|
I think I was just expecting more of a triumphant giallo climax, like she'd claw her way out of the model's body wearing some fabulous outfit made of tissue and gore and follow the neon demon into fashion hell or something.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I think I was just expecting more of a triumphant giallo climax, like she'd claw her way out of the model's body wearing some fabulous outfit made of tissue and gore and follow the neon demon into fashion hell or something.  I am okay with this.The non-ending as in the credits just abruptly roll was not terribly cool with me. But, the movie really ended at the dinner party and the "ending" was just wrapping things up. I'd be perfectly happy with that if it had done along the line of lip twitch, hard cut to black and blare Kavinsky.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 14:48
|
|
ME
|
On reflection, the clothes that Sarah and Gigi are wearing for the concluding photo shoot are not so much "bondage" as "Frankenstein's monster strapped to the table." In particular the "sutures" on their chests. Edit: I found a digital copy of the Italian poster, which is just perfect. (It's not a different image. Just written in Italian.) Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
The thing I love most about the film is it leaves things so totally open for interpretation. I'm just going to spoiler wall this whole thing, so don't read it if you haven't seen the movie, I guess: Like yes, you could say that the film is nothing but a metaphor for the fashion industry "eating young girls alive." But there's just as much evidence that no, Ruby at the very least is a real rear end vampire, which is why she lives in a gothic mansion above a mortuary, fucks corpses, lies around in graves, bathes in blood, and has an explosive period while writhing naked under a full moon. To add to this, for Sarah at least, devouring Jesse does in fact transfer her "powers" to her. She goes from being a self described ghost to being seen from yards away when the photographer has the same reaction to her that he did Jesse before. But on top of this there's other smaller things. First off, there's not a single person in this movie who could be considered a good person, except for Dean who, trying to bang a 16 year old aside, is at the very least a reasonable, normal human being. Or is he? We have the dream scene when Jesse arrives home from the fashion show where she dreams about Keanu shoving a knife down her throat, and then hear someone try to get into her room and then rape the 13 year old in room 214. But we never see Keanu, and Dean is also there, also knows about room 214, and has been rejected by Jesse immediately before the dream scene. The next scene in the film is where we are shown that the only other good person in the film up to this point, Ruby, is a rapist necrophiliac and possibly a literal vampire. I don't think it's coincidence that we're never shown who's in room 214, and that's the next scene, but again it's open to interpretation and there's no right or wrong answer. And the movie is full of that poo poo and it's great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:The thing I love most about the film is it leaves things so totally open for interpretation. I'm just going to spoiler wall this whole thing, so don't read it if you haven't seen the movie, I guess: I never put together the literal vampire angle but that's spot on. During the movie I thought of the mansion as something to generally add some confusion about who Ruby is, like maybe she's a complete fake who doesn't have any real money and she's just a squatter. That already adds a threat to Ruby, and the necro part for me was just a Norman Bates turn. Still totally works. I think that while the thing about her boyfriend is left open, that he's ultimately the Greek style "innocent" of the film, and the ambiguity over him is more of a general who among us can cast the first stone. I mean sure it's a little sleazy that he'd bang a 16 year old, but that's above the age of consent in most places. Given that great moment where he's deflated hearing the news it's reasonable to assume he has the appropriate sense of responsibility. Even if he later decides maybe Jesse is worth the risk, it's not like he's just some rear end in a top hat taking advantage of her or is he dun dun dun. Everything about the hotel situation is brilliant. I do have a giant man-crush on Keanu, but still. I saw the end part with Ruby a different way. I didn't really see it as a period, but a miscarriage. Like normally eating the virgin in the ritual on the night of the full moon means you give birth to the Antichrist or whatever, instead she's having a big greasy abortion all over the floor. If she was giving birth to beautiful careers, it might have been symbolized by a fetus, but everything about those people and the lives they go on to have is just an abomination that doesn't even rise to the level of coherency. It just spreads. I can totally see the period angle but I don't get what that symbolizes other than shock value, which is as far as most people take it. Does it show that Ruby is fertile again? Connect that to the flowers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:The thing I love most about the film is it leaves things so totally open for interpretation. I'm just going to spoiler wall this whole thing, so don't read it if you haven't seen the movie, I guess: Everything that happens in the movie literally happens in the movie. Why wouldn't it? That'd be like saying the violence in The Shining is only metaphorical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
If you live in Los Angeles, they're doing a rooftop screening of Neon Demon on the roof of the Montalban theater. http://rooftopcinemaclub.com/la/tickets/?month=October
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with how motels are setup, but Jesse was in room 212, so wouldn't the room next to hers be either 213/211 and not 214?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Vakal posted:I'm not familiar with how motels are setup, but Jesse was in room 212, so wouldn't the room next to hers be either 213/211 and not 214? People don't always use addresses/room#s in the most sensical ways. Maybe the hotel has an east and west wing and one side are even while the other are odd. Or maybe the owner just likes even room numbers. Or maybe some idiot forgot a digit. It happens. Or maybe the filmmaker was pointing out that there is no odd rooms at this hotel, they're all the same. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
hotels and motels actively skip instances of the number 13, it's a pretty well established superstition
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
That is pretty weird, now that you mention it. Maybe that's why it's gotta be seen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:hotels and motels actively skip instances of the number 13, it's a pretty well established superstition Somehow I always forget about people skipping superstitious numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Everything that happens in the movie literally happens in the movie. Why wouldn't it? That'd be like saying the violence in The Shining is only metaphorical. Nah, film can work as metaphor as well as literally. Agree to disagree though, my reading is no more valid than yours or vice versa, and as I said the case can be made either way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
I think what Magic Hate Ball is saying is that in film, the literal is metaphorical. Dawn of the Dead literally features zombies walking around in a shopping mall, but that image also serves as a metaphor for mindless consumerism in real life. Refn wanted to show how the fashion industry figuratively eats young girls alive, by exploiting their hopes and dreams and discarding them when they're no longer useful. So he made a film where the fashion industry literally eats young girls alive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:I think what Magic Hate Ball is saying is that in film, the literal is metaphorical. Dawn of the Dead literally features zombies walking around in a shopping mall, but that image also serves as a metaphor for mindless consumerism in real life. Refn wanted to show how the fashion industry figuratively eats young girls alive, by exploiting their hopes and dreams and discarding them when they're no longer useful. So he made a film where the fashion industry literally eats young girls alive. That's a valid reading, like I said, but I wouldn't compare the film on the whole to either of the films that have been brought up so far, which are both more straight forward, mainstream narratives. I think Lynch stuff is a better jumping off point for what I'm talking about, where the film often acts as metaphor even within the context of the film. I think the first two thirds of Neon Demon are much more straight forward than the third act, which goes so completely off the rails that I don't think you can trust that last act to be literal. It's a bait and switch. Or it's not, and they're literal vampires.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
They're literal vampires. The problem of distinction in a film like this is that they can't be actual vampires--because there's no such thing as an actual vampire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
The story itself is fairly straightforward and events are literally happening as we see them. It all works great metaphorically too, but the movie is definitely about a girl who very literally gets murdered and eaten by her modeling rivals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The story itself is fairly straightforward and events are literally happening as we see them. It all works great metaphorically too, but the movie is definitely about a girl who very literally gets murdered and eaten by her modeling rivals. Yes, I would agree that part definitely happens. The parts I'm less sold on being real within the context of the film are what comes after that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Yes, I would agree that part definitely happens. The parts I'm less sold on being real within the context of the film are what comes after that. I think at most, its possible that the girl who guts herself at the end was hallucinating the eyeball, but I do think she really killed herself. She was overcome with disgust for what she had done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think at most, its possible that the girl who guts herself at the end was hallucinating the eyeball, but I do think she really killed herself. She was overcome with disgust for what she had done. I would agree with that, too. It's mainly the stuff with Ruby that I think skirts the line between the reality of the film and metaphor. Either way it's a fun thing to think about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:I would agree with that, too. It's mainly the stuff with Ruby that I think skirts the line between the reality of the film and metaphor. Either way it's a fun thing to think about. For comparison, since I'm about to rewatch it in a few days, nothing purely fantastical happens in Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht. But Dracula is obviously a vampire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It's fun to think about, but is there such a thing? Like I said, Lynch films do this a lot. Right down to presenting you with one type of film and then completely changing what the film is halfway through, shifting what "reality" in the film even means. Surrealist cinema is very much a thing, and this movie is unique in that it really toes the line between that and more standard fare. I think it's completely intentional as well, as it's left just open enough in a lot of ways for different interpretations. He also plays with reality a few times before that with the dream sequence where you get the Nightmare on Elm Street hands, the entire sequence on the runway which is certainly not meant to be what literally happens during that show, and even the shot near the end with the transparent wall being presented in such a way to warp the reality of the film. To be quite honest, while I do go back and forth on it, I do believe that Ruby at the very least is a real rear end vampire, and that this act does give the other women, at the very least Sarah, the "powers" that Jesse inherently has. But I have a friend who is mostly convinced the other way around, that at that point in the film it becomes a complete surreal metaphor and nothing should be taken literally. I think they're both valid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:To be quite honest, while I do go back and forth on it, I do believe that Ruby at the very least is a real rear end vampire, and that this act does give the other women, at the very least Sarah, the "powers" that Jesse inherently has. But I have a friend who is mostly convinced the other way around, that at that point in the film it becomes a complete surreal metaphor and nothing should be taken literally. I think they're both valid. I agree that both interpretations are valid, but in the sense that its not a question that's all that relevant to the movie itself. Whether or not the girls actually gain some sort of power from absorbing Jesse's, what's clear is that they believe they do. All the horrific things they do are because of that belief, so its not really important if its true or not. I'd compare it to those stupid girls who stabbed one of their classmates in the name of Slenderman. In light of the horror of what those girls did, does it really matter that Slenderman doesn't exist? I just don't think its an issue we're meant to think about to much because its not nearly as important as what's actually happening(murder and cannibalism). Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Like I said, Lynch films do this a lot. Right down to presenting you with one type of film and then completely changing what the film is halfway through, shifting what "reality" in the film even means. Surrealist cinema is very much a thing, and this movie is unique in that it really toes the line between that and more standard fare. I think it's completely intentional as well, as it's left just open enough in a lot of ways for different interpretations. He also plays with reality a few times before that with the dream sequence where you get the Nightmare on Elm Street hands, the entire sequence on the runway which is certainly not meant to be what literally happens during that show, and even the shot near the end with the transparent wall being presented in such a way to warp the reality of the film. I say both. It's like people clinging too hard to one interpretation of whether Deckard is a replicant in Blade Runner. I think the movie is stronger if you let it play. Clearly Ridley had an opinion and made his opinion clear, but if you let it play I think it makes for a better experience. What kills me is there's too many people making GBS threads on the movie and saying it doesn't represent anything, to be able to ask the deep questions. Like what the gently caress was the runway scene? Seriously. I was completely mesmerized by that and the initial dance they go to, and also can't fathom what's going on. I mean one way to take that is it's like anything else in the film, he's making the metaphorical literal. Actually getting on the runway and being a model is such a prize, it's beyond the ability of people on the outside to comprehend. But aside from the stock standard blue/red and self-obsession I can't make much more out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
At least we can all agree that Keanu Reeves plays a convincing poo poo bag.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Vakal posted:At least we can all agree that Keanu Reeves plays a convincing poo poo bag. He's so loving great in this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:I think they're both valid. I guess but what's the difference? What different perspective or information or nuance is conveyed one way or the other. Seems irrelevant to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:To be quite honest, while I do go back and forth on it, I do believe that Ruby at the very least is a real rear end vampire, and that this act does give the other women, at the very least Sarah, the "powers" that Jesse inherently has. But I have a friend who is mostly convinced the other way around, that at that point in the film it becomes a complete surreal metaphor and nothing should be taken literally. I think they're both valid. revdrkevind posted:I say both. It's like people clinging too hard to one interpretation of whether Deckard is a replicant in Blade Runner. I think the movie is stronger if you let it play. Clearly Ridley had an opinion and made his opinion clear, but if you let it play I think it makes for a better experience. Vince, I think I'd respond to your friend by being a jerk and telling them that of course Ruby isn't really a vampire--she's really an actress named Jena. But Jena is playing a woman who murders the object of her lust to rejuvenate herself, meaning she's a vampire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Yea the vampire myth is really just a collection of a whole lot of different ones from around the world that all involve some sort of creature who feeds on the life essence of others. Its an extremely broad topic that can include a lot of crazy variations aside from the traditional Bela Lugosi archetype. Plenty of people throughout history have believed in vampires and acted as if they were real. The movie portrays one of those scenarios, the reality of vampires is not relevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
I think you're confusing what I mean when I say reality. I'm only talking about the reality of the film, not real, actual reality. And I'm the end, yeah, it might not really matter because the metaphor of the film plays either way, but I do think it was very intentionally left open. E: Another example of the kind of thing I'm talking about would be The Wall. Pink doesn't actually become a Hitler like figure, commanding giant animated hammers to march up and down the streets, and then isn't put on trial by a weird monster judge, within the reality of the film. It's the film showing in a super stylized way how he feels about his life as everything falls apart around him, yet he's still a larger than life rockstar. Vince MechMahon fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
No I get that we all understand vampires don't really exist. I'm just saying that the movie isn't really concerned with that one way or the other. These characters act as if they are vampires, so for all intents and purposes, they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Vakal posted:At least we can all agree that Keanu Reeves plays a convincing poo poo bag. While I'm loathe to recommend an Eli Roth movie, Knock Knock is pretty great if you want more Keanu being a sleazebag. "It was free pizza! Free fuckin' pizza!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:While I'm loathe to recommend an Eli Roth movie, Knock Knock is pretty great if you want more Keanu being a sleazebag. Keanu is also excellent in this, and it's my favorite kind of Eli Roth movie. The kind where the entire movie is the set up for a groan worthy joke, just like Cabin Fever was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Vakal posted:At least we can all agree that Keanu Reeves plays a convincing poo poo bag. not really tough to achieve this when your character is scripted to go rape a 13-yr-old
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
MinibarMatchman posted:not really tough to achieve this when your character is scripted to go rape a 13-yr-old We don't know if that was him!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
We don't know anything for certain about what happened in the next room. For all we know, Ruby hosed a mountain lion in there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:We don't know anything for certain about what happened in the next room. For all we know, Ruby hosed a mountain lion in there. Hey now, we all know that Ruby and the mountain lion are one and the same. The real question is, was it Ruby in mountain lion form loving Dean?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Yes, I would agree that part definitely happens. The parts I'm less sold on being real within the context of the film are what comes after that. why wouldn't it have happened
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:why wouldn't it have happened Because they reek of being the same kind of showing what the character is feeling in a way that isn't literal that they've already done once before in the film, during the runway sequence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Because they reek of being the same kind of showing what the character is feeling in a way that isn't literal that they've already done once before in the film, during the runway sequence. They don't, but ok.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:18
|
|