Rant

Discuss Lukas Moodysson's first feature film Fucking Åmål (Show me Love).

Moderator: Ian

Re: Rant

Postby Dahls » Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:27 am

Sorry, I'm not entire sure what it is you're saying, Santi. :?
User avatar
Dahls
Crew Member
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:53 am
Location: Trøndelag, Norway

Re: Rant

Postby Santi » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:40 am

Sorry, my English is very bad.

I think, that all your answers are stronger when there is a strong critic in front of you (like owen).

These strong answers I like very much because The words come from more inside you.
User avatar
Santi
Crew Member
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:31 am
Location: Catalonia

Re: Rant

Postby Santi » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:44 am

In the beginning I felt hurt that owen said about FA.
I wanted to defend myself strongly.
User avatar
Santi
Crew Member
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:31 am
Location: Catalonia

Re: Rant

Postby fish » Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:16 am

Probably time we all stopped being so defensive about this.
We all have our opinions and we're all entitled to express them here.

Not all of us agree on many things.
Owen was merely giving his view and we need to be respectful of his right to do so. :Z
Fish
User avatar
fish
Crew Member
 
Posts: 16659
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:34 am
Location: Adelaide, Oz

Re: Rant

Postby Santi » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:58 pm

Owen no only wasn't giving his view,
but is true that we need to be respectful of his right to do so.

You can say that don't like a Ferrari car,
but you can't say that is bad made.Image
User avatar
Santi
Crew Member
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:31 am
Location: Catalonia

Re: Rant

Postby Dahls » Sat Mar 07, 2015 1:06 am

Debating the quality of a film isn't being defensive, nor disrespecting, Fish. :wink:
He had his argument, we had ours.
It's all fair play, no one is dismissing each others right to opinion. O-)


Santi wrote:Sorry, my English is very bad.


Oh, don't worry, Santi, I understand you fine 99% of the time.
It was just that one post I wasn't quite sure of. :wink:
User avatar
Dahls
Crew Member
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:53 am
Location: Trøndelag, Norway

Re: Rant

Postby Owen » Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:31 pm

(AWW FUCK! I spent one hour and half responding to you, but then wanted to preview and it logged me out. So the beginning of this is a painful reconstitution :cry: )


DMt wrote:I seem to recall Owen saying he only gets to post at weekends.


Yes, this is right.
I thank you for your answers and arguments. I even actually agree on many points. I don't feel cornered or crusaded against at all, and that's valuable.
So, here we go for the second time.



DMt wrote:I think it's your misfortune that you saw NdP before FA, Owen.
La Sciamma referenced FA as one of the films that made NdP possible, that was a precursor; perhaps because it was one of, or maybe even the first, films about lesbian love that didn't require anyone to die or turn straight, it treated their love as love, rather than some frightful aberration, gave the kids the dignity of their feelings.
Yes, I suppose it is kind of 'lightweight' or insubstantial by comparison with NdP's crushing force, it's almost a romantic comedy next to it; but it's a product of a different place, era and consciousness, and from within that context it was [and apparently still is] a cultural and emotional explosion for many people, just like NdP was for you or I.


I'd say that if I hadn't erected NdP as a model, I would certainly have a different opinion about it. But I don't know if I would be more indulgent or harsher.
I did not know the context nor the history of movies about lesbian love, but I know that there were a few before, that treated lesbians as characters with their own emotions and not as objects of men's fantasies. For example, whatever one may think of them, Peter Hamilton's movies (but then, I have not seen any, just heard of them).
"Romantic comedy" is certainly something that I missed, because I was not paying attention to this aspect, being busy hating the characters and the camera work. Kant points to it too.


I liked what you wrote a lot, and a contrarian view is often fruitful matter for debate; but after this...


I thought you would bash me after the quotations, but you actually complimented me :T :lol: 8)
I hope I won't disappoint myself and all of you with my planned analysis of NdP; but now I don't have enough time for it. I think that it will contain stills to illustrate some of my points. Anyway, I'll keep it in mind.



Santi wrote:I know more people who think like you about FA,
but you must recognize that FA is one of the few movies in the world that have been the subject of worship for years.
WL is very tender and beautiful, but is not one of them.


This is a very interesting point. Why some movies gain cult following and others don't? NdP is considered a good and touching movie, but have not gained any cult following. I think the problem is complex, however I want to try to draft a hypothesis.
Fanbase defines itself by recognising qualities to a film that others may not see, and by exchanging on themes related to this film. They see something exceptional in it, that others don't. This opposition is one necessary basis of a cult following. The other is the notion of community. Thus, the fans define themselves in opposition with "ordinary people".
Now, for FA. I certainly don't see what is exceptional with it, but that's fine, because you do. It touches you in a way that you want to share your experience and worship this movie. I may not see what is in this movie that is worth of a cult following, but this forum is the proof that it exists.
But, this doesn't necessarily mean that movies deprived of cult following do not possess something exceptional in them. I think NdP does. But, maybe, and I insist on this "maybe", NdP hasn't gained a cult following because it touches people differently, so the result is less prone to be shared and discussed and analysed. Maybe its time has yet to come, when Sciamma reaches the acme of her career.
I will add another argument. What if the age of cult following had limits? Maybe more actual movies tend less to gain a cult following. I don't know, it would require verification. And it would be made harder by the fact that it is difficult to determine if a film has a cult following and how large it is.


The movie is not so bad... :shock:
or perhaps we enjoy things badly done. :lol:


It may just not be my style...



fish wrote:Pretty much what they said.
Pretty much.
NdP is an exceptional film, beautifully told and filmed.
Wonderful performances by such a young cast.
Very much one of my favourite films ever.
FÅ in many respects is like Moodyssons other films.
It's a slice of life over a given period of time.
It doesn't matter that it may not tell the full story, the audience is left to imagine the rest.
The filming was deliberately done in a "Dogma" style because that's what seemed right at the time.
No apologies, it just seemed best that way.
The cast were very much all playing their roles as if it was real life, warts and all.
No one's perfect in real life.
In my view FÅ is a masterpiece.
The best film I've ever seen.


Well, I can't much argue here. I could myself have said that I don't like trembling camera and extreme zooms in general, and that I don't care for "slice of life" movies. But that would be just a difference in taste, not a debate.
I didn't say that I criticised the characters not for being authentic but for being stupid. It is a fallacy on my side, because I know how difficult it is to recognise deliberate character flaws from the flaws of writing. So for clichés. How do I distinguish between a character that is cliché because the character is supposed to be like that and one that is cliché because of the writer leveling down with the audience? How do I know that this character errs because he is supposed to be this way and not because of the writer's limited imagination?
I would have discarded these flaws if I knew the context and the actors' similarity with their characters.



Here comes the longest post to answer. But I will not start an argument, because I happen to agree with some of the points that you brought up, and because I am tired of flaming on the Internet.

kant1781 wrote:I must say that I do not find it unfortunate, but rather downright silly to watch a film with the only intention (as it seems) of comparing it to another, and then to go on a rampage because one finds that it is, well, totally different. More than half of Owen's clamour is about the fact that "Fucking Amal" is unlike "Naissance de pieuvres". Well, obviously it is.


You understood right, I criticised the false advertising of FA that I read, even here. But I was not really "watching it with the only intention of comparing it to another". I just thought that in would develop on the same domains that WL did.


Who in their right frame of mind would have thought otherwise, and why? Because some dork referred to FA as "the Swedish NdP"?


Exactly for this reason. But it was several dorks, so I considered there must be a grain of truth. I was obviously wrong. But my criticism holds up in the sense that I want to insist on the fact that one must be very cautious in comparing one movie with another, and not going through sense-altering shortcuts.


FA, believe it or not, has been and still is advertised in Germany as "the Swedish American Pie"


I believe you, yet I think that this is bad advertising. But it points to the fact that the movie has some comedic and light-hearted elements, something that I neglected (see before).


letting his expectations be slavishly controlled
completely blinded himself to anything that is there to be discovered in FA
I can't help the impression that he didn't even try to understand and feel what is the magic of FA once it had gotten to him that it was not going to be Naissance des pieuvres with smörebröd


Controlled (more or less) - yes, slavishly - no. I never view something only in regard with another thing. It wasn't my sole purpose to come here and demolish FA, I began to watch it rather genuinely, trying to appreciate it. I failed, mainly because of factors that lie in my own taste.


The difference is that I am quite prepared to blame myself for not being able to appreciate NdP more than I do, e. g. by simply not spending enough time and thought on it.


Well, it seems that I am spending more time trying to understand where it did go wrong. But I shouldn't blame myself for not liking it, because it this case I have to be prepared to blame myself for all the crap that I often watch or read. I spread and web my worldview from myself, from the things that I appreciate innately and the things that I learnt to appreciate. So I am constructing my own system of values, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Moreover, I do not attack you on your tastes, as I could have, because that would have been trolling.


I am speaking out against staging that type of competition, doing which is, to my mind, ludicrous.


It was not really competition. I read FA through the model (IMHO) of WL. It is only wrong then one tries to impose the superiority of a work over another. I did that to a certain degree, but the approach in itself should not be prohibited, but taken with, again, precaution against logical fallacy (this precaution I didn't embrace, because, well, it was a rant).


What I am asking for is nothing but a certain degree of open-mindedness of the kind that is nothing short of indispensable for appreciating and judging just any piece of art.


I admit that my open-mindedness is often selective, and numerous little details stop me from continuing to appreciate something that holds up elsewhere.


gross misjudgements that make up his rant, almost all of which are, from my perspective, simply - and utterly - wrong
I am happy to discuss any of FA's merits - and shortcomings, if there should be any :wink: - on that basis, but not on the basis of anything less.


This one for the end: I think that you ignore the fact that I have not simply bashed FA, but that I gave arguments for almost all of my assertions.
In my opinion, arguments are the basis for discussing something, and there are plenty in my rant.



DMt wrote:TBH I did think there was a certain amount of 'This is a much better orange than that apple' going on with Owen's rant, myself


There certainly was. :lol:


...apart from ahem suggesting that all that passion might be better invested in appreciation of what he actually does like.


Well, infortunately, I like to negatively criticise, and to see crap movies then spit on them. But actually I watch a lot of hated movies, because I want to verify their reputation. For example, I think that Batman & Robin, Super Mario Bros., The Spirit are misunderstood and taken too seriously. That's because (and it is also for you, Kant) I let them speak for themselves, and not comparing them with namely Tim burton's Batmans (which I love), the game Mario Bros., and the comic The Spirit and Sin City. The same goes for Alien Resurrection, that I prefer to Aliens. Aliens for me is the typical type of movie defended by blinded fans (well I could go on and on on this subject :lol: ).


I can quite well see how Owen might have been disappointed in FA - after being blown away by Pauline/NdP and being led to expect even MORE of FA by the reverent way we treat it here.


Yes, I wrongly thought that it would be similar to NdP.



Ian wrote:FA>Water Lilies. :mrgreen:


You almost convinced me. :mrgreen:



kant1781 wrote:If his idea was to provoke a response from the FA lovers, he certainly reached his goal with me.


My idea was to start a discussion about a negative point of view, so I could contribute to the forum on something that it lacked.


So there's no point in running around telling people that their lovers aren't really worth their time, just because your current condition makes you temporarily unable to appreciate what makes them wonderful, too.


Again, I posted an argumented rant, not just a rant.



I think for now, I have made enough long a post :T I will continue later. :W
User avatar
Owen
Gold Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:04 pm
Location: France

Re: Rant

Postby kant1781 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:05 am

Owen wrote:(AWW FUCK! I spent one hour and half responding to you, but then wanted to preview and it logged me out. So the beginning of this is a painful reconstitution :cry: )


Ouch! That hurts. I am sorry for you! Believe me, I know what you are talking about. :(

Thank you for your open-minded, thoughtful and gentle posts. I liked its style very much (as opposed to the style of your first one). You made a distinction between (a) stating differences in subjective taste, (b) having a debate about some matter of fact, (c) flaming. That is a distinction which is dear to me but which most people who write on the internet will never get. After reading your second post in this thread, I think I can understand the cause of your disappointment, and I regret the sharpness of my response. I am sorry that you were misled by some comments, here and elsewhere, into some inaccurate expectations concerning FA, because I seriously think that they (the wrong expectations) spoiled for you what could have been, otherwise, a wonderful experience. (And I am not talking here about falling in love with this film like I have, and like you have with NdP, but just about appreciating it as, at the very least, sweet and likeable.)

But, anyway, you reminded me that you gave arguments for your critical comments on FA, and you also pointed out that discussing the film’s strengths and flaws is something that this board has been lacking, and I totally agree. So let us go back to the arguments, shall we, and have that precious thing, a debate? I’d love to. I mean all of the following in a very good and amiable spirit! :)

For starters, let me pick two claims from your original posts. Just two, for I cannot comment on everything, first because I regard some matters as settled (e.g., your disappointment over the lack of resemblance with Naissance de pieuvres), and secondly, well, because of lack of time. We might get to the others, but here is a first attempt to defend Fucking Amal against your critical remarks.

Owen wrote:Next, the stakes. In FA there are close to none. I mean, inside the story there are things that the protagonists do to get to some other things, but I see nothing to transcend this to another level, one that would be common to all audience. This is what I really expect from lesbian movies, to try to reach to all people who would watch, by putting a reading beyond "love lesbian story". FA fails in this, I think, because it is too grounded in 1998 Sweden (…)

Owen wrote:I find it wrong. I mean I can't relate to a story where everything is so cliché and first degree (I lie, I can, but in action movies, not in dramas). It promotes homosexuality naively and that's about it. No connection to higher level.

Owen wrote:Conceptually, I think that all lesbian films should try to achieve that, namely to detach themselves from the lesbian love to tell about something common to straight or homosexuals. Another film that does that is Room in Rome. It is about how sex does not necessarily make people closer, and how poetic are the transitory moments (among others things that I forgot). I do not say that the homosexuality should always be removable, but the film must play on both grounds, and intertwine them to make them unseparable in the film, but separable to the viewer so he could relate to the universality of the story.

Owen wrote:The theory about the ground of the story and the universality that it must convey is of course not the only way meant for all movies. It is only what I expect to see in a film about lesbian love.


I want to respond to this thread of your comment on two levels. As the length of the quotations shows, I think, it is quite a major thread of your critique. So let me ask two questions. First, where exactly is the argument for your claim that FA does not succeed in accomplishing the feat you‘re asking for? All you seem to be saying is that it did not work for you. I could point to the fact that lots and lots of viewers, reviewers, critics, the makers of the film etc. have felt that FA does just that, precisely, exactly the very thing that you demand: that it gives one an inkling of the essence of love – universal love – per se, that it totally transcends its setting as well as the sexual orientation of the protagonists. I dare to say that you are one of the very few people I have heard that do not share this almost unanimous consensus. That alone is no argument, of course, and you could brush this fact aside by saying that it is still possible that you are right and all the others are wrong. Fair enough. But I really think that this shifts the burden of proof, and that it is on you here. So what do you mean by saying that instead of getting to a "higher level" , FA "promotes homosexuality naively“? I disagree. The film does not promote homosexuality at all. What it does promote is to find out who you are by finding – or rather: letting yourself be found by - someone in whom you can find yourself, by finding someone who sees in you what you yourself never dreamed of finding there, no matter who that someone is, and commit to that someone. It is as much about identity as it is about love. (But that is really no opposition, for one’s identity is forged in one’s loving relations to others.) There is nothing essentially homosexual about this topic. I also would have a lot to say on the word „naively“, but I will leave that for later. (Just as an aside: I equally do not see an argument for why the film is supposed to be grounded in 1998 Sweden. Why? Because the clothes, the haircuts, the music, the cellphones, are outdated? But that is not an argument. The same will be true for NdP in 20 years from now, and people will notice. I am neither Swedish, nor a small-town kid, nor a lesbian (not even a girl), and I can totally relate to almost everything that is going on in FA if I think back to my adolescence.)

Now here is the second question. It is quite simple: Even if you could somehow convince me that FA really does not transcend the topic of „homosexuality“, that it does not connect to the (or a) more „universal“ theme of love – what exactly would be wrong with that? You say that, for you, „lesbian movies“ should aspire to do just that, that you „expect“ them to. But why – and above all, by what right - is that? I seriously do not understand this. Is this, again, a matter of subjective taste of preference? Is it because of what you, personally, are interested in? Or is there an aesthetic rule or some other intersubjectively valid idea why this is what filmmakers should aspire to do? Let us assume - and again, I think this is utterly wrong, but let us assume just for the sake of the argument – that whatever it is that Fucking Amal has to tell us, it is a message that is uniquely relevant for the topic of homosexual love, and could not be universalized – what exactly would be wrong with that, except that you, as (I suppose) a straight male, would find it less interesting? If that is all, I fail to be impressed by this sort of argument.

On to the second thread of your critique I want to comment upon:

Owen wrote:and, the biggest of all sins, that its characters are all SO STUPID. First, I can't enjoy a movie where I just yell at what is happening on the screen. I didn't find anyone likable in this film, except maybe Elin's mother and Agnes' father (but they are secondary). Elin is inconsistent and impulsive (I think everyone will agree), and does stupid things one after another (in brief: when she lockes herself in Agnes' room to drink wine then LEAVE (instead of die of shame like I would do), when she kisses her for fun, when she kisses her again and promises to call back, only to change her mind and hook up with this moron Johan, then her projects about becoming whatever is in her mood). (…)

It leaves Agnes, the main character, who could be also interesting (like Marie in WL) but instead draws such a caricature. At 14 she already knows that she is a lesbian (well, I can put this one out, as I don't know enough to generalise just like that), and so she is so lonely and mocked (mostly by that girl, whom you'd want to punch in the face several times) and so depressed; she complains all the time, and tries to kill herself (good luck with that razor...), and listens to Tokyo-Hotel like (or whatever this crap is) and writes a shitty girly insignificant journal (not even poems or something to precisely transcend her feelings). And, above all, she does nothing. She is only a side of the story, when she could be the much more interesting center. Instead of that, the film focuses on the lives of other girls, ones I don't care about, mostly because there weren't enough interesting treatment.“


I have left out some of your remarks on the supporting characters. With some of them, I think you have a point, or at least you could have. Victoria might be an example, Marcus might be another. (However: Even though one can indeed ask why Jessica is together with Marcus, who is obviously an idiot (and she obviously knows), it is not irrelevant to note that in the film, Elin asks Jessica exactly this question. Jessica answers that she does not know. In your eyes, this might only underscore your impression that all the characters are stupid. I doubt that, but at the very least, it shows that their dumbness is not unreflected by the script. That should answer at least some of your questions whether the characters (or some of them) are deliberately portrayed as dumb or whether they just appear as dumb because the scriptwriter didn’t know better.) But I want to concentrate on Elin and Agnes.

Concerning Elin, I would challenge your view by claiming that you completely missed the intricate change her character undergoes during the film. What you say about her is roughly correct concerning the way she appears at the start of the story. But the whole story is about her changing, despite the outer pressure, despite her own terrible fear, into someone new, someone who dreams about different things than before, someone who sees herself differently than before, and who – in the end – does different things than before. And meeting and getting to know Agnes is the catalyst of that change. The character of Elin undergoes a thorough transformation, that’s why (for me) she is the secret leading character of the film, as she is the most dynamic. Everything that is annoying and erratic about her in the beginning falls into place, is made whole, becomes meaningful, once she overcomes her fear and lets herself go where she wants to go. The film is a film about Elin's stepping out, in a way broader sense than a lesbian coming out. It might be that her love for Agnes is just an episode, that her next partner is going to be a boy again, but it certainly - that is written all over the film - won't be no Johan, and no Marcus.

Concerning Agnes, I think that you got her wrong, too. First, she does write poetry (if that is so important to you). Elin sees the poem Agnes has written about her on her computer screen. Yes, it is true that Agnes complains all the time, that she is self-pitying and highly melodramatic (viz. her teenage suicide attempt, which the film clearly portrays with a lot of irony), and that she has a tendency to put other people down just because she feels miserable (Victoria, and her parents). So? What is the problem? She is a complex character, not a superhero. To me, that makes her all the more likeable. Wouldn't you agree that characters who are realistic in the sense that, even though we are supposed to root for them, they are portrayed as not being perfect, having flaws and making stupid (yes, indeed) mistakes, are much more interesting than the bloody do-gooders? (Who have people been loving more, and who are the stars of their respective film: Rick Blaine or Victor Laszlo? Han Solo or Luke Skywalker?) And how can one overlook the fact that Agnes is, on the other hand, as her father says, a wonderful human being, smart, witty, beautiful, full of love and longing to be loved, and, above all, totally determined not to deny herself, ready to be lonely rather than to adapt to peer pressure? I will grant you the point that the film leaves it rather unexplained how she could have garnered that strength (and that certainty about her sexual identity) at her age; there are only hints that she went through a difficult time in the village where she used to live before coming to Amal with her family. But still, that seems no major point to me. Last not least, it is simply not true that she „does nothing“ in order to fight for her happiness. What is true is that the first step is pure contingency. Elin is the one who starts it all, for no reason except wanting to avoid Christian’s party and Johan’s presence. But in the course of the following events, Agnes does a lot, more than Elin in fact. First, and not least, she accepts Elin’s apology and lets her into her home. She trusts her into taking her to the very same party where she knows all the people who despise her are hanging out. She's the one who organizes the attempted flight to Stockholm. She is the one who gives Elin the second kiss. She walks up to Elin at school three times, and, upon being rejected, violently attacks her, then smashes the furniture of her room. Please forgive me for just a hint of mockery, but you really must have been busy hating the lead characters, especially in the second half of the film, if you missed all of this.

As I said, so much for starters! :D
Last edited by kant1781 on Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:39 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
kant1781
Crew Member
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Berlin

Re: Rant

Postby kant1781 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:08 am

[Sorry, I unintentionally posted this twice]
User avatar
kant1781
Crew Member
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Berlin

Re: Rant

Postby DMt. » Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:15 am

Owen wrote:I spent one hour and half responding to you, but then wanted to preview and it logged me out. So the beginning of this is a painful reconstitution :cry:


A horrible Horrible HORRIBLE thing! It used to happen to me a lot. *:|*

'Select All' and 'Copy' before leaving the active page saves much frustration [dump into an open text file on your desktop]. *:)*

Owen wrote:Well, unfortunately, I like to negatively criticise, and to see crap movies then spit on them.


Have you seen [in this order],

Let the Right One In,

and the 'remake' Let Me In ...? :twisted:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" - Voltaire
User avatar
DMt.
Crew Member
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Rant

Postby Owen » Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:10 am

So, I continue now to reply to the thread. I don't know if I'll be able to do it all in one post. But, either way I will not ignore your (quite interesting) remarks, Kant, and if I seem to do so, that's just me postponing. :lol:


Owen wrote:But so far, I think I will be the only one with this point of view.

DMt. wrote:for me NdP>FA, just like Owen, because it affected me more. I *was* that 15-year-old girl.


Yeeeeah 8) I am not alone. :mrgreen:



kant1781 wrote:Exactly what you describe happened to me - with Agnes. I immediately recognized myself in her - or, more precisely, I immediately recognized her self-conception as a perfect epitomisation of the way I saw myself when I was her age. I live through her pain, her desperation, her defiance, her eventual bliss as if they were mine, every single time.


I don't want to get too personal but if I were to theorise about what made me feel closer to Marie in NdP, I would say that it was because I did get a bitter ending and I knew that I was racing to nowhere, but I kept on going.


Why it's Agnes for me and Marie for you? Who knows? Who needs to know?


Ow. I've seen this after I wrote the reason. :roll:
But I'd say that the "why" always interests me. Even if the truth is unreachable.



Dahls wrote:After months on this boards without seeing FÅ, I can see how you got your hopes up, Owen. :P
Too bad the film failed to meet your expectations, but hey, films are a subjective matter anyway.


Wow, such a cool answer. :D


You say it lacks timelessness as opposed to NdP, but the 90's wasn't really timeless was it?


Yes, the nineties were definitely NOT timeless, but they pale in comparison to the eighties. Kant objects the same. However, my point was that FA is so grounded in the 90's Sweden that it leads somewhat astray from what the movie tries to say.


in high school in a rural scandinavian town (pretty much in the rest of the world too I presume), most kids where exactly that. Immature, insecure, often just plain mean.


You are probably right. But when I was in high school, I learnt that the most common thing that everyone exhibits is not meanness but plain indifference.



Santi wrote:I think, that all your answers are stronger when there is a strong critic in front of you (like owen).


I put your faith to test! :twisted: :P :lol:



Now, again, the long reply (I hope I will have time for it all).


kant1781 wrote:Thank you for your open-minded, thoughtful and gentle posts. I liked its style very much (as opposed to the style of your first one).


Thanks. :) I'm flattered. :oops: :mrgreen:


You made a distinction between (a) stating differences in subjective taste, (b) having a debate about some matter of fact, (c) flaming. That is a distinction which is dear to me but which most people who write on the internet will never get.


I think most people writing on the Internet don't even want to get the difference.


I am sorry that you were misled by some comments, here and elsewhere, into some inaccurate expectations concerning FA, because I seriously think that they (the wrong expectations) spoiled for you what could have been, otherwise, a wonderful experience.


Yes, expectations mean much to the result, and it is difficult to control them. Even if one knows that link.


where exactly is the argument for your claim that FA does not succeed in accomplishing the feat you‘re asking for?


I will quote myself
I gave arguments for almost all of my assertions

:mrgreen:

More seriously: I left this field to be discussed upon. If I don't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there. You actually shed some light on things that relate to "higher level", but not really when you talked about the subject of the movie (identity and love, independently of the orientation), more when you talked about Elin's evolution and irony of the movie.

So what do you mean by saying that instead of getting to a "higher level" , FA "promotes homosexuality naively“? I disagree. The film does not promote homosexuality at all. What it does promote is to find out who you are by finding – or rather: letting yourself be found by - someone in whom you can find yourself, by finding someone who sees in you what you yourself never dreamed of finding there, no matter who that someone is, and commit to that someone. It is as much about identity as it is about love. (But that is really no opposition, for one’s identity is forged in one’s loving relations to others.) There is nothing essentially homosexual about this topic.


I thought about this remark a long time.
First, i can't really say: "I think it promotes homosexuality because it is about homosexuality, and how the lesbian protagonist is mocked and rejected". It would not hold up for two reasons: because I proposed my theory on how the movies about lesbian love should reach on a higher level, and I don't like to contradict myself; and because in the film there is another character that is also mocked and rejected (I mean Viktoria), but instead of showing the parallel between her and Agnes we see a subversive treatment (she is a cripple but that doesn't automatically make her sympathetic).
Second, I can't answer precisely on what made me say "promotes homosexuality naively", because I start to forget details from the movie. And I also suspect that the "then-me" said that without giving it much thought. I think, because I couldn't find anything to relate to, I said what I would have said by default of another teen drama. So yeah, I am kinda admitting that I may have been not very much right. :D

Third, and it is a new argument, I did not feel that the story was so much about love as it was about friendship. I must say that I did not feel any sexual tension between the leads, and the end, when Elin talks about the milkshake (correct me if I'm wrong), I was like "you love each other, you are together, and that's all you can think of?". For me, Elin is straight. Though, I agree with you that it is about discovering identity, and seeing new things with the help of others (like in this very dicussion). Well, It is getting subjective again, but I felt more affection between them than love, and their kisses were more mimicking adults than expressing their true feelings (except the time when they kissed in the car, but I didn't like how it was done).


Just as an aside: I equally do not see an argument for why the film is supposed to be grounded in 1998 Sweden. Why? Because the clothes, the haircuts, the music, the cellphones, are outdated? But that is not an argument. The same will be true for NdP in 20 years from now, and people will notice. I am neither Swedish, nor a small-town kid, nor a lesbian (not even a girl), and I can totally relate to almost everything that is going on in FA if I think back to my adolescence.


I don't like the word "outdated". It carries in itself so much negativity. It implicitely tells that modern times are better because modern, and despises what was before. I myself grew during the nineties, so I can relate to all what is shown in the movie.
I prefer "dated". There is nothing wrong with dated. I was trying to say that I felt that these "dated" things bore little relevance to the plot and could be removed, because for me they were portrayed too prominently and were diverting from the subject. But I can see your response: does it mean that I should criticise all movies that are deeply anchored in their time? Of course no, we are just back in the subjective appreciation :P

However, I believe that the same will not be said about NdP. Because there are no cellphones nor computers (things that evolve so much). Haircuts are unobtrusive, so are clothes (and I don't criticise these for FA, I don't pay much attention to them, because of the variety that I see everyday).


Now here is the second question. It is quite simple: Even if you could somehow convince me that FA really does not transcend the topic of „homosexuality“, that it does not connect to the (or a) more „universal“ theme of love – what exactly would be wrong with that? You say that, for you, „lesbian movies“ should aspire to do just that, that you „expect“ them to. But why – and above all, by what right - is that? I seriously do not understand this. Is this, again, a matter of subjective taste of preference? Is it because of what you, personally, are interested in? Or is there an aesthetic rule or some other intersubjectively valid idea why this is what filmmakers should aspire to do?


This is an arduous one. How did I come to expect that from "lesbian movies" (is you underline that I abusively use the appelation, I respond that it is only because it is shorter to write than "movies about lesbian love")? It is a personal expectation, really, maybe because I feel there is much potential for universality in the subject of lesbian love. Why? I can't say clearly, but I will reflect upon it.


Let us assume - and again, I think this is utterly wrong, but let us assume just for the sake of the argument – that whatever it is that Fucking Amal has to tell us, it is a message that is uniquely relevant for the topic of homosexual love, and could not be universalized – what exactly would be wrong with that, except that you, as (I suppose) a straight male, would find it less interesting? If that is all, I fail to be impressed by this sort of argument.


Well, I personally would feel that it misses something. But see above, I can't explain well why. (And yes, I am a straight male.)


Unfortunately, I am out of time now, and must go, so I will finish later. Resuming, you opened my eyes on Elin's evolution as a character (and I thank you); concerning Agnes, I can't say anything precise yet. You also revealed to me that FA contained a lot of irony, that I sure missed.


As I said, so much for starters! :D


Looking at the size of your posts, I fear for the rest. :lol:


DMt. wrote:'Select All' and 'Copy' before leaving the active page saves much frustration [dump into an open text file on your desktop]. *:)*


Thanks, that's what I did. In fact I was aware of my mistake when the page started to load. I selected what I could but didn't have time to press ctrl+C.


Have you seen [in this order],

Let the Right One In,

and the 'remake' Let Me In ...? :twisted:


Why? Would you like to see more rants? :T :mrgreen:

(I have not, but I will investigate.)
User avatar
Owen
Gold Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:04 pm
Location: France

Re: Rant

Postby DMt. » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:46 am

Well, THAT should be interesting... :twisted:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" - Voltaire
User avatar
DMt.
Crew Member
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:24 pm

Re: Rant

Postby Santi » Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:01 pm

The forums are for little discussions, and short discussions .

I'm tired because These responses are so many long.

I think you do not know to use a forum. Can not be answering to all people, 20 o more answers at the same time.
I'm tired…
User avatar
Santi
Crew Member
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:31 am
Location: Catalonia

Re: Rant

Postby Ian » Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:02 am

Yeah alright, enough. Bored now. At the end of the day, this is an FA forum, so slagging the film off is never going to go down well and is rather a daft thing to do in the first place. Enough.
User avatar
Ian
Webmaster
 
Posts: 16102
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:39 am
Location: Round the Bend

Re: Rant

Postby M83 » Wed May 27, 2015 6:02 pm

Ian wrote:Yeah alright, enough. Bored now. At the end of the day, this is an FA forum, so slagging the film off is never going to go down well and is rather a daft thing to do in the first place. Enough.


I'm one of the few people who can't quite get the love in for Water Lilies on here, first off I think its a very good movie but its not in the same bracket as Fucking Amal cause it's too stand offish and a little too cold for my tastes basically very French. Plus I think it should have been cut for time as it does drag out a little but I did like the central performances from Pauline Acquart and Adele Haenel (who's a really top actress and probably the best out of either film and has gone on to bigger heights, and is actually a Lesbian in real life) and Acquart is excellent and very creepy in parts and Haenel is a very good Femme Fatale. The ending is very French. I didn't like the whole storyline with Louise Blachère, the friend. Plus I think Director/Writer Céline Sciamma has gone onto better things with Tomboy and Girlhood both better films but I can see why Pauline Acquart gets a lot of love on here, she is beautiful.


I just like Fucking Amal a lot more cause it wears its heart on its sleeve and is more welcoming in for its viewer, I think the film with its first 45 minutes or so (basically up to the kiss on the car) which I think are probably the best 45 minutes of film I've seen is Moodysson's bets writing still to this day. After a few years of rewatching it quite a few times, I think the films takes a little dip (not much) when Rebecka Liljeberg gets less screen time and Alexandra Dahlström Elin comes to the fore. I think Alexandra gives a great performance in the last 40 minutes or so, but the film loses something until Rebecka appears near the end. It's only a slight picky moment for me cause I think its a classic still to this day.
M83
Gold Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:12 am

PreviousNext

Return to Fucking Åmål (Show Me Love)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron