970s ensemble flicks fronted by slightly-past-their-prime box-office draws. I guess Zac Efron is still considered a happening thing; not so much Marcia Gay Harden or Paul Giamatti.

    Some interesting stuff, eg. I'm not sure if I was aware that there was a near-brawl between federal and local law-enforcement over whether an autopsy should be performed(the feds won, to the eternal delight of conspiracy-theorists.) And Abraham Zapruder's thrust into the spotlight, and subsequent dealings with law-enforcement and media, is well handled.

    The script almost entirely omits any insinuation about conspiracies, except for Oswald's mother repeatedly claiming that her son was an agent of the federal government, and was being framed for the murder. His brother is portrayed as believing completely in his guilt.
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host
    Daughter-Unit and I went to see an early (here, at least, it was early!) showing of How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World.

    We both enjoyed the other two Dragon movies, and this one was no exception.
    Number one, the artwork and animation are amazing! They can make beautiful films with the explosion of skills of the animators!

    Number two, we've seen the growth and failures of the people populating this series of films, and, at least in my circle, the personalities are pretty much on target which makes them more believable.

    Number three, we both love Toothless! We decided long ago that he is a giant cat. In fact, he reminds us a lot of D-U's cat, Onyx, who isn't quite as smart as a dragon, and thank goodness, can't fly.

    The blimp-like dragons with the tiny wings are adorable! They must represent bumble bees.

    Anyhow, we had a very good, and entertaining time yesterday!
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    I reviewed the original book of "How to Train Your Dragon," and the felinity of Toothless was obvious. Glad you had a good time!
  • Good to here this, @jedijudy . I'm taking my Mum to see How To Train Your Dragon on Wednesday as a belated Christmas present. We're both dragon fans both in the general and the specific and have been looking forward to this film for some time.
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host
    I hope you and your Mum enjoy it as much as we did, ArachnidinElmet! I did cry in a couple of places!

    Rossweisse, I've been meaning to read the book! Thanks for reminding me!
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Saw Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse the other day and LOVED it. The story was fantastic, and the animation was a visual feast, well worth seeing on the big screen, IMO.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    Saw Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse the other day and LOVED it. The story was fantastic, and the animation was a visual feast, well worth seeing on the big screen, IMO.

    Oh, I loved that, too! Very witty and beautifully animated! We are in a new golden age of animation. :heart:
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 4
    The Meg

    Platonic form of the mindless popcorn movie, this time with an obvious eye to the Chinese market. Jason Statham plays a burned-out old rescue-guy with a checkered career, who gets yanked out of retirement to rescue some people trapped underwater at a futuristic marine biology lab. Giant sharks ensue.

    In the first twenty minutes of the film, I was able to pick out four characters who would get killed, and was right about all of them, and only failed to foresee the death of one more. For anyone burning with curiousity, the evil, start-up investor who cares more about saving money than protecting lives
    gets eaten by a shark.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited February 6
    I watched the first maybe 20 minutes of The Meg on a plane before deciding that playing a mindless computer game was a better use of my time. Bejeweled I think it was called.

    I watched Alan Partridge's Scissored Isle on You-tube, a mocumentary about the social divide in Britain guest-starring a mostly gentle but extremely large yellow-eyed dog. I mean 'yellow-eyed' in the figurative sense. The dog's eyes were mostly brown I think. Well, they were all brown. There might have been yellow flecks.

    I have never been a Partridgette. Mid-morning Matters seemed to me to be a rather boring show about an ordinary bloke who happened to be a fabulously talented radio host at the top of his game. Sure, he had to take a few tough decisions to stay on top, but you can't eat an omelette without breaking a few eggs and a Partridge lays plenty of eggs. I didn't see anything humorous in the programme at all.

    Here, Partridge turns the lens away from himself and focuses on a divided Britain, exposing the truth behind pay-day lending, infiltrating a gang of youths in Manchester and exposing the trials and tribulations of managing an historic estate. Partridge gains the trust of each disparate group with ease, shifting from one social group to the next like the consummate shock-jock he is.

    The show does contain swearing and drug use, and while no animals are harmed on screen, Partridge's dog does slip the lead and is heard to chase down some sheep.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I watched Alan Partridge's Scissored Isle on You-tube, a mocumentary...

    Simon:

    Just to clarify, when you say that it's a mockmentary, I assume you mean in the sense of Borat, ie. a fictional character interacting with real people, as opposed to in the sense of This Is Spinal Tap, ie. everyone in the movie is a fictional character, played by actors?

  • Tree BeeTree Bee Shipmate
    Linking on from Alan Partridge, yesterday I saw Stan & Ollie. Steve Coogan as Stan Laurel is amazing. I never found Laurel & Hardy particularly amusing, but laughed many times at the slick slapstick in this film. Tender and poignant too as they travel Britain on their last tour.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I watched Alan Partridge's Scissored Isle on You-tube, a mocumentary...

    Simon:

    Just to clarify, when you say that it's a mockmentary, I assume you mean in the sense of Borat, ie. a fictional character interacting with real people, as opposed to in the sense of This Is Spinal Tap, ie. everyone in the movie is a fictional character, played by actors?

    Everyone is an actor, but the only reason I know that is that one of my favorite comics, Miles Jupp, plays the Lord of the Manor. Have we talked about Borat before Stetson, and how awful and exploitative that film seems?

    Tree Bee, I am looking forward very much to seeing Laurel & Hardy. I think Coogan has demonstrated previously that he is a very fine actor. How was John C. Reilly? All I really know about him was that the Sherlock film he was in was not well received.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I watched Alan Partridge's Scissored Isle on You-tube, a mocumentary...

    Simon:

    Just to clarify, when you say that it's a mockmentary, I assume you mean in the sense of Borat, ie. a fictional character interacting with real people, as opposed to in the sense of This Is Spinal Tap, ie. everyone in the movie is a fictional character, played by actors?
    Much more like Spinal Tap, with fictional characters. I would not call Borat a mockumentary.
    Mockumentary refers to mocking a documentary, not mocking people.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote:

    Have we talked about Borat before Stetson, and how awful and exploitative that film seems?

    We might have. My main issue with the film was that a lot of the set-ups didn't work, probably because Cohen was expecting the dupes to behave like stereotypical American rednecks, and they didn't take the bait. For example, when he goes into that Confederate memoribilia shop and starts smashing stuff up, it's pretty obvious he was hoping the owner would start screaming racist obscenities, but in fact the guy just stands there watching, and then says "Well, I'm gonna have to charge you for that", or some such.

    A few of the people were probably conned into saying self-incriminating stuff, but really, when someone says to you that back in Kazakhstan, they're planning to kill all the gays, and you, knowing that you're being filmed, reply with "Yeah, we're trying to do that here, too", well, it's kind of your own fault if you end up looking like a bigoted a-hole to the whole world.

    Overall, the film suffered from "preaching to the choir", aiming itself at self-styled cultural sophisticates to tell them that all those rednecks iin the flyover really are just as hideous as they'd always assumed. And not entirely succeeding at nabbing that low-hanging fruit, for the reasons I've outlined above.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    ...How was John C. Reilly? All I really know about him was that the Sherlock film he was in was not well received.
    That is an aberration as he is very good; you can be a great actor but be in a stinker of a film (well, it's got Will Ferrell in it).

  • KittyvilleKittyville Shipmate
    edited February 7
    (well, it's got Will Ferrell in it).

    An indicator for me that it will be a stinker of a film, to be honest.
  • Kittyville wrote: »
    (well, it's got Will Ferrell in it).

    An indicator for me that it will be a stinker of a film, to be honest.

    My sentiments exactly. I've only liked him as Bush and Cowbell Man in SNL.
  • BelisariusBelisarius Admin Emeritus
    edited February 7
    stetson wrote: »

    A few of the people were probably conned into saying self-incriminating stuff, but really, when someone says to you that back in Kazakhstan, they're planning to kill all the gays, and you, knowing that you're being filmed, reply with "Yeah, we're trying to do that here, too", well, it's kind of your own fault if you end up looking like a bigoted a-hole to the whole world.

    Agree that that type of response should be avoided if you're being filmed, but I'm guessing (I haven't seen the movie) that many of the "dupes" knew exactly what was going on and were trying to bait SBC back (I know I'd be tempted to say something ironically over-the-top if subjected to Borat).
    Overall, the film suffered from "preaching to the choir", aiming itself at self-styled cultural sophisticates to tell them that all those rednecks iin the flyover really are just as hideous as they'd always assumed. And not entirely succeeding at nabbing that low-hanging fruit, for the reasons I've outlined above.

    Spot on.
  • Tree BeeTree Bee Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    ...How was John C. Reilly? All I really know about him was that the Sherlock film he was in was not well received.
    That is an aberration as he is very good; you can be a great actor but be in a stinker of a film (well, it's got Will Ferrell in it).

    Agreed. He was totally believable after the shock of the fat suit. I became quite fond of both characters.
  • Belisarius wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »

    A few of the people were probably conned into saying self-incriminating stuff, but really, when someone says to you that back in Kazakhstan, they're planning to kill all the gays, and you, knowing that you're being filmed, reply with "Yeah, we're trying to do that here, too", well, it's kind of your own fault if you end up looking like a bigoted a-hole to the whole world.

    Agree that that type of response should be avoided if you're being filmed, but I'm guessing (I haven't seen the movie) that many of the "dupes" knew exactly what was going on and were trying to bait SBC back (I know I'd be tempted to say something ironically over-the-top if subjected to Borat).
    I did see the film. There are several ways to interpret that reaction. Given that in America, animosity towards gay people is coincidental* to conservative Christianity, I wouldn't be too quick to excuse the statement. I'd have to see the scene again to give what I think about it in its context, but I can easily think of three different scenarios. That the speaker agrees with the sentiment, that he is mentioning the coincidence* of the sentiment without subscribing to it or that he is fucking with the person who is fucking with him.

    *happening or existing at the same time.
    Belisarius wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Overall, the film suffered from "preaching to the choir", aiming itself at self-styled cultural sophisticates to tell them that all those rednecks iin the flyover really are just as hideous as they'd always assumed. And not entirely succeeding at nabbing that low-hanging fruit, for the reasons I've outlined above.
    Spot on.
    The thing with low-hanging fruit is, though it is easy to grab, it has to exist for the grabbing to happen. And whilst Borat is hardly a sophisticated exploration of the nuanced reality, it does not completely miss the mark either.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I did see the film. There are several ways to interpret that reaction. Given that in America, animosity towards gay people is coincidental* to conservative Christianity, I wouldn't be too quick to excuse the statement. I'd have to see the scene again to give what I think about it in its context, but I can easily think of three different scenarios. That the speaker agrees with the sentiment, that he is mentioning the coincidence* of the sentiment without subscribing to it or that he is fucking with the person who is fucking with him.

    It's the scene where Borat goes to some sort of rodeo-type event, and he's talking to one of the workers behind the scenes, an older guy, I believe. And, no, I didn't get the impression that the redneck was doing a reverse-sting on Cohen. His agreement with Borat's anti-gay statements seemed very casual and off-the-cuff, not calculated in any way.

    I could imagine some sort of smart-ass hipster in a small conservative city cottoning on to what the prankster was doing, and upping the ante with "Oh yeah, kill 'em all, just like Jesus said. I seriously believe that should be an Olympic sport". But the rodeo guy didn't seem to be doing anything like that; it was just simple agreement with what Cohen had said.



  • As a gay man who has divided my life more or less equally between Europe and the borders of the American Bible Belt, and who studied at the same Cambridge college as Sacha Baron Cohen (not at the same time), I felt closer to the "redneck" hunters in Brüno than I did to the main character. He was clearly expecting a more dramatic reaction than their obvious but fairly polite discomfort in the face of clear provocation. That shows that he DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE SOUTH. American Southerners, of whom I am at least half of one, have committed some of the most appalling acts in the history of humanity, but they have always placed a high value on outward politeness.
Sign In or Register to comment.