|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 30, 2019 11:25:49 GMT
Wow.. what a trip. What an intensely bizarre nightmare of a film. It felt like a waking nightmare to me, even more so than Midsommar did earlier this year. It was like taking hallucinogens and reading through Lovecraft while having an old film on in the background or something. Fucking strange experience.
I'll have to think over what I think was actually going on on this movie, but until then I'll just say that while I may not quite know how I feel about everything in it, I admire the hell out of it and I'm kind of amazed that it exists.
It's got truly great performances that prop up this crazy tone, but for the most part this is a showcase for a writer/director in command of his craft. How anyone feels about what he chooses to do with that craft is individual, but it's undeniable that this guy Robert Eggers has extraordinary skill and is completely deliberate in his approach. He's made exactly the sort of film he wants to. This thing had to have been extremely difficult to put together and achieve this level of insanity, and I'm amazed that this could have been dreamt up and depicted in the way it has been. It's a lot like David Lynch, Maya Darren, Harold Pinter, John Huston, FW Murnau.. and yet it's also entirely new... and like Midsommar it's bizarrely funny at times.
I wouldn't want to say too much, but of you're into 'tales of the weird' and seeing something weird and unique, I'd give this a shot.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 30, 2019 21:29:35 GMT
It was like taking hallucinogens and reading through Lovecraft while having an old film on in the background or something. That's a good description of it. I liked it, but wasn't quite as enamored with it as you. The VVitch is my favorite horror movie of the decade, and this treaded some of the same territory (time-authentically borderline unintelligible characters that are growing more claustrophobic and insane together). But instead of a creepy goddamned witch as the foundation, this has...slightly annoying seagulls. When you figure out what it's actually about, let me know. The VVitch seemed a little more pointed with family drama, religious paranoia, and the like. I don't know what the point of this was, besides "two dudes stuck on an island be going crazy".
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Nov 4, 2019 2:38:46 GMT
I’m still waiting for a release date.
From reading your thoughts, I’m getting ‘A Field in England’ vibes.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Nov 4, 2019 15:05:54 GMT
A fantastic follow up to the VVitch. Pattinson and Dafoe were incredible. Eggers perfectly captures the mental unraveling that comes from isolation.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 6, 2019 16:28:41 GMT
It was like taking hallucinogens and reading through Lovecraft while having an old film on in the background or something. That's a good description of it. I liked it, but wasn't quite as enamored with it as you. The VVitch is my favorite horror movie of the decade, and this treaded some of the same territory (time-authentically borderline unintelligible characters that are growing more claustrophobic and insane together). But instead of a creepy goddamned witch as the foundation, this has...slightly annoying seagulls. When you figure out what it's actually about, let me know. The VVitch seemed a little more pointed with family drama, religious paranoia, and the like. I don't know what the point of this was, besides "two dudes stuck on an island be going crazy". I'll just say that I don't know that I'm totally ;enamored of it,' but I think my affection for the movie has grown a bit since I first saw it. I really didn't know what to make of it at first, but it's grown a bit clearer since I've given it some thought. I'd really like to see it again, actually. The seagulls are similar in their function to the goat, I'd say, and not the witch. I think the witch was not an onscreen and figure for most of that movie, and the seagulls were hardly the foundation of anything. They were a symptom. Your point works as a flippant insult to the movie I guess, but I think they very clearly are not the foundation or the driving force behind the movie. They are just another thing about the experience that eats away at these guys. Or the one guy in particular. But to say that's the foundation is nonsense. It's really only one of the weird things that happen. The dude has hallucinatory mermaid sex, for instance... But anyway, I'm still wrestling with what it means. I think very obviously there are real answers and things that can't have concrete explanations, intentionally. A movie like this (not that there are many) is intended to be discussed and debated to be sure. The intent is to get people talking about what it all means, and some of those questions have ambiguous solutions, if they have any at all. Whether the whole thing is a parable/allegory/fable/blah blah blah, or it is all literally happening, I think there is a very clear religious and folk mythology connection. There's a power in the light, and one man has access to it, the other does not. Whether 'going to the light' represents an ascension to heaven, the prometheus story (the ending of the film VERY directly suggests this as a reading of the story), or just the unattainable that man keeps from his fellows men, I'm not sure. I think it's combination of all of that, and likely more mythology that I'm not entirely sure about. There's a clear Lovecraftian element, there's a clear celtic, new American, Christian, sea faring, etc. mythological influence too. There's a lot of stuff thrown together here, but all that aside, I think it made for a compelling viewing, and if not a clear story, one that has been rattling around in my brain since I saw it. It's a unique film, and at the very least, I admire it for that audacity... But I suspect repeat viewings will be rewarding.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Nov 6, 2019 16:29:23 GMT
I’m still waiting for a release date. From reading your thoughts, I’m getting ‘A Field in England’ vibes. I still need to see A Field in England. I've heard interesting things abut that one.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 6, 2019 22:24:20 GMT
Saw it in theaters the other day. It’s an extraordinarily weird movie, far more so than The Witch, which was for the most part naturalistic and straightforward, though beautifully scary. I prefer The Witch, but The Lighthouse has so many good things in it that it’s hard to criticize. As everyone says, Dafoe is superb—how many nuances does this have? It’s genuinely thrilling to see him on screen, and that one monologue (you’ll know it if you’ve seen the movie) makes the viewer want to stand up and clap then and there. Pattinson isn’t as exceptional as Dafoe, and his accent keeps slipping (or could that be on purpose?), but he is good. I never saw him in the Twilight flicks, so he’s mostly new to me, but his performances here and in The Lost City of Z are very good. What’s odd about much of this is that it isn’t scary. You expect some comedy and get it, though it keeps on longer than an audience would expect (another example of writer-director Robert Eggers’ subversion of expectations). It’s lunatic without being especially frightening, more a descent into madness than anything else. (With obvious exceptions. Two scenes in particular were immeasurably disturbing.) That madness means that I don’t exactly know what happened. Pattinson thinks Dafoe has a secret in the light, and eventually kills him for it, and he thinks Dafoe is driving him mad with the mermaid figurine. OK. But Dafoe claims Pattinson is insane and has kept them on the island even when the boat came. Is Pattinson insane? Pattinson has also been lying about his name; his real name is apparently “Thomas”—the same as Dafoe’s. Is this a hint there’s only one man who’s losing it, alone on the island? But writer-director Eggers, through Dafoe, “lampshades” and makes fun of that twist. Where does any of that fit the mermaid, the seagull, the apparent giant squid (and/or Cthulhu), and what Pattinson saw in the light? It’s enough to drive the viewer nuts! That said, I do have the inklings of a theory that I’ll write below. Shooting it on black and white film is a lovely touch, but unfortunately it doesn’t translate well to digital projectors, so sometimes the picture is unclear. The callbacks to silent movies, though, are spot-on. And some of the pacing is too slow—a movie like this should be slow, but not at the risk of losing its audience. All in all, it’s hard to say I enjoyed it, but it’s hard to find much of anything bad about it either. It’s an odd little movie with an amazing central performance. And if someone can explain it to me, please do! My (sorta kinda) theory: I’m starting to wonder if both Toms are reincarnations. Perhaps of a single person, perhaps two people who switch roles per reincarnation. Either way I’m thinking of Dafoe’s apparent gaslighting (e.g., he says Young Tom destroyed the boat; maybe Young Tom did in a prior incarnation), of the stuff with the rescue boat never coming and “how long have we been here,” of Young Tom’s usage of more modern terms like “parody” (because time isn’t linear on the island). It’s also possible the original “wickies” are played by Pattinson and Dafoe; they’re uncredited. Also, how does Pattinson know about the mermaid figurine in his bed? It also fits in Prometheus (immortality) and Proteus (shapeshifting). Not the mermaid or the light, though. Still, I haven’t seen it before; most of what I’ve read is the “all in Pattinson’s head” hypothesis, which (again) I think Eggers is clearly telling us is not “it.”
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 7, 2019 0:14:51 GMT
Shooting it on black and white film is a lovely touch, but unfortunately it doesn’t translate well to digital projectors, so sometimes the picture is unclear. That's interesting.
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Nov 7, 2019 10:48:33 GMT
I’m still waiting for a release date. From reading your thoughts, I’m getting ‘A Field in England’ vibes. I still need to see A Field in England. I've heard interesting things abut that one. I wouldn’t say I was a fan of it, but it was an interesting watch. What starts off normal, becomes a bewildering experiment of no idea of what’s going on. There is a mushroom trip-out scene that’s pretty wild, and well-executed for a cheaply made indie film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 16:45:19 GMT
It doesn't come out here until 31st January.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 8, 2019 1:20:36 GMT
That's a good description of it. I liked it, but wasn't quite as enamored with it as you. The VVitch is my favorite horror movie of the decade, and this treaded some of the same territory (time-authentically borderline unintelligible characters that are growing more claustrophobic and insane together). But instead of a creepy goddamned witch as the foundation, this has...slightly annoying seagulls. When you figure out what it's actually about, let me know. The VVitch seemed a little more pointed with family drama, religious paranoia, and the like. I don't know what the point of this was, besides "two dudes stuck on an island be going crazy". I'll just say that I don't know that I'm totally ;enamored of it,' but I think my affection for the movie has grown a bit since I first saw it. I really didn't know what to make of it at first, but it's grown a bit clearer since I've given it some thought. I'd really like to see it again, actually. The seagulls are similar in their function to the goat, I'd say, and not the witch. I think the witch was not an onscreen and figure for most of that movie, and the seagulls were hardly the foundation of anything. They were a symptom. Your point works as a flippant insult to the movie I guess, but I think they very clearly are not the foundation or the driving force behind the movie. They are just another thing about the experience that eats away at these guys. Or the one guy in particular. But to say that's the foundation is nonsense. It's really only one of the weird things that happen. The dude has hallucinatory mermaid sex, for instance... But anyway, I'm still wrestling with what it means. I think very obviously there are real answers and things that can't have concrete explanations, intentionally. A movie like this (not that there are many) is intended to be discussed and debated to be sure. The intent is to get people talking about what it all means, and some of those questions have ambiguous solutions, if they have any at all. Whether the whole thing is a parable/allegory/fable/blah blah blah, or it is all literally happening, I think there is a very clear religious and folk mythology connection. There's a power in the light, and one man has access to it, the other does not. Whether 'going to the light' represents an ascension to heaven, the prometheus story (the ending of the film VERY directly suggests this as a reading of the story), or just the unattainable that man keeps from his fellows men, I'm not sure. I think it's combination of all of that, and likely more mythology that I'm not entirely sure about. There's a clear Lovecraftian element, there's a clear celtic, new American, Christian, sea faring, etc. mythological influence too. There's a lot of stuff thrown together here, but all that aside, I think it made for a compelling viewing, and if not a clear story, one that has been rattling around in my brain since I saw it. It's a unique film, and at the very least, I admire it for that audacity... But I suspect repeat viewings will be rewarding. My description was flippant, but I don't think what I said was nonsense. Thomas #2, if you remember, says the seagulls carry the souls of dead sailors and that killing one is bad luck. When Thomas #1 gets a little too slap-happy with one, that's the turning point in the story where they miss the boat and things really go south. So much as the vvitch was the thing propelling the characters' increasing descent into isolation and madness, the seagulls here play pretty much the same role, to a more ambiguous extent. I must admit I didn't even think about the obvious symbolism of the lighthouse itself. Maybe Thomas #2 represents God, which I suppose would make #1 represent Man? You compare going into the lighthouse with the Prometheus story. Or it could be that Thomas #2 holds the keys to Heaven itself. Killing the seagull against his wishes could be your apple moment. #2 has all these rules he gives to #1 with the threat of punishment. But - *spoilers* - one thing that really stands out is the fact that #1 seemingly kills #2, who very specifically rises from the ground shortly after.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 9:59:35 GMT
My daughter is in town for a teacher's conference next week.
We are hoping to see this at the pictures together 👍
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Feb 13, 2020 12:57:44 GMT
So original and beautiful. And really funny! This was in my 2019 top three, okay, it was number one.
|
|