love

Author Topic: A Decade of Filmspots  (Read 24895 times)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: A Decade of Filmspots
« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2016, 02:03:28 AM »
Another case where Best Line should be 2 different categories, Best Line (Written) and Best Line Delivery. "That is so unfair!" means nothing to me apart from how it's used in the film, much like 'NO!" in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: A Decade of Filmspots
« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2016, 09:49:48 AM »
How has Smirnoff not seen Fury Road? I don't think my brain can process that information.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: A Decade of Filmspots
« Reply #32 on: September 07, 2016, 02:51:18 PM »
Another case where Best Line should be 2 different categories, Best Line (Written) and Best Line Delivery. "That is so unfair!" means nothing to me apart from how it's used in the film, much like 'NO!" in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

I like this idea.

How has Smirnoff not seen Fury Road? I don't think my brain can process that information.

:) There's really no excuse... except maybe that I'm waiting until I buy a proper TV again to watch it on.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: A Decade of Filmspots
« Reply #33 on: September 07, 2016, 04:35:28 PM »
Seeing it on a big screen was a treat. Haven't watched it since that viewing.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: A Decade of Filmspots
« Reply #34 on: September 07, 2016, 08:24:20 PM »
Has it grown in your mind since then, lessened, or about the same?

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: A Decade of Filmspots
« Reply #35 on: September 07, 2016, 08:46:22 PM »
Definitely grown in my mind.

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: A Decade of Filmspots
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2016, 05:58:01 PM »


Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem
Ronit Elkabetz & Shlomi Elkabet, 2014

smirnoff:      In the spoiler thread oldkid remarks that the film is "strongly reminiscent of 12 Angry Men in it's simplicity and power". How do you feel about that statement?
pixote:The film definitely invites comparison to 12 Angry Men, just by virtue of its being a legal story that takes place completely within the confines of a court. I'm not sure how much the similarities extend beyond that for me, though. 12 Angry Men, for better and worse, is the much simpler film, I think. The on-screen action is confined to a day or two (versus up to five years for Gett), as is the off-screen action (the crime and the trial), and the characters in the film all find unity by the end (more or less). On the other hand, Gett's off-screen story spans decades, and it's not completely off-screen, since much of it is chronicled in two earlier films about this marriage. (I didn't know this was part of a trilogy until after.)
smirnoff:   That's news to me too!
pixote:And there's not really agreement at the end; I'm not sure a single character changes their mind about anything. It's maybe a bit more nuanced than 12 Angry Men (though not necessarily more enjoyable).
smirnoff:Perhaps if I was a living wherever and whenever this movie took place, and was born into that same culture, guilty of the same thinking, I would be vulnerable to it's shaming the way Henry Fonda can shame me in 12 Angry Men. I'm often guilty of the things he's fighting back against in that tiny room. I watch that film and it keeps me in check. It reminds me what's important. I did not feel checked watching Gett. I was not shamed by it. As a tool for moral calibration it didn't have any value to me. And isn't that sometimes the risk when you watch a foreign film? It may not be directed at you. When I think of 12 Angry Men's "power", that's it, but I realize that oldkid may mean something a little different, so I hope he chimes in.

Was this an issue for you at all?
pixote:It's not an issue I associate with foreign films so much as any films that preach to the choir. I start Gett firmly in Viviane's corner, frustrated on her behalf, sickened by the option's made available to her by rabbinical law; and that never changes.
smirnoff:   Yes! My experience was the same.
pixote:I think it might actually have been a more interesting film if the point-of-view were shifted more to Elisha or his brother or one of the judges -- because they all remained ciphers to me, in some respects. I could maybe intellectualize where they were coming from, but I could never feel it the way I could with Viviane.

Maybe it's not so cut-and-dry as that though. I mean, it's not like 12 Years a Slave opened my eyes to the fact that slavery is bad. I kinda knew that going in. But that film still had a power to it. Where'd that power come from? Is it because the film still has relevance to racial inequalities that still pervade our society? But then again, don't the patriarchal inequalities of Gett have equal relevance to life in the US and Canada, even if there's maybe an extra degree of separation?
smirnoff:   Hmm, does the film perhaps take a more neutral position than those other films? Does it stop short of making villains out of its characters in a way that the other films do not? Or is it something more vague. A tonal neutrality perhaps. While a film like 12 Angry Men accentuates the moments of despair or moments of happiness, be it with music, or the camera, Gett is stylistically very flat. Even at Vivian's lowest point is there any change? Could that stagnancy deny a viewer an emotional journey?
pixote:I don't think Gett lacks for villainy. I got mad just now remembering the sinister zeal with which the husband's brother fabricated out of thin air — like a medium at a seance — the accusation that the wife's lawyer was in love with her; and the way judges seem to accept the baseless slander as relevant fact. Ugh!

Maybe it's just the relentlessness of the experience. There are really no high or lows. No variance at all in my state as a viewer: I never laugh or cried or cheered or came closing to tearing up or pumped my fist or anything like that. I was, like don s., more or less riveted — but in the same way that I can lose myself in the intricacies of filing my income tax. Not a whole lot of emotional contrast. Even though I was rooting for Viviane, the film doesn't make any effort to make her likeable (which is fine, thematically, but maybe an impediment to full engagement). What was your experience like as a viewer? Did the film make you sleepy, like Sandy implied it might?
smirnoff:   I can't think of any examples of a courtroom scene or film that I didn't find compelling, and this one was no different. It never lost me, even if it bored me on occasion. Such as when a few of the witnesses testified. But on the whole I would say I was compelled. But I definitely relate to what you said about not experiencing any shifts during the film. Where I started is where I finished.

Either way, it's seems like a very deliberate stylistic choice was made not to contribute to the drama with any cinematic embellishments. I'm reminded of Jeanne Dielman. Do you feel there were any benefits to that choice in this case?
pixote:I'm torn about the style. I think it's effective in its claustrophobia, making us feel trapped inside the patriarchal bureaucracy of that drab courtroom the same way that Viviane is trapped in her loveless marriage. I read afterwards that, until the last scene, every shot in the film is more of less a point-of-view shot. We only see the characters through each other's eyes; there's never a master shot showing the whole room, with all the characters at once. That's theoretically kind of interesting/cool, but I don't know how much it really affected my viewing experience. I sort of longed for a little more artfulness to the cinematography, and I very rarely felt like I was seeing things from the perspective of anyone but Viviane and her lawyer. Was it the same for you?
smirnoff:   There were definitely times where I appreciated the matter-of-fact presentation. For instance, the way it would jump forward in time immediately after proceedings had concluded... "2 months later", "5 months later", etc. I really, really appreciated it not lingering and just getting on with things. For sure this contributed to my level of engagement. The one time the film did linger, with that close up of Viviane staring directly into the camera for 50 or 60 seconds, I thought "I am getting nothing out of this moment". I was grateful there wasn't more of that.
pixote:I was thinking today that if the same exact film existed, but was a documentary, I'd rate it much more highly. (Maybe that's true of any film. Batman vs. Superman surely would've been amazing if it were a doc.) Gett would've engaged me more if I'd had a better sense of what was real versus what was just serving a movie narrative. Am I watching an exaggerated satire or a genuine docudrama? I couldn't always be sure. What would have improved the movie for you?
smirnoff:   It's funny you say that. When I added Gett to my list I had just assumed it was a documentary title I was writing down. It just sounds like a documentary. I'd never heard of it before, but that's not unusual for that category. The premise intrigued me. It was only later I came across something that tipped me off to it not being a doc. So I'm quite in agreement, this would be a terrific subject for a documentary.

As for improving this film, I think a tweak of the script could help. In the film Viviane comes to the courtroom wanting a divorce, but for reasons that are too vague to give the judges grounds for granting her request. They are looking for something concrete. Adultery, failure to provide food or money, physical abuse, etc. Viviane admits that none of these things are a problem in her marriage. She wants a divorce for reasons that can't be demonstrated to the court... reasons of the heart. Nevertheless, much of the movie is spent trying to establish that there are grounds for a divorce that satisfy the law. Rather than ever finding those grounds I think the judges just kind of want done with the matter and say they will process her divorce if her husband agrees. Kind of an underwhelming victory for Viviane.
pixote:I operated under the assumption that, if the roles were reversed, the husband wouldn't have had to provide grounds for divorce in the same manner. His saying "we're incompatible" would have been sufficient. But the system is stacked against Viviane, as a woman. That's where the real drama is, I think. She can't truly win.
smirnoff:   I think there's some interesting legal distinctions that could be explored and more made of the shortfalls in the current laws. Or perhaps Viviane, knowing that court would require strong grounds, starts the film lying about some abuse by her husband, later to be caught in that lie but appeals to the courts that these are the desperate measures women must go to if they want a divorce and doesn't that demonstrate something about the quality of the marriage? Something with a little more cunning or mystery than what there is, which is her trying to walk through a brick wall.

I like when legal films get into the weeds, so more of that would've suited me.
pixote:Yeah, I'm all about the weeds. The more legal intricacies, the better. Though in Hollywood, which is patriarchal in its own way, they probably would've made the lawyer the main character and made the film really about his unrequited love for Viviane. The tragedy of the ending would've been that HE couldn't be with her.

Mom has questions about this one.

pixote:I was worried I wouldn't be able to guess what Mom's question might have been, but, ha, pretty obvious. I don't think the filmmakers meant for their ending to be so ambiguous. What'd you make of those shoes walking down the corridor?
smirnoff:   My first impression was "those are not Vivian's legs"... but then I thought "well, who else's would they be?", so I just went with what made the most sense, it must be her. It eventually occurred to me that what I must be watching is her making that "walk" the judge refers to. A couple of scenes earlier they go into great detail about how the divorce will proceed, and there's a very particular set of steps involving walking from the door to the husband and back to the door again... something like that anyways. I thought that's what I was watching, her official divorce walk. It made sense in the context of the moment, since it seemed her husband had finally agreed to the divorce.

I didn't realize till after that the scene may have been something else altogether. What did you make of it?
pixote:Here are the options I considered:

a) Vivian, soon after we last saw her, is making the walk to finalize her divorce.
b) Vivian, soon after we last saw her, is taking her first steps as a divorced woman.
c) After her husband went back on his word yet again, Viviane, years later, is still going to court, still trying to get her divorce.
d) Another woman is walking to court, on the first day of her own divorce trial, continuing the cycle.

I think (a) is real answer, and the focus on Viviane's plain shoes is meant as a contrast to more stylish footwear she had on during the trial. By promising her husband there'd never be another man after him, Viviane has traded freedom for freedom. Even in victory, she's not truly free, and the plain shoes are a symbol of the sacrifice of her full femininity.

That's how I read it anyway.
smirnoff:   That's well read I'd say.
pixote:There even seems to be confusion about what Viviane had to do in order to get the divorce. Some viewers seem to think she had to sleep with her husband one last time. oldkid has a conspiracy theory that maybe she had to sleep with a judge to turn the trial her way. I think the film is as complicated as all that.
smirnoff:   Maybe that would have improved it! :)

The main judge had a great voice, don't you think? :)
pixote:Haha, yeah. All the performances seemed to really grow and improve over the course of the film. The characters mostly remained two-dimensional for me. As I've said before, I really wish I could have understood them all better — figuratively seeing things from their point of view, not just literally. I still liked the film, but just minimally — a B-. How do you rate it overall?
smirnoff:   2 out of 4 maybe. I can't imagine repeating the experience, not even to further explore the sex with judge theories. There are no moments in the film that I would be looking forward to as I pressed play. Nothing to say wow about. Did you say wow at anything? I like wow moments.  :)

Quote
Best Overlooked Film
     Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem — 28.0%
     A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night — 24.4%
     Jauja — 22.0%
     Mistress America — 13.0%
     The End of the Tour — 12.7%

smirnoff:   How do you feel about it winning in that category now? I haven't seen any of the other films listed there so I can't really say.
pixote:The other nominees sadly remain overlooked by me as well — though A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night is pretty high up on my Netflix queue. Maybe I'll get to it later in this marathon. It'd be nice to finally have a strong opinion about the Overlooked nominees, since its a category I love but haven't actually been able to explore very much.

Grade:2/4 (smirnoff)
B- (pixote)
« Last Edit: September 10, 2016, 05:59:50 PM by pixote »
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: A Decade of Filmspots
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2016, 06:17:26 PM »
After the first reference to the spoiler thread I was kind of hoping my hypothesis would come up of her being less sympathetic because she chooses to fight the strictures of orthodox religion instead of opting for the easy freedom of secular society where nothing was stoping her from existing the one relationship and starting the new one. The court only had power over religious consecration of the relationship.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: A Decade of Filmspots
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2016, 09:15:41 PM »
There was something said early in the film, perhaps by Viviane herself, or by one of the judges trying to dissaude her, about how even in cases of officially sanctioned divorces there exists a social stigma which divorced women are forced to live with. It seemed like Viviane believed that was true, but was willing to deal with it. I have to imagine that her going the secular route would come with it's own social consequences. Maybe it was too big a price for her. Nevertheless it would've been interesting to hear weigh that option and understand why she didn't take it.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: A Decade of Filmspots
« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2016, 09:19:15 PM »
What was your experience like as a viewer? Did the film make you sleepy, like Sandy implied it might?

Oh! I forget that tea is a pick me up. :-[ :) I was offering soothing herbal tea, for the trauma smirnoff was being exposed to.