Author Topic: Top 100 Club: smirnoff  (Read 27366 times)

jdc

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #100 on: December 14, 2020, 07:46:07 PM »
"I think I saw this movie because of smirnoff's list too. :)"

I think so as well.
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #101 on: December 15, 2020, 10:16:49 AM »
Thank you Sandy and JDC! Yes it was an interesting experience and it's hard for me sometimes to separate my life from what I see on screen. Especially when it says all the things im thinking or living but have never been able to articulate. I'm glad I got to share in this and will have to explore Mike Leigh a bit more! I appreciate you all!
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #102 on: December 15, 2020, 12:53:38 PM »
Let's do Tremors with a bonus commentary on Four Weddings and a Funeral as per a request on my feel-good marathon.

Tremors is exactly what I expected it to be, sort of what I remember it being on all those portions I caught on cable some 20-25 years ago. We have a creature feature with fun practical effects that bring together this very strange town of people in Perfection, Nevada. It's supremely kitschy, some of the characters are outright cutouts, i.e. Michael Gross and Reba McEntire as the gun and food hoarding survivalists waiting for WWIII, and it's kind of fun all at the same time. Bacon and Ward have good chemistry, so it has that funny buddy film aspect to it that makes it work. Beyond that, it's just an absurd concept with shots from the worms perspective, crane shots, and quick editing to wrap you up in the near-farcical chaos of this film. Unlike maybe a few creature features I can think of that carry weightier themes, this seems like nothing more than a survival flick, plain and simple. No real political metaphor that I can suss out of this one. Just massive, killer worms trying to get some sustenance, and humans using their brains to destroy them before the worms meet their objectives and tear them all apart. It's a popcorn flick, except I can't eat and look at guts. My stomach is massively weak. I normally eat first, then watch a movie. I'd say almost every one makes it hard for me to eat.

An old man dead in a transmission tower, still holding a shotgun. A car burried with it’s headlights pointing skyward. Even though we know what the cause of these mysteries is before the movie starts, there’s still a lot to be enjoyed in the imagery. It’s an absurd premise, but it forces our characters to find interesting solutions. As a kid you understand the rules immediately. This is the ultimate version of the floor is lava. A playground of buildings and vehicles and natural safe spots, and the fun comes in navigating from one to another.

Do you find it too light? I kind of think that’s a blessing… escapism instead of making a point. It wouldn’t get made like this these days… you can imagine who Burt and Heather would be representing on the political spectrum. It wouldn’t be possible for me to have fun if the film dredged up all my bitterness… Who has the patience to be lectured by a film about giant worms anyways? Heck with that. Pardon my French. :))

Can you play this movie for your students under the guise of a geology lesson?

Quote
Four Weddings and a Funeral didn't really go down for me because it is, in my view, just a collection of pretty faces. I found humor in some of it, I enjoyed some of the secondary characters, especially Gareth, Matthew, and Father Gerald Bean, but I found it to be shallow overall. We are supposed to be tantalized with the idea of Charles and Carrie somehow being together, let down by Carrie marrying that older man, but outside of what I would consider mostly petty love interests - on what, precisely, is any level of a strong bond being built between these two? - there is no substance to the film. I think the familiarity with these types of events and the lovingly idiosyncratic group of friends can make this an engaging, comfort food type of a film, but I can't relate to anyone in the film, and feel like I would never want to meet any of them, save Gareth and Matthew, in real life. But in my marathon, I don't really like the idea of people offering up films that make them feel good, only to bash them, instead of trying myself to get on the wavelength of the film and at least appreciate it. There was enough for me to latch on to Four Weddings and a Funeral to where I could satisfy the mission of my marathon, which I'm enjoying quite a bit so far. But the film didn't sit that well with the more critic-y part of me. Basically, it's not for me.

It’s okay, I’m glad you tried. You describe the group as a collection of pretty faces, with some strong idiosyncrasies. That’s fair. They are also bonded in another way. As Gareth says “there is at the moment not a wedding ring between the lot of us - which is particularly disappointing in the case of the heterosexuals here present”. I think that is the primary source of comfort-food like quality of the film. Seeing each of them find someone. Notably, only one of them finds any success deliberately. The others come by the right person by chance. Garath again, “A toast before we head into battle - to true love - in whatever shape or form it comes. May all of us in our dotage be proud to say ,I was adored once too.” It’s a bit silly perhaps, even to them, but it is heroic too and a lot of fun. This moment defines the film for me.

In that way I think it is okay that we do not really know Carrie very well or understand what it is exactly that Charles likes so much about her (I certainly don’t), or what any of the others like about the people they ultimately fall for. Because it’s not a film about who these Muskateers are fighting, but that they do fight and succeed. Or that’s kind of how I like to look at it. :) I make the case more strongly than does the film probably.

It’s light stuff with some fun and funny writing. I could do without quite a few scenes though, particularly the one where Carrie is trying on wedding dresses. I really hate that part. Andie MacDowell is not good.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #103 on: December 15, 2020, 10:38:29 PM »
Do you find it too light? I kind of think that’s a blessing… escapism instead of making a point. It wouldn’t get made like this these days… you can imagine who Burt and Heather would be representing on the political spectrum. It wouldn’t be possible for me to have fun if the film dredged up all my bitterness… Who has the patience to be lectured by a film about giant worms anyways? Heck with that. Pardon my French. :))

Can you play this movie for your students under the guise of a geology lesson?

Second part first, LMAO. 4th graders, I'm finding, have the most king-sized of imaginations on the planet. They would not be able to separate gigantic, killer worms from any other rumbles in the earth, and would probably be randomly found on the roofs of their homes for the next year or so. And my certificate would be called in.

On the first point, I don't typically do well with pure escapism, but it depends. My observation on theme was far more just that, an observation, than a criticism. My primary criticism would be in the writing, especially in how basic some of the characters are. I liked the back-and-forth between Val and Earl, but there isn't much I can readily remember about any of the banter, and it wasn't as funny as I had expected. As for my own tastes, there is one creature feature in my 100, The Host, which has some heady themes and some difficult turns, but is as outright escapist as anything you'll find on that list, outside of maybe The Sound of Music and The Neverending Story (neither of which are all that light, either, what with Nazis and an ever-expanding abyss). Anyway, sort of a perspective on where I'm coming from. Even though I initially said it was exactly what I expected it to be, I actually think I was expecting a little more, but I did like it.

There is a distinct visual appealing to both Four Weddings and a Funeral and Tremors, which, along with your beloved True Grit and the Nolan films you like, help me start to understand your taste, though I still need much more data. I still don't process the visual information in films with the acuity many people who post here possess, so I kind of suck at laying out the shots that really draw you in, though I know them as I experience them. I've been an avid reader far longer than I've thought seriously and frequently about cinema, so I process literary themes and characterization much more easily than visual themes and motifs. I'm working on it.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 09:08:56 PM by etdoesgood »
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #104 on: December 16, 2020, 10:20:36 AM »
ANATOMY OF A MURDER (1959) - As a newly minted attorney at law this was a very enjoyable experience staying relatively close to the more realistic aspects of a criminal trial.  James Stewart plays our attorney, a southern gentleman (interestingly who has an alcoholic friend that sort of hints at a possible influence on John Grisham's characters in A TIME TO KILL, not sure but a thought) who is a caricature of a fire and brimstone attorney (that are actually quite rare in my limited experience and for reasons I'll mention later).  The case itself is extremely spicy by today's standards much less the late 50s, a military lieutenant is on trial for the murder of a barkeep who allegedly attacked and raped his wife.  Initially the lieutenant believes the murder to be justified because of the expected outrage any husband would have in response to such an atrocity against his wife.  It is pretty common for the public to have misconceptions about the application of law and defenses and the movie gets it absolutely correct that such a defense is not possible unless the husband walked in the act en flagrante delicto, and even then such a defense is imperfect (in the sense that it would mitigate the offense from murder to manslaughter).  Ben Gazzara plays our military officer whom I strangely remember for his interesting part (and his drawn picture haha) from the BIG LEBOWSKI. He is great in this as he exudes sliminess underneath his out-of-regs officer uniform.  Lee Remick steals the show as the victim-wife, she is gorgeous, but also playing a role that sort of reflects some of the double standard of the times. The marriage is clearly your normal military marriage (from a much broader experience within my own family who have served in some capacity in every branch of the armed forces), two young people who have very little in common except for carnal desires and having no business getting married.

The story unfolds in a pretty similar way a normal trial would going through some of the pre-trial stuff, I really appreciated the way Stewart contemplates defenses with his client, but never gaining too much incriminating information (or promoting fraudulent falsehoods by the client) to stay within the required ethical bounds.  It is actually pretty brilliant because it allows Stewart to present the only way he can secure a victory with a legally viable defense, but allowing the lieutenant to consider why and how he was temporarily insane.  This insanity defense is one you would learn for the bar exam, but is extremely jurisdictionally dependent. What's great is it shows the ancient way of legal research, diving through voluminous legal books reading cases--thanks to the internet and Westlaw (or Lexis depending on your preference) that kind of research no longer requires any books, but the reading of a multitude of cases remains.  Clearly I enjoyed the technical aspects of the film, though once the trial is underway Stewart's antics, as well as the prosecution's might have found some citations for contempt or Rule 11 sanctions. The use and introduction of evidence has also changed a bit, but these are minor quibbles and the use of these antics heighten the drama of the film so quite easily forgiven.

Remick's character does raise a few things though, she is sort of portrayed by the prosecution as this sort of hussy running around and very likely having an affair.  In fact they try to insinuate that she may not even have been raped at all, the film does setup a few scenes to allude that this is perhaps true.  When Stewart finds her out on the town (while her husband is on trial!) and tells her to leave immediately and that she needed to "wear a girdle" from now on, he recognizing that the impressions required for a trial did require some better behavior on her part. The film is great at leaving some questions on the truth of what actually happened, though the ending seems to resolve toward an ending that supports justice.  Remick is treated as if she is morally bad because she is not your traditional good girl type wearing a girdle and not going out dancing. I get where Stewart is coming from on the legal perspective front, but not on the "you need to wear a girdle" front, I am guessing this means more of "you need to wear a bra" (as a man with no experience I am not sure the difference so only speculating) because we better not see even a hint of nipple (shocking!). She is a beautiful young woman and her husband was likely no faithful angel, yet his sin is forgiveable because a man is entitled to defend the honor of his wife--as if he owns her and is given additional rights to defend that honor. Now I am not saying any man would be devastated and ferociously angry at the news of the alleged rape, but it is pretty clear that Gazzara's character's motives are entirely selfish and not rooted in any kind of chilvarous or noble justice.  Remick on the other hand is questioned about her clothes and how she dresses in the outside world, this kind of victim shaming is very out of date and if allowed in for the prosecution should have swung open the door completely (which it sort of does) for the rape being a driving force that sparked the temporary insanity. 

This is a really fun story and even for a non-legal film watcher this is such juicy material a mix of bad characters and some twists along the way make for a great watch.  Remick, Stewart, and Gazzara are complimented by a strong supporting cast that includes George C. Scott as the attorney general assisting the prosecution.  Great technical work and a really fun film!
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #105 on: December 19, 2020, 01:58:25 PM »
Room 237
“Anything you say, Lloyd. Anything you say.”

I’m generally resistant to theories on deeper meanings. (This isn’t subtext, which I like a lot.) It’s difficult enough to tell a movie’s story well, but for it to actually be about something else that only a handful of people will get strikes me as missing the forest for the trees. One of my earliest encounters with this was the sexual imagery found throughout Dr. Strangelove. It’s there, but that’s not what the movie is ‘really about’. It’s just one of the underlying themes that strengthen the main satirical target. I tried travelling this road once myself. In my earliest days here I wrote about The Marx Brothers film Duck Soup, and in an effort to inflate its importance I said it was attacking the economics of war. I was called out on it and overall pretty embarrassed to feel like I had to say more than the movie is hysterically funny.

I’ve had a strange Mandela Effect relationship with The Shining. I was convinced the film was seen as a major disappointment by Kubrick, and it’s how I’ve always viewed it. A slow, slow, slow burn that finally erupts thanks to Nicholson’s willingness to dial things up to eleven. This filmmaker who has mastered multiple genres shows a lack of skill for creating scary scenes. Now it’s considered one of the Top 5 horror films, which just baffles me. (John Carpenter’s The Thing has been on a similar journey, but that reputation I get because the effects are still the GOAT.) It was nice of this Doc to remind me of that initial reception.

I don’t mind the speakers noticing something unusual, Where they lose me is when they then pull some far left field meaning from it. It’s common for production departments to fixate on a theme. So multiple eagles or Indian art is the kind of symbolism you find in most movies. Somebody says that Kubrick loves to plant hidden clues, but that’s feeding into their mythology and not  common knowledge. In truth, Kubrick’s reputation is of paying the closest attention to an intense amount of detail, and these symbols hold the tone together.

Why are there continuity errors? We’ll never know the truth, but from John Ford to Martin Scorsese to David Fincher, these mistakes happen all the time and they’re usually caused by accident. The worst moment here by far is the guy who plays the film forwards and backwards. The moments of serendipity are cute, but the entire experiment is useless because they don’t start the film at the first frame, but at the piracy warning that starts every DVD.


The opening image Kubrick always intended.

By not commenting on his films, a master at the level of Kubrick allows this kind of outsider interpretation to happen. Personally, I wish such deep analysis was spent on a David Lynch film, which are created to support outside readings. Eraserhead, Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire are a better fit for this level of scrutiny.

We're not so different. I am also generally resistant to theories on deeper meanings. I find they are usually attached to bad movies that can't stand on their own two legs. If I need a little orphan Annie decoder ring to unlock the enjoyment in a movie, it's not a good thing. It doesn't work for me. I won't suffer through a bad movie for the paltry promise of a hidden meaning. But with the Shining I don't mind, because I enjoy the experience as is. The wild theories are just another bit of enjoyment. It sounds like you don't really like The Shining so much, so I understand not enjoying this. If I had to watch a similar documentary about a David Lynch film I would find it unbearable because those movies are impossible for me to sit through.

A part of me finds it all nonsense, but a part of me, maybe a bigger part in this case, wants some of it to be true… because why not. In my head I'm always coming back to this scene in Pi, where the character is confronted with both the seductive quality of a hidden meaning, and the more reasonable explanation. I'm inclined to agree with the old mathematician in this clip. I imagine that you could pick just about anything in The Shining to focus on and a persuasive writer could make a compelling theory about it. Still, there comes a tipping point. I enjoy that carpet/sweater stuff related to the moon landing. I get to that part of the doc and I feel the scales nearly moving.

I think more than anything though it’s the presentation. The documentary takes the time to visually track the theories, and dig up the relevant archival footage, and assemble it all until it makes something that’s not only coherent, but stimulating to watch and think about. Listening to someone’s pet theory has the potential to be really boring, like listening to someone describe a dream they had. This doc puts me in a meditative mood and has me wanting to join in a trip down the rabbit hole.

Stupid as some ideas may be, I think there’s value in following through. There’s no rhyme or reason why playing the movie backwards and forwards, one over the other, should reveal anything. But in following through on the exercise things may come up which open a line of thinking which you may never have reached before. It’s two hours spent focusing on a movie in a unique way, and may yield some unique thoughts. There’s no substitute for time sometimes. :)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #106 on: December 19, 2020, 03:23:31 PM »
It does seem that the difference is the film itself and the filmmaker. What drew Kubrick to The Shining? What was he trying to get out of the experience on both narrative and technical levels? A filmmaker on the highest level of interest with the absence of answers, creates a void for something like this to happen. Ultimately, if the filmmaker isn’t going to answer such questions, I could see the fun in speculation, and the Doc ultimately raises more questions than there was going in.

On a similar level, I’m having so much more fun with Dave Filoni’s contribution to Star Wars. He came up working with George Lucas and starting with Clone Wars, he’s been able to take the ideas Lucas screwed up with the Prequels and create a clearer vision of what Lucas was going for in terms of character arcs and universe expansion, which has retroactively cast Episodes 1-3 in a better light.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #107 on: December 19, 2020, 09:40:56 PM »
I think you two are talking around the most interesting aspects of film theories. I blame the doc, or, more accurately, the doc's participants, who latch onto Kubrick's reputation and make him the god of the movie. This makes the discussions surrounding the movie into discussions about whether or not messages are purposefully encoded into The Shining (or anything else), and hence are available for us to decode to fully understand the film in question.


But more interesting, I think, isn't the idea that these are breadcrumbs you need to follow to get to the real meaning of the film intended by the author but rather the idea that a decision to include, say, the rocket sweater, is based around what a kid of that era would be interested in, and the semi-accidental or barely-recognized connections in the brains of the people responsible for putting him in that sweater that come out of a hundred thousand choices that make up a movie. So a movie about isolation and spacious interiors (and scarier mental landscapes) gets an extra frisson of meaning from the association with astronauts and space travel (something the director had some previous experience with as well).


It's the difference between digging for clues left by a mastermind serial killer and taking a hike. It's about what assumptions you bring into the film and what you come out of it with based on those assumptions. I find great joy in metaphorically walking up a pretty hillside with a friend who knows the area and can point out all of the interesting things they've seen on previous trips because it makes my enjoyment of the hike all the more full for picking up on things I may have missed and making connections I wouldn't have made. I don't find the same joy in following my brilliant detective friend as they spot things I never could have seen and making wild leaps in logic to make those clues add up to a definitive meaning. Without my detective friend, I'm lost at the crime scene, but on the hike I can still look around myself and see what there is to be seen, and I can learn from previous trips with my friend what to look out for, even if I'm on a different path entirely.


To be completely clear, I think Room 237 is brilliant precisely because it acts as an investigation of these wrongheaded movie viewers and exposes the obvious ludicrousness of their conclusions. That's fun to watch.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2020, 09:43:28 PM by Junior »
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #108 on: December 23, 2020, 03:29:03 AM »
ANOTHER YEAR (2010) - Life is all about perspective isn't it? To answer your question Smirnoff, I have not seen any of Mike Leigh's films and so was not quite sure what to expect.  What felt initially like a Noah Baumbach film became something else, a peek into the life of this happy couple existing in a world full of seeming unhappiness, trauma, and unfairness.  This film is the year in the life of Tom and Gerri (ha I love it!) who have this wonderful approach and balance to life.  They both have jobs, he a geologist and she a therapist, with an adult son and many friends. Leigh uses them sort of as the sun, they are bright and happy, non-judgmental but being chased around by these variety of planets with varying degrees of happiness and problems.  Mary, played by an excellent Lesley Manville, is a co-worker and friend of Gerri who is a single divorcee whose loneliness is only exceeded by her drinking. She tries to cover up these glaring imperfections by buying a car or talking about going on trips, but mostly, again, by her love for the bottle.  I can relate deeply to this character, in so many ways I shared this empty void, scoffing at my friends and what I thought was contrived happiness.  Another character and friend of Tom and Gerri is Ken, a compulsive eater, drinker and smoker who is incredibly nice, but also very lost.  Tom and Gerri are such interesting people, maybe because of their English culture or perhaps they are just a bit more realistic and enlightened that you cannot change anyone, but can love everyone even if they are spiritually/emotionally/mentally/physically sick.  You might think Tom and Gerri are actually some kind of strange voyeurs, partaking in the schadenfreude of their friends to feel better about themselves, but I think that would be missing the point.  Tom and Gerri are not unaffected or even luckier than anyone else, they are just living their life within their own perspective. They reminisce about the old days with some nostalgic yearning for the old days, but they are not overwhelmed with the loss of that past.  In one scene they are talking with Ken about an old friend who recently passed away and Ken becomes emotional and Tom only looks on while Gerri comforts Ken.  Its not that Tom isn't sad, I believe its because he's come to an acceptance in life.  At least I'm placing my thoughts on Tom, because for a total change that I needed to escape being another Ken or Mary of the world was an entire paradigm shift. I stopped feeling sorry for myself and began to be of service to others, which is exactly how I see Tom and Gerri.  They are in service to the people they work with and for, they are in service to their son, and most importantly for this film they are of service to their friends who need them.  Even when Mary shows up unannounced and much to the annoyance of Tom and Gerri, they take her in because they can see she is in pain.  Gerri offers to find Mary professional help and then puts her to work (of service) by setting the table.  Tom and Gerri are models of what the world could be if they found that acceptance of life and the hardships which accompany it. Happiness is the byproduct of this acceptance and service, at least in my opinion and what I thought I saw unfolding onscreen.  Manufactured happiness in the form of material things like cars or shopping for things, as well as chemical or biological happiness found in alcohol, tobacco, and sex are fleeting, they are dopamine releases that give pleasure for those moments, but they are not sustainable solution unless you are the unlucky (or lucky depending on your perspective) person who can endlessly drink, shop, and smoke. It was my experience that those things eventually stop working, a new solution is needed and while there are those who may never find another solution I hope I can be an example like Tom and Gerri, not judging (though this one is hard for me because my first impulse is usually always to judge when I have so many sins and hypocrisies of my own) and always willing to listen and take that friend in without letting my own selfish desires get in the way.

It was wonderful to read your response to this film. Your review makes me wonder how would I feel about Ken and Mary outside of Tom and Terri's presence. You describe Tom and Gerri as a sort of sun in the story. The more I think about that description the more I like it. What happens to Ken or Mary's orbit if Tom and Gerri aren't there? To watch this film I feel as if they would fly off into the abyss… perhaps eventually encountering another star in which to circle.

We only see brief moments of Mary or Ken outside of the company of their friends. Usually in the brief period between when they've said goodbye and when the scene ends. Mary left alone at the pub, Mary and Ken together. It's usually very sad. You speak of having once undergone a paradigm shift to avoid being another Ken or Mary, and that certainly feels like what is needed for them as well… though I find I have no idea how that sort of thing comes about. Do Tom and Gerri speed up that process? Do they delay it? I really would like to know.

Whatever their effect, I do enjoy watching how expertly Gerri navigates the terrain. Not allowing herself to be taken advantage of, but also not turning her back on Mary. Having a confrontation when one needs to take place, but still leaving a space for Mary to exist as a friend. It's as much friendship as she can offer. Is it enough?

I'm glad found a film you engaged with so much.

Quote
I will have to explore more Mike Leigh a very interesting experience!

There is lots there to choose from. Domestic drama is what I think of as Leigh's bread and butter... but there are a handful of films outside of that setting. Personally I haven't found those films so special, but probably everything is worth exploring. I look forward to reading about your next experience. :)

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: Top 100 Club: smirnoff
« Reply #109 on: December 23, 2020, 01:13:18 PM »
Quote
though I find I have no idea how that sort of thing comes about. Do Tom and Gerri speed up that process? Do they delay it? I really would like to know.

This is a great question, one that I am not so sure has a completely correct answer.  If you think about in terms of enabling, is the lack of judgment or active encouragement hindering the growth of Ken and Mary, like "nice guying them to their grave."  An argument could be made that they create the space within which the behaviors and actions can and do exist, but I think this might be a more pessimistic view. From my limited experience there should always be boundaries when dealing with people who struggle with certain things. In terms of alcoholics you don't want to enable them to continue taking advantage of you and allowing them to continue to submit to their problems without consequence. On the other hand the road to recovery is often fraught with relapse and these constant slips are enough to drive most loved ones to the point of giving up on people entirely.  This is where I think Tom and Gerri are wonderful people, because they do not simply throw up their hands and give up, they continue to exude love and patience, an ideal most, including myself would often lack. They tend to avoid drama by not actively participating in it.  So while it does seem that their overabundance of patience does allow Ken and Mary to continue on their detrimental paths without too much consequence, but I think it is a larger sign of love and generosity by being the constant and patient friend and not giving up on those they care for.  A very interesting point that is very debatable.
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"