fucking-amal.com

yes, is true

Can't really argue with that. I'm not really all that fussed about Water Lilies either. It's okay, but that's about it.

In my view they are both exceptional films.
I love the performances of all three lead characters in NdP.
Great story, well told.

But I also agree with M83 in saying of FÅ "its a classic still to this day."
Hopelessly love Bex and Lex.

This issue was already discussed and reached the same results

We don't even have to try to make anyone love what we love, everyone is different and will be moved by different things.

fish wrote:In my view they are both exceptional films.
I love the performances of all three lead characters in NdP.
Great story, well told.

But I also agree with M83 in saying of FÅ "its a classic still to this day."
Hopelessly love Bex and Lex.

As I once said before Fish, Water Lillies is what FA would be if you wanted to make a darker version. They'd make a great double bill of coming of age Lesbian films.

M83 wrote:...They'd make a great double bill...

Certainly would.
I'm sure someone, somewhere has already done it.
It'd be worth going to see, that's for sure.

Having only seen both on domestic media [and not very grand domestic media at that] I'd be there like a shot.

Films are meant to be seen on *big* screens.

M83 wrote: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.

I don't feel that Water Lilies is "very French". But you are not the first one whom I hear dismissing it based on the "nationality" appreciation. The problem with French artist films is often (I think) the pretensiousness, the opaque and useless intertextuality, unconvincing performances, and dragging pace. In WL I don't see any pretensiousness, it is very direct only, by its coldness (because there is coldness all right, but by choice) and minimalism (but the ambition and the goals actually reached by a piece of work are very subjective notions). There is intertextuality in a sense, but very subtle, the film mainly tries to do its own thing (and I think succeeds, because I haven't seen any other movie like it, and I mean NONE). The perfomances go with the aesthetics, cold, minimalistic, functional; but it this domain the leads are all perfect. Finally, the pace is also a choice by the director, and I admit it drags out a little, but I've seen worse, and I don't mind when it serves the story and the message. But I don't think it could have been cut further (there are already 2 or 3 deleted scenes on the DVD), the movie is already only 80 minutes long. But I admit that there are scenes with no clear purpose, but Sciamma certainly let them in for a reason (and for me the fun is to try to find why).

What does mean "the ending is very French"? That it is left for the viewer to decide the aftermath? I have seen it in numerous non-French movies too. And the story concludes, actually.
I don't like the story with Blachère too, but it is interesting conceptually (just thought about it today, and how I seem to neglect it in the global architecture). It acts as a counterweight to the Marie's arc. And I like how both take a different path to the (roughly) same place.

I have not seen Girlhood yet, but in Tomboy it lacked something, it felt like a empty shell, maybe because of the absence of music, or the absence of my empathy towards the story. The performances were outstanding though, and I liked the ending.

About FA, I didn't like the first 45 minutes, and also the 45 minutes after that. The cinematography and the characters were painful (but now I see some qualities too, it deserves a rewatch). However I agree that if the story stayed with Agnes, it could have been a very different movie (and I like when we stay with a less prominent/introspective/silent character).

M83 wrote: They'd make a great double bill of coming of age Lesbian films.

I would watch it only if NdP is the second one

Owen wrote:...I would watch it only if NdP is the second one

Any order will suit me, I'd just like to see them both in the cinema again.

Just read the post and some of the replies, not everything (you write too much, folks...).

I'm not interested in comparison between the two movies (I obviously liked FA a lot more) and I think it's pointless, I just wanto to evaluate some of the criticism addressed to Fucking Amal.
First: the people represented in the movie are stupid, violent, shallow. I think most of the boys and girls are young persons trying do develop and define themselves, and their characterization is quite realistic, with the good and the bad of these people. Of their shortcomings, many of them are aware. The adults are more mature and this is realistic, too. Owen seems to despise the characters a bit too much.

As for the stakes,

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".

I am no gay and while I think it's a good thing there are beautiful young girls in the movie, I didn't like it just for that. FA is a story about finding yourself and your courage, fighting for your identity, your truths, your feelings and your love. For me.
So, there's a meaning behind the simple lesbian love story? I think for a lot of people there is. The fact that FA developed a strong following proves Owen's opinion is... wrong? Let's say "subjective."

The director chose to represent the facts in a natural, realistic, matter of fact style and everyone can decide if he/she likes it or not. It was quite successful: many people liked it. Moodysson didn't make anything at the same level (and again, this is just a personal opinion, and I still have to watch We are the Best) but no one can take away from him this masterpiece.
Anyway, what makes a cult movie? I think no one can say it (else we could have a lot of them!). FA managed to connect with several people, maybe for different reasons, and this is a fact.

Sorry for my horrendous english.

In this forum there seems to be someone who needs confrontation but don't needs opinion .
I do not talk about you Bruno.

Santi wrote:In this forum there seems to be someone who needs confrontation but don't needs opinion .

And is this somehow wrong? I'm not agressive towards anyone. I try to be argumentative, that's all. And opinions are good too, I'm not criticizing anyone for their tastes.

bruno wrote:First: the people represented in the movie are stupid, violent, shallow. I think most of the boys and girls are young persons trying do develop and define themselves, and their characterization is quite realistic, with the good and the bad of these people. Of their shortcomings, many of them are aware. The adults are more mature and this is realistic, too. Owen seems to despise the characters a bit too much.

I compared the characters with myself and my entourage. We were not like that.

bruno wrote:FA is a story about finding yourself and your courage, fighting for your identity, your truths, your feelings and your love. For me.
So, there's a meaning behind the simple lesbian love story? I think for a lot of people there is.

This is good stuff.

bruno wrote:The fact that FA developed a strong following proves Owen's opinion is... wrong? Let's say "subjective."

I don't think you can use the argument of a cult following. It is a complex phenomenon, that roots in as much in "qualities" of a movie as in the cultural state of people who loved it or not.

bruno wrote:Anyway, what makes a cult movie? I think no one can say it (else we could have a lot of them!). FA managed to connect with several people, maybe for different reasons, and this is a fact.

I think that analysing the cult following of movies may be a good social study.

Anyway, people, even in disagreement we should be good to each other here.
Peace

bruno wrote:Anyway, people, even in disagreement we should be good to each other here.
Peace

I agree with you whole heartedly here.
Hi Bruno.