|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:There's some clear vagina symbolism in the one girls prominently shown clam phone, but I don't really see the point.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Why would Hugh go to a movie theater? That seems like a pretty horrible place to be while being followed by It. Dark, crowded, no way out, and focused on a movie instead of paying attention. Also, maybe I missed it, but what happened to Jay's pools near the end?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
dantheman650 posted:Why would Hugh go to a movie theater? That seems like a pretty horrible place to be while being followed by It. Dark, crowded, no way out, and focused on a movie instead of paying attention. I assume she was super traumatized from the last time she was in the pool and no longer wanted to swim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:The point is vaginas. Well drat
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
dantheman650 posted:Why would Hugh go to a movie theater? That seems like a pretty horrible place to be while being followed by It. Dark, crowded, no way out, and focused on a movie instead of paying attention. I think the implication was that he thought he had a little bit more time from the last girl he set up and him seeing the girl in the yellow dress forced him to accelerate his plans with Jay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
weekly font posted:I think the implication was that he thought he had a little bit more time from the last girl he set up and him seeing the girl in the yellow dress forced him to accelerate his plans with Jay. Which also explains why he made sure to show her the monster. The longer the person you passed it on to lives, the better for you. I think I'd go have sex with someone really active in the porn industry. Let that thing get some cardio for awhile.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
In general, it's also better to take someone to a movie before you drive them out to a remote, abandoned, dirty factory yard and whip it out. It's all about the plausible deniability - by taking her to the movie first, the act seems like a spontaneous, free-spirited decision, rather than a highly calculated plan to use her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
If nothing else it's worth watching for the wide angle shots of the real world hellscape that is modern day Detroit. It has that weird Ti West atmosphere of not really taking place in any of the last several decades but rather a place where only the emotionally relevant artifacts were retained and preserved for the youth of the movie to experience. I agree with whoever said it was like a sister film to Brick. As if adults almost function in a completely different dimension than the characters we are focusing on. This was to the pure horror genre what Brick was to the noir mystery genre. A throwback to the basic elements so a new generation can experience what the genre is all about without all the layers of poo poo that have been piled on over decades of evolution. That huge guy who snuck up behind the shell phone girl in the bedroom and appeared again briefly on the beach was one of the most horrifying images I've seen in a while. Also what was with that girl eating in literally every scene she was in? Seems like a strange character trait to include, but maybe that was just an attempt to give her some depth without more dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Raskolnikov2089 posted:Which also explains why he made sure to show her the monster. The longer the person you passed it on to lives, the better for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
I think Greg banged a girl at the hospital that it showed him flirting with after sleeping with jay. They point out him saying he hasn't seen anything for days after jay infected him so it seems he wanted to act tough but still was worried enough to pass it on immediately
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Yeah, which is why I thought it was kind of a dick move for Jay not to at least do that for Greg, Jay would've been as ill-prepared as Greg otherwise. But Jay was ill-prepared. Tying someone (half naked) to a wheelchair, setting them out in the middle of some 'ruins' like a human sacrifice, and 'scaring them straight' was completely unproductive and desperate. All it succeeded in doing was rendering her paralyzed by the trauma of an experience that went completely unresolved by the de jure authority figures. Greg, quite conspicuously, leads a full and fulfilling few days where he never 'sees' It. (It might be there, but it makes no difference to him because it's just 'another face in the crowd.') This is directly contrasted with Jay's experience - almost immediately and constantly beset by the vision of It, relying on a network of close friends to shelter her. These are not the signs of someone whose condition has been in any substantive way helped by what Hugh does. In fact, they immediately go seek Hugh out (an outcome he isn't prepared for and doesn't want) so that he can just explain again what he already said. And, basically, all Hugh says amounts to is, "Here is what I have done to you, and here's why I need to do it." The why, not the how, is the problem. Hugh makes a tacit decision that the lives of others are not as valuable to him as his own. What's tripping people up is that they're looking to the actions of the characters as a kind of quasi-video game instruction manual on how to 'beat the game,' rather than as characterization. All this 'have sex with a flight attendant / become a porn star' stuff is done jokingly, but in this intention it misreads the film as a virtual experience where the immutable goal is 'victory' or 'winning,' an assertion of one's mental and reflexive superiority over the AI. The monster of It Follows is not 'programmed to lose' if its characters perform certain actions. If Jay went into porn,* then the narrative would merely move onto how this also fails to stop It because the point is that It's unstoppable. And that's the funny part - by trying to beat It like a video-game, one unwittingly confirms that many people share the high school footballer Hugh's mentality: No other lives matter, all that matters is beating the game, and I don't have to consider the consequences. *The same sex-negative subtext already exists with her potentially having sex with the three guys are the boat. Jay gives up her dignity and jeopardizes others in a desperate bid to avoid confronting the source of her trauma.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:What's tripping people up is that they're looking to the actions of the characters as a kind of quasi-video game instruction manual on how to 'beat the The monster of It Follows is not 'programmed to lose' if its characters perform certain actions. If Jay went into porn,* then the narrative would merely move onto how this also fails to stop It because the point is that It's unstoppable. And that's the funny part - by trying to beat It like a video-game, one unwittingly confirms that many people share the high school footballer Hugh's mentality: No other lives matter, all that matters is beating the game, and I don't have to consider the consequences. Also Jay definitely was ill-prepared and Hugh's a dick, but I fail to see how anyone was less prepared than Greg I do agree regarding the silliness of the fantasy strategies people have but for me they're just dumb what if jokes
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
I like that the movie was basically my favorite scare from Lake Mungo, but over and over again. Something really primal about it that made me love Lake Mungo and this movie even more! The tall guy scare especially. Most horror doesn't scare me anymore so I get super excited when one actually does haha
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Weeeell until they drape it in a blanket and beat it up like a villain in an episode of Scooby Doo Right, except the point of departure between It Follows and Scooby-Doo is that the happenstance acquisition/defeat of the monster has two completely different connotations. In the latter, a children's mystery program, the viewer is actually invited to speculate on the evidence as it appears and delight in the victory of the scrappy teen detectives over the forces of evil. In the former, not only is destruction of the monster not certain, but the teenagers aren't these morally unblemished, contemporary chic stereotypes. The biggest moral question that Scooby-Doo grapples with is, "How do we stop the criminal element from harming 'the innocent?," which lends itself implicitly to 'the game.' It's a structure that affirms ideological values without actually dealing with questions of right and wrong, crime and innocence. The moral question that It Follows asks is, "What happens to a social system when people are willing to kill each other in order to preserve themselves?" The thing is, though, that with the structures offered by violent video games, gangsta rap, and crime films, it's very easy to treat the latter moral question in way that is merely superficially 'questioning,' while still adhering to an ideological value system that predicates the destruction of the Other over all else. There are tangible examples of this in film. For instance, Crank is an explicitly video-game inspired film in which the protagonist at one point rapes his girlfriend in order to survive long enough to 'win the game.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:gangsta rap
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangsta_rap
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Loved loved loved this film. I'll just share the part of the film that made me spontaneously shout in shock - When The Follower is throwing poo poo at Jay during the pool scene, at one point he flings an iron at her and it looks like it just nails her in the arm. It looked so painful and gross.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Greg, quite conspicuously, leads a full and fulfilling few days where he never 'sees' It. (It might be there, but it makes no difference to him because it's just 'another face in the crowd.') This is directly contrasted with Jay's experience - almost immediately and constantly beset by the vision of It, relying on a network of close friends to shelter her. These are not the signs of someone whose condition has been in any substantive way helped by what Hugh does. In fact, they immediately go seek Hugh out (an outcome he isn't prepared for and doesn't want) so that he can just explain again what he already said. And, basically, all Hugh says amounts to is, "Here is what I have done to you, and here's why I need to do it." The why, not the how, is the problem. Hugh makes a tacit decision that the lives of others are not as valuable to him as his own. He sleeps with another girl from the hospital. It shows clips of him flirting with someone between the hospital bed scene. This buys him the three or four days mentioned
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Taste the Rainbugh posted:He sleeps with another girl from the hospital. It shows clips of him flirting with someone between the hospital bed scene. This buys him the three or four days mentioned All we see is a young man flirting with a young woman in a food court, in a context where she's with two other friends. I have no more reason to believe that this resulted in a successful hook up anymore than I do that Paul got it on with a mangy hooker. These scenes and images are illustrative of more than just the point of fact of whether or not the people involved actually do have sex. It doesn't matter why the invisible man takes so long to walk from point (A) to point (B), or if there is a tangent point (Z^x) that alters its travel time. This information is left ambiguous deliberately so as to make the creature more threatening by throwing the certainty of the viewer into suspension.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
It looks like It Follows is having some pretty decent legs at the box office. Its dailies have been pretty good all things considered and it should break 10 mil by Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:All we see is a young man flirting with a young woman in a food court, in a context where she's with two other friends. I have no more reason to believe that this resulted in a successful hook up anymore than I do that Paul got it on with a mangy hooker. These scenes and images are illustrative of more than just the point of fact of whether or not the people involved actually do have sex. Do you think it's a double standard to assume that the two male characters didn't hook up with random people but that Jay did? We're not given any more or less evidence about the respective situations, in fact they're all shot in basically the same way. I think the movie has a lot to say about the trepidation people feel towards one another with regards to each other's perceived sexual history. The ambiguity in these scenes is intentional to bring that to the forefront.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Sarchasm posted:Do you think it's a double standard to assume that the two male characters didn't hook up with random people but that Jay did? We're not given any more or less evidence about the respective situations, in fact they're all shot in basically the same way. There's ambiguity to all these scenes, but it's not a double standard to contrast these scenes with ones that explicitly address sex with ones that do, and the ways in which this ambiguity is created, and note an imbalance based on gender. This is integral to exactly the prejudices regarding sexual history that you're talking about. This gendered imbalance is satiric. There are three explicit sex scenes in the entire film, all of them between Jay and the three major male characters, and they follow a clear arc. In the bookending sex scenes with Hugh and Paul, both of which feature on top of her partner, and achieving some sort of satisfaction (not, like, this great, erotic ecstasy, but a 'something.') This is punctuated by her first attempt at passing It, to Greg in the hospital. She turns her face away, stares blankly at the wall, mating with Greg reduced to a pure survival mechanism. These sex scenes clearly trace Jay's arc as a character, but in the process she is necessarily more sexualized relative to her male cast members, who only engage in sex through her. It's like Jay's body itself forms to bridge the narrative, she's even facing opposite directions in the respective sex scenes with Hugh and Paul. This is significant with regards to the, let's call them the 'ambiguous sequences.' These are not sex scenes, or even direct confirmations of sex, but quite literally just sexual suggestion, the possibility of an encounter. The possibilities in and of themselves paint an interesting portrait - one in which the woman's ability to 'pass the It,' as Hugh says, is easier, if only by virtue of the fact that we are given more confirmed sexual encounters, rather than vague premonitions that cutaway selectively. But Hugh interprets this as a natural feminine privilege; it's just a rationalization of the intrinsic harm that he does to any woman he has sex with, that they'll survive because girls are all whores, and oh what a good thing that I 'prepared her' for it, that I 'taught her.' The distinction between masculine and feminine sexual privileges is laid bare by precisely this 'woman's body as bridge' structure to the narrative. Greg's flirtation with the girls in the food court signifies his social confidence and aplomb with the ladies, but when compared to Hugh's charming, unassuming personality on his first date, it also becomes a point of emphasizing his complacent social and sexual privileges, 'targeting' women with little regard to the consequences as it pertains to them. Now, it's not all sunshine and roses for boys, but every point of social and sexual disadvantage illustrated through them is a point of masculine pride, rather than basic dignity: Hugh's stacks of porn with his high school memories locked away inside it, Paul confronting prostitution as a potential safety valve to 'protect his marriage, and, for Greg, well, it's just the banality of being totally cute and charming and not getting laid. What we see with Jay is completely different. It's not a matter of social pride, but of having to sacrifice the basic dignity of her reliance on herself to survive. The coerced marriage to Paul by the end of the film is metaphorically a mirror of the deception that Hugh begins, a pale alternative to systematic, emotionless sexual encounters in which she allows men to simply have sex with her. But in each and every scenario, explicit or suggested, the pretense of Jay's sexual liberation merely because 'she can get any guy she wants' (whatever that means) is rendered non-viable either through overt deception, emotional pacification, self-exploitation, or coercion. A double standard is absolutely what the film is depicting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:But Hugh interprets this as a natural feminine privilege; it's just a rationalization of the intrinsic harm that he does to any woman he has sex with, that they'll survive because girls are all whores, and oh what a good thing that I 'prepared her' for it, that I 'taught her.' I think you are reading this backwards. Hugh says it's easy for women to survive because it's easy for them to entice men to have sex with them. He's calling men whores, if anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Namirsolo posted:I think you are reading this backwards. Hugh says it's easy for women to survive because it's easy for them to entice men to have sex with them. He's calling men whores, if anything. What you're effectively doing here is citing the inherent hypocrisy within misogynistic sexual double standards (inverting the conventional paradigm such that it's ironically misandrist), and then attributing this to and thus unintentionally legitimizing a metaphoric rapist. "Women find it easier to entice men to have sex, therefore men are the whores," is not how these double standards work, because women are not the ones who possess the disproportionate economic, political, cultural, and social privilege and power. It is power which is the problematic source of the double standard, not any tangible sex that occurs. Within a conventional phallocentric, patriarchal paradigm, since it is easier for women to entice men to have sex (whether or not this so-called privilege even tangibly exists beyond anecdotal evidence and face value cultural myths), there is therefore less value to it. Men, on the other hand, within this same framework, need to try harder to seduce women and, therefore, by having more sex, become the Don Juan or 'stud.' And as with most cultural standards and value systems, this isn't self-contained - it's related to, affected by, and rationalizes a host of other cultural myths and standards: women are just so difficult, and men are just so horny and klutzy, it's only 'natural' that some form of deception or coercion works towards the absolution of the downtrodden man over the woman who knows she can get it easy but also thinks she's too good for it, etc. The problem with Hugh's perspective is that it actually doesn't matter if he's ascribing to this conventional misogyny or has assumed some sort of half-baked, postmodern shame for men as 'the real whores.' This ironic misandrist alternative is just an inversion of the same phallocentric and patriarchal paradigms, but it's still primarily concerned with the assertion of power through the drive to survive. And it's a cop out: Jay does not actually have more power within this hokey, postfeminist paradigm. Rather, she is forced and coerced into more sexual relations than she would have otherwise consented towards. Hugh's role in this is much like the 'parasites' of Shivers: The theory he embodies is this implicitly pathetic, senseless idea that the problems of disproportionate power and social privilege can be corrected by 'everybody rapes everybody,' i.e. that rape and rape culture are not the problem, but rather our ability to use rape for the 'right reasons.' Judge what Hugh says in light of what he does. He is driven by the desperate need to survive, his security threatened after a one-night stand with an anonymous woman left him saddled with an anti-sex, slasher movie cliche, effectively signifying that, in the primordial psychological sense of the It, he has no privileges as a man over women. But this metaphoric castration only results in necessary displays of phallocentric power and misogynistic aggression. He can't accept the fate of his own death, his fundamental powerlessness, so he instead afflicts his power on the monolithic Other of the female sex, and then rationalizes that this is okay because the female Other 'can get it so easy.' He looked for a reason to defend his exploitation of women, and found it already ripe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
So is this on VOD yet or what?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:So is this on VOD yet or what? No, it's making way too much bank in theaters, VOD has been indefinitely postponed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:So is this on VOD yet or what? I'd imagine it will be shortly. Since they haven't marketed the film very well, I don't think its theater run will be longer than 3 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
I realize that some people might simply not be able to see it in theaters, but for the love of God please do if you are even remotely able.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:I realize that some people might simply not be able to see it in theaters, but for the love of God please do if you are even remotely able. I loved this film. I haven't felt as tense and full of anxiety in any other horror film in a long time and I attribute most of that feeling to the phenomenal soundtrack. I have a feeling people who see it on VOD may miss that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:I realize that some people might simply not be able to see it in theaters, but for the love of God please do if you are even remotely able. I live kind of in a wasteland for film and even my local theater is playing it. This release should be wide enough for most people to see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Namirsolo posted:I live kind of in a wasteland for film and even my local theater is playing it. This release should be wide enough for most people to see it. It's in a million AMC's here, it should be in pretty wide release. Go see it while you can cause the run probably isn't long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
One thing I noticed about the movie is a sort of deliberate timelessness to the look of it. The characters have modern-looking smart phones (the clamshell one is almost futuristic in design) but watch CRT TVs that play old 50s movies, there's no set time period suggested by it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:I realize that some people might simply not be able to see it in theaters, but for the love of God please do if you are even remotely able.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:I loved it in theaters, but do you think the effect really will be that diminished at home? Because drat I got some friends I gotta show this to. I'm not going to pretend that in this new media age that I haven't seen a lot more amazing films on TV or through streaming than actually in theaters, but I'm a purist to the extent that, yes, I think not seeing a film in a cinema absolutely diminishes its value. That doesn't mean it has no value or that the experience won't be powerful, but there's a unique effect that comes from being in a proper cinema that you don't get from television. Yes, it's all audiovisual entertainment, but television is diminutive and compartmentalized, and it's now even on demand and freely accessible through virtually invisible crime. Cinema is wide, looming, dark, and consuming, and, more importantly, its screening is more strict and ritualized. This is much more appropriate for an arthouse horror film like It Follows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Saw this last night, I thought it was pretty darn good. But maybe im not trying to read too deeply into it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:I'm not going to pretend that in this new media age that I haven't seen a lot more amazing films on TV or through streaming than actually in theaters, but I'm a purist to the extent that, yes, I think not seeing a film in a cinema absolutely diminishes its value. That doesn't mean it has no value or that the experience won't be powerful, but there's a unique effect that comes from being in a proper cinema that you don't get from television. Yes, it's all audiovisual entertainment, but television is diminutive and compartmentalized, and it's now even on demand and freely accessible through virtually invisible crime. Cinema is wide, looming, dark, and consuming, and, more importantly, its screening is more strict and ritualized. This is much more appropriate for an arthouse horror film like It Follows. goddamn who cares. it's like saying actually getting laid is better than jerking off. DUH YOU IDIOT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
i don't think even your posting would be any better even if viewed in a theater.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Dude, you've made three posts in this thread, and two thirds of them are about me. You don't have to hide your love behind these macho theatrics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
K. Waste posted:Dude, you've made three posts in this thread, and two thirds of them are about me. You don't have to hide your love behind these macho theatrics. Sick burn
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 02:23
|
|