|
Post by politicidal on Sept 14, 2018 15:13:23 GMT
Based off the book by James Baldwin, it follows a young woman who has to clear her wrongfully imprisoned husband's name before the birth of their first child together. Includes Regina King, Ed Skrein, Dave Franco, Pedro Pascal, Finn Wittrock, Diego Luna, Aunjanue Ellis, and Emily Rios in supporting roles. Got wide acclaim thus far.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 15, 2018 3:04:18 GMT
i am excited as well.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 18, 2019 17:19:00 GMT
i cant make myself see it. it looks so dreadful as in sad and stiff. i like the colors in it and the music (in the trailer) but the topic and atmosphere seem like such a downer. anybody has seen it and can recommend? am i gonna want to slid my wrist during or after? (this is not to say i wanna know the ending just the general feeling one might have while watching this movie)
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 18, 2019 20:05:19 GMT
Its sitting at my number 4.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 18, 2019 20:13:52 GMT
Its sitting at my number 4. of what. 2018? so good? tell me more. how will i feel during the movie? is it anyhing like mooight? dark depressing supr heavy suicidal?
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 19, 2019 7:24:55 GMT
I viewed If Beale Street Could Talk two weeks ago, and I am going to see it again in the next few days. Upon an initial viewing, I deemed the film "good." There are some similarities between it and Moonlight, but overall, Moonlight (which I viewed four times in the theater and deemed one of two "great" movies among 2016 releases, the other being Sully) constitutes the far superior film. Moonlight features some surreal touches, but it is not especially indulgent, nor is it notably sentimental. If Beale Street Could Talk, conversely, is more indulgent in its attempts at surrealism (mainly taking the form of long, slow-moving tracking and panning shots), and it is certainly a more sentimental film. And those factors help explain why it is not, based on my initial viewing, on the level of Moonlight. Visually, If Beale Street Could Talk is less impressive and rather repetitive, featuring an overabundance of those slow-motion tracking shots, an excessive amount of closeups, and less feel for gritty urban environs. (Unlike Moonlight, If Beale Street Could Talk is a period piece.) To its credit, virtually all the one-on-one scenes in Beale Street (and those scenes dominate the film) are either graceful or tense and often both graceful and tense. In that sense, the movie resembles Moonlight. But Moonlight possesses a genuine edge, whereas Beale Street lacks one, with its rather 'soft' coda constituting a case in point. This lack of an edge is all the more ironic given that the source material comes from the late, great James Baldwin, one of the most influential and penetrating African American writers in history. But Baldwin's fierce social candor meshes a bit uneasily with Jenkins' surrealism—the marriage is compelling yet imperfect.
Still, If Beale Street Could Talk is definitely worth seeing, and someone that I know called it "brilliant"—she seemed to hold it in similar esteem to Moonlight. To your concern about the movie being "depressing," Nora, Jenkins might have overcompensated by making the film too sentimental. In my view, it does not quite achieve the brilliant mixture of hope and despair that defines Moonlight. But Moonlight constitutes an extremely high standard—arguably the year's best film, a deserving Best Picture recipient, and easily one of the year's two top movies. In If Beale Street Could Talk, one definitely cares about the two main characters and where they are headed, and the film is certainly weighty on a sociological level (although the sentimentality arguably dilutes the impact a bit). The jazz-oriented score is resonant, too. I was close to deeming the film "good/very good," but the final scene struck me as not especially incisive—perhaps seeking too much of a compromise.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 19, 2019 7:33:55 GMT
Based off the book by James Baldwin, it follows a young woman who has to clear her wrongfully imprisoned husband's name before the birth of their first child together. Includes Regina King, Ed Skrein, Dave Franco, Pedro Pascal, Finn Wittrock, Diego Luna, Aunjanue Ellis, and Emily Rios in supporting roles. Got wide acclaim thus far.
Just to be technical, the film makes clear that the couple is not married, precisely because of what ensues ...
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Feb 9, 2019 9:02:58 GMT
After seeing If Beale Street Could Talk a second time in late January, my assessment is the same—it is a "good" film, but not an excellent one like Moonlight. The movie is intimate and passionate, and certain scenes are outstanding. But the use of closeups—especially ones with a character speaking in the middle of the frame, looking towards the camera—becomes excessive and repetitive. On the one hand, the visual motif makes sense because, as the female lead narrates at the start of the film, "Do you know what it's like to speak to someone through glass?" And director Barry Jenkins obviously sought to replicate that effect. But he repeats it so much that eventually the style becomes simplistic and disengaging. A couple of indoor shots from longer distances late in the film—where the female protagonist returns to her apartment, backlit by a window in the background, and then the still final shot with a deep focus and the couple and their son sitting in the foreground—suggest the movie's visual potential had Jenkins diversified matters throughout. But without more of those shots, If Beale Street Could Talk is flawed in the same manner as Southside with You from 2016, an intimate and engrossing movie about future President Obama's first "date" with his future wife, Michelle. That movie ironically uses the banality of a "date" to explore genuine issues of character and life, and it builds real momentum. But the visual coverage is so close and tight that the film cannot quite achieve the perspective that it is hoping to offer.
If Beale Street Could Talk is kind of like that, albeit a little better because of the richness of James Baldwin's source material and the more laudable aspects of Jenkins' visual approach, namely the earthiness of the colors and the ironic glow that he creates. Perhaps most notably, the film's Oscar-nominated score by Nicholas Britell is arguably the year's best, with those elegantly sonorous horns—the French horns in particular.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 26, 2019 19:34:58 GMT
I didn't much care for it. I agree about the repetitive cinematography, and I'll add that the narration felt pretentious and overwritten. Villain characters are written cartoonishly (that mom character! What horrible soap opera from 20 years ago did she crawl out of? And then the evil sisters to boot, what is this, Cinderella?). King was decent (though I probably wouldn't have given her an Oscar), but I thought the standout was the main guy.
And I'm not one of those guys who gets sensitive any time you say anything negative about white people, but this one was pushing it. The main character calls her token good white guy lawyer a "whiteboy", but then just a few scenes later is angry when the cop calls her man "boy". Said lawyer's goodness is written off as "he's too hungry to be racist", and the only person who challenges that is the cartoonishly-evil religious mom character. Then that "woe is me, I sample perfume" scene (I do samples for my day job, so f**k you, Barry) where black men treat her as a delicate flower while white men just grab her arm and sniff like she's a piece of meat - I wonder whose experience this black female's is based on, the black male director or the black male author of the book? Meh.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 28, 2019 19:38:50 GMT
Its sitting at my number 4. of what. 2018? so good? tell me more. how will i feel during the movie? is it anyhing like mooight? dark depressing supr heavy suicidal? You should feel a resounding amount of warmth and sadness. its very much like moonlight, lighting, acting, and directing wise. you got the visceral closeups of actors which was remarkable and a wonderful score.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Feb 28, 2019 22:19:13 GMT
Its sitting at my number 4. of what. 2018? so good? tell me more. how will i feel during the movie? is it anyhing like mooight? dark depressing supr heavy suicidal? Nora it's for those white liberals that feel guilty about NEVER interacting with swarthy people to dutifully watch and then espouse about in the most hyperbolic way possible. Most white libs will do ANYTHING to avoid actually interacting with the non white folks they claim to adore. You probably wouldn't like it. You love talking about yourself, so not much room to feign OUTRAGE for others. I actually mean that as a compliment by the way. You're egotistical but not terribly phony. I'm with you on the super depressing movies tho. Not real big on the perpetual victim shit either.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 28, 2019 22:27:58 GMT
of what. 2018? so good? tell me more. how will i feel during the movie? is it anyhing like mooight? dark depressing supr heavy suicidal? Nora it's for those white liberals that feel guilty about NEVER interacting with swarthy people to dutifully watch and then espouse about in the most hyperbolic way possible. Most white libs will do ANYTHING to avoid actually interacting with the non white folks they claim to adore. You probably wouldn't like it. You love talking about yourself, so not much room to feign OUTRAGE for others. I actually mean that as a compliment by the way. You're egotistical but not terribly phony. I'm with you on the super depressing movies tho. Not real big on the perpetual victim shit either. true. and i like we share that hobby. makes me feel closer to you. hope you will make it to the premiere on the 22nd.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Mar 1, 2019 7:15:25 GMT
Nora it's for those white liberals that feel guilty about NEVER interacting with swarthy people to dutifully watch and then espouse about in the most hyperbolic way possible. Most white libs will do ANYTHING to avoid actually interacting with the non white folks they claim to adore. You probably wouldn't like it. You love talking about yourself, so not much room to feign OUTRAGE for others. I actually mean that as a compliment by the way. You're egotistical but not terribly phony. I'm with you on the super depressing movies tho. Not real big on the perpetual victim shit either. true. and i like we share that hobby. makes me feel closer to you. hope you will make it to the premiere on the 22nd. If you send me an airline ticket I will be there. I'm in Atlanta so I know for a FACT there's a flight out of Hartsfield. There's a flight to EVERYWHERE out of Hartsfield. It's the law.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 4, 2019 19:03:58 GMT
true. and i like we share that hobby. makes me feel closer to you. hope you will make it to the premiere on the 22nd. I would listen to you until the worlds end Nora. DO NOT change.
I have got Christopher Robin to watch on dvd over the next few days. I didn't bother going to the cinema, since you walked out. Will be interesting to see.
thank you. let me know what you think once you have seen it.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 12, 2019 16:22:38 GMT
8/10
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 25, 2019 9:38:38 GMT
of what. 2018? so good? tell me more. how will i feel during the movie? is it anyhing like mooight? dark depressing supr heavy suicidal? Nora it's for those white liberals that feel guilty about NEVER interacting with swarthy people to dutifully watch and then espouse about in the most hyperbolic way possible. Most white libs will do ANYTHING to avoid actually interacting with the non white folks they claim to adore. You probably wouldn't like it. You love talking about yourself, so not much room to feign OUTRAGE for others. I actually mean that as a compliment by the way. You're egotistical but not terribly phony. I'm with you on the super depressing movies tho. Not real big on the perpetual victim shit either. I would not say that the film is "for" those types of people, per se. They may be more likely to praise it, but on the other hand, If Beale Street Could Talk did not receive an outrageous number of Oscar nominations (three) or statuettes (one), and it did not receive a Best Picture or Best Director nomination. (Personally, I would have only nominated it for its score, and I might have awarded the movie in that category.) Remember, too, that the author of the source material is James Baldwin, who certainly did not write to make white people—liberal, conservative, whatever—feel good about themselves. I would also suggest that "white guilt" permeates the political spectrum, but it tends to take different forms with different types of political affiliations. In any event, Beale Street is a highly humanistic film that is about people as much as it is about race. Aside from the problematic nature of its visual approach, which I detailed earlier, the movie's greatest flaw (which I also mentioned earlier) may be the imperfect marriage between Baldwin's fierce social candor and Jenkins' preference for surrealism. The two styles complement each other effectively enough yet not optimally.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 25, 2019 9:51:15 GMT
I didn't much care for it. I agree about the repetitive cinematography, and I'll add that the narration felt pretentious and overwritten. Villain characters are written cartoonishly (that mom character! What horrible soap opera from 20 years ago did she crawl out of? And then the evil sisters to boot, what is this, Cinderella?). King was decent (though I probably wouldn't have given her an Oscar), but I thought the standout was the main guy. And I'm not one of those guys who gets sensitive any time you say anything negative about white people, but this one was pushing it. The main character calls her token good white guy lawyer a "whiteboy", but then just a few scenes later is angry when the cop calls her man "boy". Said lawyer's goodness is written off as "he's too hungry to be racist", and the only person who challenges that is the cartoonishly-evil religious mom character. Then that "woe is me, I sample perfume" scene (I do samples for my day job, so f**k you, Barry) where black men treat her as a delicate flower while white men just grab her arm and sniff like she's a piece of meat - I wonder whose experience this black female's is based on, the black male director or the black male author of the book? Meh. A white man calling a black man "boy" tends to be unquestionably derogatory, whereas "white boy" can be an ironic neutral label (which is probably how that character was using it) or even a term of endearment (and, yes, occasionally a derisive phrase as well). As for the perfume motif, I could certainly see white men—in that era, especially—having quite a different attitude toward a black saleswoman in that situation. I did appreciate reading your various reactions, though. And in general, yes, one can always wonder how effectively males write about females or vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 27, 2019 5:25:19 GMT
A white man calling a black man "boy" tends to be unquestionably derogatory, whereas "white boy" can be an ironic neutral label (which is probably how that character was using it) or even a term of endearment (and, yes, occasionally a derisive phrase as well). As for the perfume motif, I could certainly see white men—in that era, especially—having quite a different attitude toward a black saleswoman in that situation. I did appreciate reading your various reactions, though. And in general, yes, one can always wonder how effectively males write about females or vice versa. I haven't seen this film and I contemplated it a couple of weeks ago, but had second thoughts. It just didn't ring any appeal bells.
Yes, context is key and "white boy" can just be a jest, but to my mind, it is also a hypocritical double standard. Even in jest or endearment, a white person referring to somebody as a "black boy", could be seen as degrading regardless. It can't just be one and not the other. If black people are going to take offense at the use of a racial epithet, then perhaps none need be used by them either.
... not sure that either "white boy" or "black boy" is necessarily an epithet—as you indicated, the context is crucial. A white person calling a black man "boy," conversely, is almost necessarily derogatory. In the case of "white boy" in this film, the use is more like, "We're black, yes, but this white guy ["white boy," since the lawyer is young] appears to be our best option." In other words, using "white boy" here sort of suggests the tension between natural black distrust of the white establishment and ginger trust of this particular individual. Later, the young black female lead (played by KiKi Lane) tells the lawyer something like, "If you're going to represent us, then we have to be family." Also, the film is set in the 1970s and James Baldwin's novel came out in 1974—less politically correct times, of course.
|
|