|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 10, 2021 6:44:56 GMT -8
J.C. - Yes, a lot of sci-fi films have taken cues from Dune, so the film may fall victim to some clichés of its own creation. Guess that's part of the problem with a book that was long deemed "unfilmable" by fans and critics (because if Lynch can't do it, who can?) to the point that dozens of other sci-fi blockbusters inspired by the book were produced in the interim.
Guttersnipe - A lot of the esoteric terminology in Dune is actually rough transliteration of Arabic and Hebrew phrases. For example, "Kwisatz Haderach" ("shortening of the way") is derived from the Hebrew phrase "Kefitzat Haderech" (which roughly means the same thing). Just worth noting.
Glad you liked the film; I found the sense of scale to be impressive from start to finish. Good point about the visions, and I'd apply similar praise vis-à-vis the audio during scenes that employed use of "the Voice." A low rumbling effect that gives them a more internalized feel that the typical conversations.
The casting of mostly minority actors as the Fremen harkens back to Herbert's initial concept of the book, and though the movie tries to diversify the cast enough to avoid the "white savior" implications of the source material, Villeneuve still wants to maintain the message that the Fremen are outcasts in their own land. Presumably they'll get more screentime in the (now-greenlit) sequel, where their characters will play a larger role and hopefully be fleshed out further.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Nov 10, 2021 7:23:17 GMT -8
Ah, I see. I assumed they were vague approximations of Middle Eastern languages but not actual words, in the same way that pretty much anyone can identify Polish or Italian without knowing more than a couple of words of either.
I actually forgot to mention the score! Brilliant use of ambient soundscaping here; I can only describe the soundtrack of largely sounding like timber collapsing and splintering from above, which lends the film a natural and earthy texture.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Nov 10, 2021 15:21:43 GMT -8
Hey, I'm glad you guys enjoyed it. I didn't hate it, and wasn't exactly bored by it, but just found it to be exactly what I expected it to be when I initially resisted paying to see it. It's fine for what it is, but it just doesn't cater all that much to my sensibility.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Nov 11, 2021 9:38:37 GMT -8
J.C. - Yes, a lot of sci-fi films have taken cues from Dune, so the film may fall victim to some clichés of its own creation. Guess that's part of the problem with a book that was long deemed "unfilmable" by fans and critics (because if Lynch can't do it, who can?) to the point that dozens of other sci-fi blockbusters inspired by the book were produced in the interim. Guttersnipe - A lot of the esoteric terminology in Dune is actually rough transliteration of Arabic and Hebrew phrases. For example, "Kwisatz Haderach" ("shortening of the way") is derived from the Hebrew phrase "Kefitzat Haderech" (which roughly means the same thing). Just worth noting. Glad you liked the film; I found the sense of scale to be impressive from start to finish. Good point about the visions, and I'd apply similar praise vis-à-vis the audio during scenes that employed use of "the Voice." A low rumbling effect that gives them a more internalized feel that the typical conversations. The casting of mostly minority actors as the Fremen harkens back to Herbert's initial concept of the book, and though the movie tries to diversify the cast enough to avoid the "white savior" implications of the source material, Villeneuve still wants to maintain the message that the Fremen are outcasts in their own land. Presumably they'll get more screentime in the (now-greenlit) sequel, where their characters will play a larger role and hopefully be fleshed out further. I mean, I get why some people aren't very keen on it, but I loved it. Besides Villeneuve's impeccable craftsmanship (that's to be expected), it's epic science fiction interested in Big Ideas that doesn't fill itself with melodrama. That's a win in my book.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Nov 11, 2021 10:25:07 GMT -8
Super-large-scale can sometimes be a double-edged sword, that makes characters seem tiny and inconsequential in its midst.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 11, 2021 12:06:50 GMT -8
Flame, I agree that the film's penchant for avoiding melodrama is one of its more understated strengths, given how often this type of sci-fi adventure teeters over into space opera. I do understand why it won't click with everyone (especially if Villeneuve's style hasn't connected in the past), but I was very happy with it overall. Certainly worth the extra year we spent waiting for it.
(Also, I was trying to figure out why Stellan Skarsgård's villain seemed so familiar, and I think it's because he reminds me of a cross between Jabba the Hutt and the villain from the Buffy episode "Bad Girls." Not sure if the latter was influenced by Herbert's work, though I wouldn't be overly surprised.)
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Nov 11, 2021 16:49:46 GMT -8
Super-large-scale can sometimes be a double-edged sword, that makes characters seem tiny and inconsequential in its midst. This is why I felt it important to mention the frequent oscillation in scope. For every light-blotting sandworm maw or panoply of uniformed troops there's an intimate scene of Paul and Jessica huddling in the wreck or the endurance test with the autosuggestion box. Taken in tandem the film can straddle both the personal and the political. (Also, I was trying to figure out why Stellan Skarsgård's villain seemed so familiar, and I think it's because he reminds me of a cross between Jabba the Hutt and the villain from the Buffy episode "Bad Girls." Not sure if the latter was influenced by Herbert's work, though I wouldn't be overly surprised.) They may all be simply influenced by the sight of a porcine fellow taking an Azerbaijani oil bath.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Nov 12, 2021 0:26:51 GMT -8
Super-large-scale can sometimes be a double-edged sword, that makes characters seem tiny and inconsequential in its midst. This is why I felt it important to mention the frequent oscillation in scope. For every light-blotting sandworm maw or panoply of uniformed troops there's an intimate scene of Paul and Jessica huddling in the wreck or the endurance test with the autosuggestion box. Taken in tandem the film can straddle both the personal and the political. (Also, I was trying to figure out why Stellan Skarsgård's villain seemed so familiar, and I think it's because he reminds me of a cross between Jabba the Hutt and the villain from the Buffy episode "Bad Girls." Not sure if the latter was influenced by Herbert's work, though I wouldn't be overly surprised.) They may all be simply influenced by the sight of a porcine fellow taking an Azerbaijani oil bath. Yes, the film does alternate between large-scale desert scenes and more intimate, claustrophobic settings. I just wish that the characters had more interior life and personality beyond their service to the plot. Though the performances were solid (especially from the women), most felt really archetypal in nature, never moving outside of entirely-predictable straight lines. Nothing about them carried any degree of surprise or revelation for me: they were just slaves to an overly-familiar (sadly, due to frequent imitation) plot. And Jeremy, that Buffy character was, I think, heavily influenced by a character named Pearl from the first Blade movie.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Nov 12, 2021 3:38:48 GMT -8
Oh, I'd absolutely agree that most of the characters are archetypes or ciphers, it's just that sort of thing rarely bothers me, especially when the affair is this cinematic. I mean, we don't know a thing about Duncan beyond his ability to come out in beast mode when the occasion arises, or the doctor beyond SPOILERS his wife's kidnapping SPOILERS.
And as I discussed with a colleague this week, the over-familiarity of the set-up just gave me more reason to finger-wag George Lucas, because his franchise seems to have ridden Herbert's coattails into serious pop-culture revenue, and I don't think it's fair that a pioneer (to a degree) should be penalised for subsequent impact. Having said that, I haven't read Dune (most friends even charitably describe it as impenetrable), but it apears Herbert himself was cribbing from another desert-set messianic doorstop novel...
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Nov 13, 2021 11:27:54 GMT -8
Sorry to Bother You (2018) SPOILERS, ABANDON ALL SURPRISE YE WHO ENTER HERE
In the summary on Hulu, the platform hastens to clarify "In an alternate present-day version of Oakland..." Which part are we at pains to emphasize isn't real, (spoiled bits) the corporate serfdom or the people turning into mutant horses?
Anyway, I had fun watching this one, but found the satire and editing to be somewhat unfocused, even as I was drawn to it by having a prior career in shitty service industry jobs. Perhaps I just found it lacking as compared to some other California-centered conspiracy movies I've seen in the last year, like the middle entry of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and They Live! There are a lot of loose strands there and the movie has the feeling of being edited down from a three hour version, which is not to say it isn't engaging throughout, but it isn't tightly constructed at all. Detroit works in the call center for all of a minute? Squeeze's rant about STDs and the need for proper medical care comes from and goes nowhere? A few false gestures towards Cash's history? The somewhat undeveloped relationship between him and Salvador (though the "I hope you have a good day" bit was incredible)? Danny Glover's offering of sage wisdom followed by a near total recession into the background? Detroit's art show where she suddenly has a white voice? The fact that the movie ends three or four times and it's not clear whether the takeaway is "small incremental progress towards socialism is still worthwhile" or "burn the whole thing down?" Thematically, it's not hard to see or say what the movie is about, but I guess I was hoping that with the political aims of the film, the end result would be more pointed and less played for random laughs.
All that being said, fun to see Armie Hammer playing a deranged playboy before he himself was outed as one, and the use of nebbish, unthreatening comedians for the "white voice" was delightful.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 13, 2021 21:28:31 GMT -8
Might want to throw a spoiler tag up-top of that review, since I don't know how many people here have seen the movie.
Anyway, I agree with a lot of your points. Sorry to Bother You is a distinctive but wildly uneven and unfocused film that doesn't know when to end. There are times when it feels like an outré piece of experimental indie cinema, but the experimental scenes clash against the heavy-handed anti-capitalist agitprop. Some clever jokes scattered about, but this feels like a film that was elevated by critics more for political reasons than artistic ones.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Nov 14, 2021 3:20:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Nov 14, 2021 7:43:04 GMT -8
It's funny, I wouldn't say I loved it but I enjoyed watching it for sure, and you're right about the colors, which is something that I hadn't really considered. The stylized bits, like the claymation and the rooms transforming were all delightful. I'd watch another film by Boots Riley easily, I just came out of this one feeling like it didn't quite have the bite I wanted, or that someone should have pulled the reins a little and said "whoa, there."
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Nov 14, 2021 10:24:21 GMT -8
And looking again, I hadn't intended to pick images with parallel-walls mise-en-scene, it just happened that they emphasised the vibrant colour contrasts best. As for its political stance, I found that Detroit's arresting earrings were invariably key to reading the film (changing as they do every time we see her) because they helped to express the ephemeral nature of political sloganeering, so that whatever point the character-as-author-surrogate was trying to make was also a commodity, in the same way that someone in a Guevara T-shirt is likely to know little about communism or indeed care about the exploitative practice that doubtless created the item. With that in mind, the inherently amusing idea of 'aggressive jewellery' seems to operate as self-reflexive commentary (or at the very least allows the film to indulge an attitude of "psyche!"). There isn't actually anything else to judge Boots Riley's directorial nous by as it stands right now, beyond a short documentary about post-apartheid South Africa and a pretty neat music video for his veteran group The Coup (nice dissolves).
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Nov 14, 2021 11:52:18 GMT -8
I saw, and quite enjoyed, Sorry To Bother You, a few months after its original theatrical release, so no need for spoiler tags. And I don't really care if a film has cohesive and consistent political positions or ideas. As with, say, The Dark Knight, a soup of sometimes contradictory thematic elements can still be quite compelling. And not unlike guttersnipe, I really dug the visual style and clever editing of the film. Very much enjoyed the cast as well.
(BTW, actress Tessa Thompson is in another really solid little art film on Netflix right now, called Passing. Really liked her in the Dear White People movie as well, and I've been meaning to check out the Netflix series that spun off from it.)
|
|