Moderator: Ian
Santi wrote:Sorry, my English is very bad.
DMt wrote:I seem to recall Owen saying he only gets to post at weekends.
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 liked what you wrote a lot, and a contrarian view is often fruitful matter for debate; but after this...
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.
The movie is not so bad...
or perhaps we enjoy things badly done.
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.
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.
Who in their right frame of mind would have thought otherwise, and why? Because some dork referred to FA as "the Swedish NdP"?
FA, believe it or not, has been and still is advertised in Germany as "the Swedish American Pie"
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
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.
I am speaking out against staging that type of competition, doing which is, to my mind, ludicrous.
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.
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 - on that basis, but not on the basis of anything less.
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
...apart from ahem suggesting that all that passion might be better invested in appreciation of what he actually does like.
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.
Ian wrote:FA>Water Lilies.
kant1781 wrote:If his idea was to provoke a response from the FA lovers, he certainly reached his goal with me.
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.
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 )
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.
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.“
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
Owen wrote:Well, unfortunately, I like to negatively criticise, and to see crap movies then spit on them.
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.
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.
Why it's Agnes for me and Marie for you? Who knows? Who needs to know?
Dahls wrote:After months on this boards without seeing FÅ, I can see how you got your hopes up, Owen.
Too bad the film failed to meet your expectations, but hey, films are a subjective matter anyway.
You say it lacks timelessness as opposed to NdP, but the 90's wasn't really timeless was it?
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.
Santi wrote:I think, that all your answers are stronger when there is a strong critic in front of you (like owen).
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).
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 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.
where exactly is the argument for your claim that FA does not succeed in accomplishing the feat you‘re asking for?
I gave arguments for almost all of my assertions
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.
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.
As I said, so much for starters!
DMt. wrote:'Select All' and 'Copy' before leaving the active page saves much frustration [dump into an open text file on your desktop].
Have you seen [in this order],
Let the Right One In,
and the 'remake' Let Me In ...?
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.
Return to Fucking Åmål (Show Me Love)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests