|
I'd be more willing to let that slide for the poetry of the metaphor. What I'm trying to figure out is where there was blatant foot fetishism, I guess I don't remember too much of that other than extended shots of her getting comfy.
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
I'm still working with those elements as well. It doesn't help that I went to the bathroom when she let the elephant man go and had that scene quickly whispered to me by my g/f. Edit2: Elephant man is a manifestation of her own disgust and how she now views men. She can't do her first random hook-up because she views men as fundamentally disgusting. That also makes sense, given that she is a rape victim. Her struggling with hypersexuality also makes sense if you read the scene where she tries (and fails) to connect with her boyfriend as an attempt to lose her virginity after the fact. Given that it is a Scottish film, I have a hard time believing that they'd go with the whole "virginity" angle but I'm basing my understanding of Scottish culture off of my time spent in England (London), Germany (primarily Cologne but all over) and other Europeans I've known. I've got an n=1 of Scottish people and I don't even know him that well, so a puritanical edge may not be unreasonable. Still holds. Especially when it comes to the light. You have opposite poles, with really harsh, almost painfully blinding whiteness. It happens again and again with things like the sky as well. Contrast that with the absolute blackness. They are pretty clearly telegraphing artificiality. That ties into a lot of the other Brechtian nonsense going on during the first half of the movie. Elephant-man represented a turn towards more natural colors, culminating in very natural, realistic shot at the end. So it fades from blinding unreality to soft (albeit brutal) reality. I just took the immolation at the end as a visual representation for the destruction of the self that resulted in the rest of the film. Probably more to it, since metaphor and reality play with each other a lot during this movie and I'm admittedly a philistine. But that is what I took out of it. Edit: Foot Fetish. I just saw a lot of longing camera shots at S Jo's feet. Also, a lot of framing shots. Mouth, breasts, feet, crotch. Eye-as-a-vagina/anus, feet, breasts, crotch. Walking slowly away, until nothing but the feet are showing, cut-frame to a raging erection. First focusing on her face and then Venus-of-Willendorf style smash-cutting to her chest and panning down her body showing the crotch, the legs and then lingering at the feet. Dude likes him some feet and isn't afraid to let everybody knows that he considers them (at least) on par with eye-as-anus, breasts and crotch. Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 05:13 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Edit: Foot Fetish. I just saw a lot of longing camera shots at S Jo's feet. Also, a lot of framing shots. Mouth, breasts, feet, crotch. Eye-as-a-vagina/anus, feet, breasts, crotch. Walking slowly away, until nothing but the feet are showing, cut-frame to a raging erection. First focusing on her face and then Venus-of-Willendorf style smash-cutting to her chest and panning down her body showing the crotch, the legs and then lingering at the feet. Dude likes him some feet and isn't afraid to let everybody knows that he considers them (at least) on par with eye-as-anus, breasts and crotch.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
I think the director thought it was erotic and was trying to express that to the audience, yes. I don't have a foot fetish, so I thought it was somewhere between jarring and hilarious. "Dude, look at these feet! So much better than breasts!" "Uhhhhh . . . OK man, whatever floats your boat . . ."
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I think the director thought it was erotic and was trying to express that to the audience, yes. I don't have a foot fetish, so I thought it was somewhere between jarring and hilarious. "Dude, look at these feet! So much better than breasts!" "Uhhhhh . . . OK man, whatever floats your boat . . ." From your posts about it I have the impression you have a foot fetish more so than the director. I guess it depends on your perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
I'm really surprised nobody else noticed it. My g/f and I were cracking up throughout the entire movie because of it. It made Quentin Tarantino seem subtle.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
I didn't notice the feet thing at all. I second the projecting.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
I mean, I would say projecting too, but the reaction doesn't really fit that...?
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Thirding...i have no idea what you are talking about. The "feet" frames were just low perspective shots that showed the men being progressively sucked into the black goo and her feet tracked along with that shot.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I mean, I would say projecting too, but the reaction doesn't really fit that...? I'm not weighing in on whether Shbobdb is projecting, just pointing out that denial would actually be consistent with projection.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
That's... actually kind of fallacious, though, since it means that if you accuse someone of projecting then whatever response they give you is further evidence that they're projecting.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Well, Shbobbd, I think you and your girlfriend know what you need to do.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
vivisectvnv posted:Thirding...i have no idea what you are talking about. The "feet" frames were just low perspective shots that showed the men being progressively sucked into the black goo and her feet tracked along with that shot. While there are more egregious examples, those were the kinds of things we found funny. You've got a sex scene, right? Naked chick, walking along. The only bright aspect in a dark screen (light/dark in the movie is a big theme). This pans slowly along her naked body until feet. And then nothing but feet, feet, feet. It spends much more time on her feet than it does on her breasts. Walking away. SMASHCUT! Dude with a giant erection. Sure, it is "just filmed that way". But this is a sex scene. An aborted, emotionally stunted sex scene, but a sex scene nonetheless. Think about the other options he could have used. Jesus walking on water is the only other metaphor I can come up with, as opposed to the more explicit "HOLY poo poo I LOVE FEET!" I we are going to go with the Jesus angle, I can only think of Kahlil Gibran's fascination with "The whole Earth is my home but I have nowhere to rest my head" which could work with the alien stuff . . . but I don't see it. It's easy to say "Work X" is about Jesus because the Christian tradition has such a huge influence on Western (and now World) culture. You want to Jesuit it up, sure, you've got an alien trying to give love (of a physical variety) that seemingly can't, is redeemed (by the rejects of society), and then sacrificed in fire, like how the world ends (and aren't we all, like, a world man? Contrasting with the aqueous deaths "a la petite mort" we saw earlier in the film). Bing-bang-boom. Feet aren't sexy, all those foot-shots are just to establish that she is Space Jesus come to love and forgive us all. Nevermind all the shots associating feet with sexual organs. We'll push those to the side. They represent artifice(?) on the director's behalf. Because if I'm shooting a sex scene with boobs and pussy and mouths and poo poo, what it needs is the occasional palate cleanser of feet. And we all know that we end dinner on a light palate cleanser, and not the desert we've been craving all meal. As a lover of food (and not of film) I may be reifying certain factors. But when you have a tasting menu, the chef is clearly in love with something and trying to tell you that. When that love in cooking is non-commercial or in film otherwise forbidden, workarounds are found. I may well be wrong, but rewatch the movie and think "feet". The boob/feet/eye-as-anus (expanding anus also means "willing" rape/she was asking for it!*)/feet/crotch shots and their variations make a lot more sense. NO! I'll admit that interpretation works. But it is incongruent with the film that I saw. I'll give you "Is an Alien" and "Walks on water" as totally sufficient for a Christ metaphor. But what is Christ-like about the alien? Where is the metaphor or simile or allusion? Or is a cigar just a cigar and it is just a poorly-executed movie about an alien who murders people? *If the movie is about rape's aftermath, which I think it is, the eyes' normal expansion and contraction of arousal contrasts with the anal/involuntary message of the film with the eyes' contraction, expansion and then aggressive contraction. But during sex aggressive contraction is tight-tight-tight and AWESOME!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:That's... actually kind of fallacious, though, since it means that if you accuse someone of projecting then whatever response they give you is further evidence that they're projecting. The trouble as I see it is that (in theory) you're dealing with an unconscious process that can't be directly observed, so it's impossible to say with certainty whether projection is occurring in any given case. It's just more or less reasonable to believe that it is happening depending on observable facts. But I have no doubt that projection as a means for denial does occur.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
e: completely misread, sorry
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Projection-as-denial only really works if there is social pressure. What kind of social pressure exists on an anonymous internet forum? I saw plenty of projection-as-denial in Middle School when my gay friends were actively insisting that everyone else was a cum-guzzling human being while they loved them some girls with their breasts and them titties. But that theater only makes sense within the context of them trying to convince everyone else that they are super not-gay. Anonymity removes that impetus.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Projection-as-denial only really works if there is social pressure. What kind of social pressure exists on an anonymous internet forum? I saw plenty of projection-as-denial in Middle School when my gay friends were actively insisting that everyone else was a cum-guzzling human being while they loved them some girls with their breasts and them titties. But that theater only makes sense within the context of them trying to convince everyone else that they are super not-gay. Anonymity removes that impetus. Edit: also, bear in mind that the superego is dumb; its injunctions often don't stand up to rational scrutiny. There are good reasons for feeling badly about hitting another person. Not so much for feeling badly about thinking about hitting another person. Even less for (unconsciously) believing that it is Wrong to have a foot fetish. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 14:20 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:While there are more egregious examples, those were the kinds of things we found funny. You've got a sex scene, right? Naked chick, walking along. The only bright aspect in a dark screen (light/dark in the movie is a big theme). This pans slowly along her naked body until feet. And then nothing but feet, feet, feet. It spends much more time on her feet than it does on her breasts. Walking away. SMASHCUT! Dude with a giant erection. the men forward.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Now you're also outing yourself as an anus eye fetishist, poo poo's just embarrassing! It's an interesting interpretation in the death of the author vein but I don't think the movie presents eyes as buttholes or feet as an important sexual stimulus. I thought the shots were at feet level to give the audience the sensation that they were kind of sinking with the male victims as she walked (with her feet) backwards. The male victims gaze is at her face and torso but their eyes are at feet and so we view at their level with our own butt eyes but don't follow their gaze. Feet feet feet foot feet anus
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
That's what is cool about directors. They are just filming what is there, so their personal aesthetic has no bearing on how the film is presented. Also, direct discussions of directorial intent only exist within the framework of death of the author.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
For what its worth, I'm with you on this.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Hijinks Ensue posted:I'm a big fan of the book, but I enjoyed the movie a lot too. As much as I like the book, I don't think a movie of it would work primarily because of depicting Isserley and the other aliens as goat-like creatures - it works on the page but would be laughed at onscreen. This movie finally came to my town and I totally agree with you on this. I am also a huge fan of the book, and I felt that the movie and the book are both excellent and cover the same themes but in very different ways. I felt the book had a lot more humanity and pathos and the movie was a lot more stark and mysterious - but in general I felt that Glazer did a good job of translating the source material into a visual medium without being too literal. I absolutely loved the scene of the two men confronting each other in the black goo. It was beautifully filmed and having read the book I could see where he was pulling the scene from while still managing to tie it together with what he was doing uniquely in the movie. That scene, out of all the other scenes, really came across as 'Kubrickian' to me.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
About an escape later in the film: How did the elephant man get out of the goo? I was confused by that but I assume it isn't something we're supposed to spend a lot of time theory crafting about. Also about the very beginning: The girl who Johansson strips seems to be alive but paralyzed since she sheds tears. Was she a previous alien assassin who also "went native" and had to be neutralized and recycled by the motorcycle man? After reading the plot summary of the book on wikipedia, it sounds even more gruesome and horrifying than the film. Is the author a vegan, going for a modern The Jungle? reading fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
reading posted:Also about the very beginning: The girl who Johansson strips seems to be alive but paralyzed since she sheds tears. Was she a previous alien assassin who also "went native" and had to be neutralized and recycled by the motorcycle man? For your question about the beginning: I'm not sure. I always just assumed it was a random person they killed to obtain clothes for Johansson, but I like the idea of it being a previous assassin. Very interesting. One of the things I like most about the film is its ambiguity. The book is very much worth a read. I read it years ago, and almost didn't watch the film because the book's protagonist is definitely not Scarlett Johansson. But they took the central idea and did much different though equally good things. I don't think the book's concept of the aliens would work on screen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
reading posted:About an escape later in the film: How did the elephant man get out of the goo? I was confused by that but I assume it isn't something we're supposed to spend a lot of time theory crafting about. Hijinks answered the second question, but as to your first: Johannson let the guy out of the goo after putting him in there, because she had a moment of guilt (due to the connection she'd formed with him in their first meeting). She's the one who lets him go, and the biker recaptures him anyway and starts chasing after Johannson, who's now gone rogue. It's the reason she goes on the run in the final act of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
reading posted:After reading the plot summary of the book on wikipedia, it sounds even more gruesome and horrifying than the film. Is the author a vegan, going for a modern The Jungle? Read the book earlier this week and you hit the nail on the head. The aliens in the book are carnivorous sheep and the main character is considered a freak from the horrific and disfiguring surgery she has undergone to be able to walk on two legs. She's not even described as looking like a fabulous babe, she looks like a shaved sheep on two legs with a wig, thick glasses, and enormous fake breasts. There's a couple of times where they mention they can't believe that Earth sheep are just dumb animals because they look so much like "real people" and of course they've never tried mutton because that would practically be cannibalism. Didn't make me want to become a vegan, though, the description of human meat in the book is so appetizing it made me want to eat a person. I don't know if it's trying to be a modern-day The Jungle or a parody of a modern-day The Jungle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
So some of the shots were with random people who didn't know they were being filmed.......... Do they not have Scarlett Johannson in Scotland?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:So some of the shots were with random people who didn't know they were being filmed.......... She had a wig on and it was dark. It's quite possible some people recognized her, but we wouldn't see that in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
You're also probably not expecting Scarlett Johannson to come out of the dark and proposition you for sex in the middle of Scotland. Why would they assume it's her?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
I'm officially expecting it everyday, after watching that trailer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
One of the things that stood out during a recent re-read of the book is how horrible the aliens' home world is. They regard what we think of as a bleak, depressing landscape as something incredibly beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
I really liked this beautiful weird creepy movie but I have to say even when I looked for it I really did not see the foot fetish thing at all. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
precision posted:I really liked this beautiful weird creepy movie but I have to say even when I looked for it I really did not see the foot fetish thing at all. Having just rewatched it again, I can't remember a single shot of feet (at least, ones that focused on feet).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Hewlett posted:Having just rewatched it again, I can't remember a single shot of feet (at least, ones that focused on feet). There are a couple, but they focus on feet because those feet are like, being used for walking, I didn't see anything fetishistic about those shots as opposed to literally any other shots that focused on anything else (there are a few shots that focus on Johansson's butt, maybe the director has a butt fetish!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:So some of the shots were with random people who didn't know they were being filmed.......... You can go to rural Ohio and find yahoos who don't know who Scarlett Johnannson is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
I didn't think she looked very Scarlett Johansson-y in those awful "Scottish hooker" clothes and wig anyway. Speaking of which, this movie really highlights how ugly Scottish people can be. If not for the people driving on the other side of the road, you might well mistake this film's setting for... well, rural Ohio or Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
I always like watching stuff like EastEnders just to see that the UK has jugeared yokels too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
As someone who seems to enjoy the idea of "becoming what you are pretending to be/being what you pretend to be" is that a large focus of this movie, or is that idea entirely peripheral to what this movie is about? The idea of an alien Mother Night sounds like it would be right up my alley, but what little I've read about the movie has been vague and the response to it has been polarizing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Marketing New Brain posted:As someone who seems to enjoy the idea of "becoming what you are pretending to be/being what you pretend to be" is that a large focus of this movie, or is that idea entirely peripheral to what this movie is about? The idea of an alien Mother Night sounds like it would be right up my alley, but what little I've read about the movie has been vague and the response to it has been polarizing. I'd say the second half of the movie really tackles that subject, as once ScarJo decides to rebel against her purpose, she spends a lot of time trying to act/be human, to mixed results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:You can go to rural Ohio and find yahoos who don't know who Scarlett Johnannson is. But it's filmed in Glasgow. We found that hard to grasp too. While I'm sure loads of people wouldn't know her name (not many people know actors beyond the ultra famous Tom Hanks level ones) I'm surprised that more people aren't a bit "Don't I know you?" with her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:16
|
|
