Sunday, April 15, 2018

"You're Not Really Here," a review


In "You're not really here," we're ostensibly being given a film that is sensitive to all those who've experienced terrific traumatic experiences in their lives. We have a sense of fidelity to the traumatic experience, that this is a film which really cared to explore how it affects the mind/future behaviour, and so to perhaps be trusted as almost instructive for the rest of us. Watching this film, we become sensitive to how ostensibly fragmented the mental state of someone experiencing PTSD can be; how intrusive past-horrifying memories can be; how they can't be repressed, are always free-floating; how it regularly brings one to thoughts past that of sadomasochism towards self-extinction, as a means of total escape. 

Yet while the film leans us this way, towards seeing it as "awoke," a participant in our blossoming expansion of sensitivity and respect for others, what brought them to become the ostensibly less-than-pleasant people we see before us, we note that otherwise the film fits in with a lot of films we're seeing lately of simply gruff, somewhat discombobulated people -- for example, Logan (especially similar, in that the victimized girl seems actually "advantaged" by the whole experience, in becoming an alpha survivor), Logan Lucky, Big Short, Hell or High Water -- who remain incredibly good at heart, and which always posit other people in the film where any extended reach into understanding them empathically is completely denied: they're evil, actually TRULY ugly to look at, because they're arrogant, evil assh*oles. 

In this film it's aristocrats and pedophiles. For the film to be consistent in its purposes, it would have surely given us a glimse of how pedophilia ostensibly restores -- like a hit of opium -- the fragmented psyche of a pedophile, so we would understand that the PTSD "hero," Joe, in the film who ventured into drugs and criminality -- perhaps replay of a war setting, where he always conquers? -- to keep himself normalized, other trauma victims might have had to venture into other perversities. It might have argued that there's a link, that is, between the perversities we may even actually are well along the way to glorifying and ones that remain completely outside our current reach of empathic understanding. It might have argued that if we really are sincere in our effort to be awoke, then, yes, absolute interest in our hero and, yes, absolute involvement in how the film suggests a PTSD victim encounters simple day-to-day living as a constant effort to keep his/her psyche together -- something he also does by insisting on encounters with potentially aggravating people he loves, namely, his mom, where he times his comings and goings; where he's got the control -- but also an effort to make it seem logical that that same effort on our part ought to be extended to more genuinely surprising categories of people as well. (Can you imagine a moment where we're suddenly in the pedophile's head, with him experiencing a flashback to a memory of abuse that gets settled as he gets prepared for a pedophilic act with his -- as actually shown in the film, but only for purposes for setting him up as grotesque -- fussing with a dollhouse?)

The film so skirts on expanding understanding towards damaged people towards cementing virtue in people whose "damage" has already become a social signifier FOR their virtue, that it's insouciant in its applying what really are remarkable similarities between the hero and the villains, things like how they're both "involved" in stabbing mothers with knives (one pretends, the other actually executes), and how they're both obsessed with predatory acts done to kids (one, as him as a stranger giving sweets to kids, without expectations, the other in the standard predatory mode of that stereotype). (Yes, he and the dying hit-man have a moment, but it's done only when it's clear the hit-man serves to magnify our understanding of the extent of the rot and uncontested reach of higher powers, and of how hapless the state servant is to do other than comply -- when the hitman is just the average everyday man, powerless in a corrupt society.) Somehow it becomes easier and easier to imagine that what films like this are bringing us to is a situation where all of us imagine ourselves as banged up, as suffering from terrible hurts, but that we yet remain our country's last best hope, and that we need to collect ourselves together and combat the aristocratic perverse assh*oles that have made such easy sport of our country for far too long. That is, a conservative-populist, alt-right narrative of the world.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Discussion of "A Quiet Place," at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club


It's a peculiar phenomenon, the success of A Quiet Place. I confess that I didn't love it; I found it to have the substance of a twenty-minute Oscar-nominated live-action short subject, but that was far from the worst part of the experience. Above all, I had the sense that John Krasinski, as director, didn't see what he was doing—didn't see the implications, the metaphors, the symbols, that arose from the seemingly innocuous and merely entertaining story. They're ugly and regressive, and I suspect that they weren't at all intended—but that they play a significant role in the movie's success nonetheless:
https://www.newyorker.com/…/the-silently-regressive-politic…
NEWYORKER.COM
In their enforced silence, the film’s main characters are a metaphorical silent—white—majority, one that doesn’t dare to speak freely for fear of being heard by the dark others.
LikeShow more reactions
Comment
Comments
Maurice Yacowar Interesting reading of the film. Here's my blob: John Krasinski’s directorial debut is a stunning horror film with a heart. 
His family off survivors must live in silence to avoid attracting the Alien-breed monster. The tension is so concentrat
ed and relentless that the audience feels as edgy and threatened as the characters.
In this post-apocalypse world, mankind manages to sustain itself. If one son is killed for a noisy toy, another is born. His mother smothers her contractions under the monster’s ear.  
Daughter Regan feels guilty for having given her young brother the fatal toy. She redeems herself, first by saving other brother Marcus from drowning in a granary, then by bringing down the monster. She discovers the beast is sensitive to the sound — the opposite to her deafness — so she ratchets up the sound waves to stun him. Mother Evelyn finishes him off.
The film speaks to our moment in a couple of respects. The father, Lee, is the usual Krasinski sensitive man. He’s careful to raise Marcus to self-sufficiency and dedicates himself to trying to make Regan an effective hearing aid. Still, he needs Marcus to remind him how desperate Regan is to hear her father still loves her, after her unwitting part in her brother’s death.
The film thwarts the genre expectation by granting the women the final victory. As he signs his love to Regan, Lee sacrifices himself to distract the monster from his children. For her part, Evelyn dumbly stares down the beast to deliver and preserve her baby and then guns it down.
Evelyn has one line which may directly address contemporary America. As she and Lee worry about their missing Regan and Marcus, she feels responsible for not having carried the son who was killed. As she cites the parents’ responsibility to protect their children — Every generation’s responsibility to protect and provide for the next — she pitches the film at the GOP presidency all too eager to sacrifice the nation’s future for its present profit: “Who are we if we can't protect them? we have to protect them.”  
Tell that to Trump’s EPA and Education directors — and his NRA. Krasinski just did.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Christine Peterson ...except it’s not his debut. Have you seen The Hollars?
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Vishy Thanks for your review, Maurice! I want to watch this movie now!
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Maurice Yacowar Christine Peterson nope.my mistake. thanx for the correction.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Roger Fritz It’s actually his third film. Easily his most successful though.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Will Gish "It's a peculiar phenomenon, the success of A Quiet Place." - is it? A high concept PG-13 horror film with big stars and a massive advertising campaign making $50m on opening weekend in the Blumhouse era is "a peculiar phenomenon"? Sometimes these articles are so clueless about anything beyond dime-a-dozen pseudo-intellectual deconstructions of film-as-text that it hurts my soul.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1dEdited
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Patrick McEvoy-Halston It suggests that we look at the success as hitting a nerve... and encourages us to to ask what might be going on with us that this film responded to it. His probing encourages us to think of the film's success as helping diagnosis our current mental state as a society. I think that's a useful prod.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply22h
Will Gish Patrick McEvoy-Halston people see films opening weekend because the premise appeals to them, the advertising appeals to them, the stars appeal to them, the genre appeals to them, or some combination thereof. If a film becomes a widespread cultural phenomenon a la Black Panther, it's worth spending some time considering how it reflects the collective unconscious. When a gimmick horror film has a decent opening weekend in an era in which gimmick horror films routinely have massive success, we should accept that people love trashy gimmick horror films, and have done so since the beginning of cinema. To psychoanalyze an entire society based on opening weekend success is a fool's errand because the people seeing the film know nothing about it - its success is not predicated on the finer points of its content, but its marketing, stars, genre, and premise. Word of mouth helps, but is still just marketing buzz.

Other than cosmetic differences, A Quiet Place is extremely similar to a number of other recent success, most notably Don't Breathe. It should hardly surprise anyone it made $50 million, given all of this. 

I suggest the real reason for Brody's piece is not the desire to prod deeper thought on the layers of meaning, intentional or not, found in popular art, but that Brody gets paid to think, does nothing but think about movies all day, is probably somewhat disconnected from how films are made and the film industry works, saw this movie, had some thoughts, and elected to satisfy his ego and contract to the New Yorker by writing them down.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply20h
Maurice Yacowar And its a good thing too
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply20h
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Will Gish The film is about fortress America. Given our society's beginning to be dangerously interested in "protecting borders," I think it's app to say the film is drawing crowds owing to its reflecting a spreading mentality, its endorsing it, the legibility of it, even if it is maybe a bit disconnected to find it's success peculiar rather to be expected. 

I'm very FOR the promotion of the legitimacy of psychoanalytic explorations of films, of ANY film, at a time when you're going suspecting more and more people may begin to be up to what they can still sense is no good, and in anticipation of this, are readying reasons why anything that could reflect back at them what they're not in mind to see, is rendered illegitimate, clearly not to be listened to.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply19h
Valda Vee #apt 
Or maybe as you mentioned, people are craving to see the film that delivers that delicious ride of suspending one’s disbelief, a fast paced, white knuckles ride, the kind that scared the shit out of us when we were kids. So many movies that promi
se us the ride, fall completely flat. This one is fun and we get the payoff. It’s not some sort of intellectual mind-field, (unless you want to impose a bunch of allegory or symbolism) it’s pretty simple and straightforward.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply6h
Tamara Kolaric As a rule, I do not read reviews of films that I haven't seen, due to the desire to see the films through my own eyes (any my own biases) first. I made an exception here, however, for 'A Quiet Place' did not appeal to me the slightest, and I had no intention of seeing it. 
I now have to. This is one of the most imaginative, most interesting readings of a film I have read in a while.
Manage
Like
Reply1dEdited
Joey Barrows It was good but I wish people hadn't been saying that it was scary. I read some reviews that said things along the lines of "even the most seasoned horror fans will be shaken to the core" and I thought that was just nonsense. It wasn't scary at all. I did like it in general though.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Chase Halbeck Me thinks this was a little pedantic. I think you are right that Krasinski didn’t think about all aspects of how one could interpret fairly minute parts of the film. The focus of the film is clearly survival in a post apocalyptic world... guns just come as part of the territory and it’s a little belittling of the audience to assume they can’t separate real world issues from fiction world norms, especially those as drastically different as a world where one might be slaughtered if they make the slightest sound. 

This movie really doesn’t qualify as horror, at least in a classic sense, since it has little to do with fear and humanity. It’s really more of a thriller. In this pursuit it is very successful. 

I agree from conception it is a bit shallow but who said every movie has to be deep? 

Frankly, most of this review ignores the purpose of the film which is to give the viewers a thrill ride. Like a roller coaster. It’s fun while ur on it but boring after it’s over. You might go a couple of times. But after a while the thrill is gone. And then you might come back again a few years later.... and on and on
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Joseph Graham What is this classic definition of horror you’re working from here?
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Chase Halbeck Joseph Graham weeeeeelll the lines between horror and thriller are kinda super blurred... but in like classic horror, which might be an overreach on my part..., the thing that is evil is usually an embodiment of some collective social fear. Like zombies historically being used as a allegory for black people gaining rights and assimilating into white society. Or zombies in a modern context being associated with the fear of contagious diseases. Or Frankenstein being the physical embodiment of the fear of scientific exploration and advancement. Or Cthulhu representing simply the fear of the unknown that haunts humanity. Or in a more recent horror classic cenobites of hell raiser showing us what happens when we give into our animalistic and hedonistic desires...we become them. 

This may be my own personal understanding of horror but horror is really more about fear, which is usually best when it’s specific. Like the dark cousin of fairy tales it teaches us something and moralizes on our world. A thriller on the other hand is really about adrenaline. Getting your heart racing and sending you into a state of heightened awareness and therefore jumpiness. 

Just to make this clear... both are great film techniques which, when used appropriately, make for great films.
Manage
Reply1d
Joseph Graham Chase Halbeck Word. Was just curious. Seems like since The Witch came out a bit ago I’ve had a lot of people tell me that certain things are and are not horror. And it gets confusing, but I’m like “there’s a monster causing fear throughout the length of the movie... seems like a horror to me.” But I got ya.
Manage
Reply1d
Chase Halbeck Joseph Graham I mean ultimately all the film analysis and jargon go out the window as long as the movie is good!
Manage
Reply1d
Matt Taliaferro I welcome any film that spits on progressive values. The only diversity hollywood despises is ideological.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Erik B. Anderson How does it spit on progressive values exactly?
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Enrico Caruso Here I see an author desperately grasping at straws in order to projects his own political anxieties unto a film that neither needs nor warrants such a reading. Sad!
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Paul D Lane I enjoyed it. I thought it was a different take on alien's will destroy us genre. The best thing at least it wasn't another remake.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Patrick McEvoy-Halston SPOILER The film would have better gone if somehow John Krasinski's Lee had sign-languaged, yes, the "I love you part," but also... 

"...this said, just to leave it at that would have you convinced that your thinking your parent blames you for a terri
ble mishap one could never forgive oneself for, must have come entirely out of thin air, that it was actually all your own imaginings, which would be a way of saying that you should above all... doubt yourself, especially when remaining convinced in your belief would lead to your maligning a parent who in no way actually would have you remain in the know that at times, yes, they do project weird and awful thoughts and motivations onto their kids, that, yes, probably are the source of their kids later growing up to deflect these motivations onto their monsters in horror movies because they were too scared of averse repercussions to grow into a maturity that could integrate a more complicated and integrated conception of their parents." 

Not only was the motivation clearly not for this, but there probably wasn't time. Given this, ideally he should have signed, "have faith in your intuitions; there's always basis for them. If I'm ready to be eaten by aliens, I can also take THAT kind of hit." With this, the kid would more likely to have grown up being the kind of parent reflected in the film, but real, not only in their own minds.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1dEdited
Valda Vee I can’t be bothered reading run on sentences that don’t use appropriate punctuation: whatever that stuff was in quotes. Gave me a headache
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply6h
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Another example of how film reviewers can help us remain awake... the number of things that could have been passed over, but shouldn't be.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Erik B. Anderson awake to what?
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Erik B. Anderson To the number of things that could and should be thought about in a film, that might simply be accepted and digested, and thus not questioned. It's a way of making sure we are awake to how films and books might subtly be influencing us adversely. We became awake to that.
Manage
Reply1d
Erik B. Anderson "Number of things "?
Manage
Reply1d
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Erik B. Anderson What I was thinking of specifically was Richard's focus on the old man, how he drew down the alien to devour him. It would have been a surprise if, rather than do as he did, he HAD actually cried out in love of the life, his friends, his past loves, that he himself had had... and we were allowed to feel this about him too. 

As is, it's true, outside the family we focus on we have a sense of a wild that in all aspects has gone evil, or insane and cruel. It would have discouraged a kind of projective identification with the family, and a secret admiration of a life where you've got your hearth, your virtuous household, and all madness lies ON THE OUTSIDE. This after-all is the situation we're setting up for ouselves... right now, in Trump America. America, a proud but highly vulnerable land of the brave and good, besieged by predators abroad. It's also how Germany imagined itself in the 1930s.
Manage
Reply23hEdited
Erik B. Anderson Patrick McEvoy-Halston the old man was trying to murder a child. What does that have to do with love of life?
Manage
Reply23h
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Erik B. Anderson I didn't really look at the particulars, actually... and I think I missed that bit about the child -- all I saw was a body. It might be that I caught the filmmakers preferred way of perceiving the world, and intuited -- correctly -- that any time I saw a wild man out there, he wasn't going to be worth our sussing out. Only another outside affliction, that keeps us identified with the family, not in mind to imagine the particulars of the world that might lie outside; their own uniqueness.
Manage
Reply23h
Erik B. Anderson Patrick McEvoy-Halston his wife just died. I would have to take another look to see if the monsters killed her or not, but after 483 days of this madness, what does he have to live for? I can feel sympathetic. Insanity is a normal reaction to an insane world. It doesn't mean that Krasinski should put his kid in danger to give The stranger a shoulder to cry on.
Manage
Reply23h
Valda Vee Erik B. Anderson he means we need to be “woke”. Trendy new word for aware
Manage
Reply6h
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Kids having to remain in a half-paralyzed state, fearful they're always doing wrong... "I'm sorry, I'm sorry," that the slightest error on their part will bring down the wrath of (a parental) god, was once a childhood normality. So too the dreadful anticipating sense you have through the film of how a young babe would be silenced if it proved bothersome, overtly needy -- if the young boy, too young for self-control, was going to be a problem, how about a baby? -- in their attention-drawing screams (good thing the baby in the film turned out not to be colicky; I don't think the boarded up "casket" they entomb him in would have been sufficient). 

I left the film thinking that if we had elements of this within our own childhoods too, it's probably fit for us to recall, as it'll keep at us at the proper level of hyper-alert that'll keep us safe in the world ahead, and keep us distinguished -- less attention-drawing -- from those who show in their ongoing nonchalance that they've never known any such horrors. We weren't spoiled.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1dEdited
David Martinez I too thought the film unintentionally lent itself to being an allegory for white rural isolationists, people who feel they are victimized because they are not allowed to speak. But even if that unfortunate message was not intended, I still noticed the lack of diversity in the film. The casting could have been more interesting if the family were interracial, or we had seen other survivors. The original idea of the film seems almost confined to a geography of theater-like claustrophobia. They might have thought through the concept of the film more carefully to give it a more nuanced artistic resonance for the present. As it is, it’s a forgettable sci fi genre film.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Valda Vee But a lot of fun and resolved unlike so many more “nuanced” ones
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1dEdited
Marte Munkeli The "white" reading of this movie still escapes me. I am very much a fan of diversity and representation in movies, but it's a lot to ask in a movie featuring a single family of five. To include other survivors just to add representation would ruin a lot of the sensation of isolation and helplessness. Plus, this movie actually features a deaf character, being played by a deaf actor. There are so many movies that deserves to be scolded for lack of diversity, but here I feel it is misplaced.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Colin Bates Christ, go make a movie yourself you bearded man with a computer....
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Colin Bates So glad Richard Brody found it in himself to "confess." Bold move, way to reach. Glad to know Brody's out there willing to martyr himself for our sake. Give me a break.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Sim贸n Cherpitel "Children should be seen & not heard" was the adult motto of the era in which I grew up 馃槉馃榿馃ぃ馃槈馃槉
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Maurice Yacowar Me too but I apparently misheard: "Children should be obscene or not heard." That made a difference.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Lizzie Nicholson yes, Simon, but it was also the era when women were told their place was in the kitchen
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Sim贸n Cherpitel Mine got out & was school nurse from the time i was 3rd grade thru HS, simultaneously advantageous & embarrassing, mostly the former.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Patrick McEvoy-Halston ... which was cruel, but paying heed to it, a safe way to make sure adults wouldn't go after you. 

Considering so many of us are careful as to what we say or do, do we really need a film that situates us within a context where this is really the only 
sensible thing to be doing? Maybe what we need more is a film which draws us into a situation which feels a bit like today, but where the kids make noises and play-around and disregard their parents admonitions... and actually come out okay.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply22hEdited
Valda Vee I just returned from seeing this movie today and thoroughly enjoyed this neat package of scary fun! #rollercoaster
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Arhan Shafat Sarah comments gula dekho Richard Brody’r biruddhey
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
Sarah Nafisa Shahid Yeha bhaloi rude
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
L茅rida Jerez S谩nchez I hated the movie, but I don't necessarily agree with everything you said. I think we are giving too much credit to krazinski. The movie feels like an empty vassle that wasn't meant to have any meaning whatsoever and then was randomly asigned one. That doesn't mean that the movie doesn't represent every single thing that was mentioned in the review, it's just that I feel that it was accidental. That doesn't make it any better. But while watching it I didn't get the feeling that the "high concept" was a calculated thing as in get out. Even when you hear him talk about it, you can tell he is trying to come up with stuff like a highschooler writing an essay for a book he did not read.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply21h
Chase Halbeck I haven’t heard krasinski talk about it but honestly I think you are over analyzing it a bit. I think this was really only ever supposed to be thrilling movie. It’s not meant for deep conversations just shallow but forceful tugs at our current emotional states. The conception was just how can we make a thrilling experience that hasn’t been seen a thousand times, oh monsters that hunt by sound! That’s pretty much it... I didn’t get a higher meaning from it or the intention of one. 

Like How John wick is meant to just be mindless thrilling action. They’ve added mystery to grow the world but that mystery isn’t saying anything in particular about our world. Other than we enjoy some hard core gory violence.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply20h
Maurice Yacowar A film can be read for meaning independent of what the director says or even thinks about it. As D H Lawrence said, Trust the tale not the teller. The interest in a film/story is how its component parts interact in different ways, by the viewer's/reader's experience, to create an idea, attitude or effect. That kind of analysis distinguishes the critic -- who goes at the meaning of the work -- from the reviewer, who is content to express how he feels receiving the work without thinking it thru. Sure this was "just a thriller" the way "Macbeth" is just a thriller -- without imputing to this film the complexity or power of the play. The genre doesn't restrict a work's meaning. To Krasinski's credit this film has provoked a very interesting debate over its themes and meanings, that admits both Brody's reading and the Washington Posts and some of the offerings in this stream. That speaks well for the film.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply13h
Chase Halbeck The very definition of someone adding their own perception and opinions onto a work.... nowhere does this film come close to discussing or even referencing pro-life or abortions or the politics there-off. That said I believe you can always do an inter textual analysis of anything... so whatever... this was just a really random example... diving fully into this I think you could make the argument that it’s incredibly selfish to bring a defenseless child into such a world. They already lost one helpless kid... and now in an effort to basically replace him they are going to have another.... Before they knew how to defend against a the monsters the only thing they could do was basically drug the baby to stay asleep so it would not cry.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply16h
Bjorn Arvidsson Chase I personally have no interest whatsoever in this film; I might see it for free on Netflix in 10 years, on a night when nothing else interests me.. But the fact that a film doesn't discuss or reference an issue doesn't mean it isn't a part of its makeup. And to make things clear: In the American use of the expression, I couldn't be less pro-life.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply16h
Chase Halbeck Bjorn Arvidsson I mean yes and no. I can pull together an argument on how pulp fiction is an allegory for WWII and the different world factions drawn to war over the same thing even tho no one fully knows or understands what it is, “it” being symbolically materialized as the glowing brief case, based on random bits and pieces pulled from the movie but I’d bet a million dollars that has nothing to do with the vision of Tarantino...
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply14h
Maurice Yacowar Bjorn Arvidsson Pro-Life does not have to mean "anti-woman." Perhaps this film salvages its genuine implication.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply13h
Bjorn Arvidsson Maurice I would respectfully disagree, but let's not have a political discussion here.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply11h
Maurice Yacowar Bjorn Arvidsson i agree with you on that.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply10h
Marte Munkeli "Would it have been easier for Evelyn and Lee to avoid the pregnancy altogether or to terminate it once it had begun? Should they have gotten rid of the child, perhaps one they didn’t want, because it would have made their life safer? Maybe. But what would be the point of living at all in a world with no children, no future?"

If this is not a pro-life argument in the ideological sense I don't know. I loved the movie, as a horror movie. That does not mean I don't think the characters sometimes make extremely stupid choices. If it was just the two of them, it would make sense to ignore the risk and have the baby, and in that scenario, the paragraph above would make sense. When they already have two young children to protect, having a third one is just plain reckless. 

"Evelyn and Lee have to demonstrate to Regan and Marcus that there is a reason to go on — and the only reason any of us has to go on, really, is to ensure the propagation of the species."

Wow.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply7h
Chase Halbeck The pregnancy was almost entirely just about heightening the stakes 馃ォ ... which again there is not pro life or pro choice or pro anything argument in this movie... that’s not ever given any brief pause... this movie is just an excellent use of Hitchcock’s “bomb under the table” rule for building suspense. Only instead of a bomb with a ticking clock it’s a pregnant mom about to give birth to noisy child into a world of forced silence... 

This whole pro life or not discussion is just absurd to me... at the most you might be able to make vague guesses that krasinski favors the idea of willing parents having children... but, just in case this was ever in question, pro choice people are also in favor of this! No one is pro abortion... 

Frankly, I struggle to see this as anything other than some politically motivated coopting of an unrelated piece of work for some, as of yet, unclear reason. The most likely reason is probably just to forcibly insert the conversation into the mainstream... which I find distasteful...
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply6h
Valda Vee “In a world where making the slightest noise spells near-instant, incredibly gruesome death at the hands of aliens who hunt via hearing, why on earth would you get pregnant?”
Answer: because it’s a plot device! Because you want to up the ante as far as you can.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply6h
Patrick McEvoy-Halston If the only reason people had children was to propagate the species, homo sapien sapiens wouldn't have had such a lengthy lineage. You might love them, yes, but they also serve a variety of purposes. One, is that they can be passive recipients of your own manipulation and abuse, so that they can carry "blame" for things that are more your own; it becomes more your option if you choose to remedy it, as for example is shown in this movie, through a final gesture on the part of the father, which has him using the ongoing distress he allowed to continue in her to make his final moment on earth more declarative of him in idealized form: perfect, self-sacrificing, all-provisioning father. If you have doubts about your father's love, it'll be supply for subsequent self-admonition and shame as you find out later just how much time and effort he put into nothing less than helping rescue you (for the daughter, from deafness), an effort that went largely unappreciated. 

The fact that the film would have you finding justifiable thoughts of infanticide, or locking a child in a box... because there are monsters, bothers me, for this used to be a human norm, and surfaces today frequently enough with postpartum.

Are we having the same thoughts today towards our children and are seeking films which permit us environments where these considerations seem purely rational, to begin to make them see more legitimate in general? This is a question to ask amidst growing anger at millenials and "snowflake" culture. 

If we end up quieting them, it'll be because we as the more adult representatives "have come to understand" that there is a very dangerous and threatening outside world pressing up upon us, full of dark and dangerous people, who don't hold to Western Civ. beliefs, and our "species" wont' survive unless we take matters into our hands and insist our children quieten down on a latitude, in terms of expressed behaviour and beliefs, and learn once again the kind of traits that gave us the kind of fibre and success that was so triumphant it could expand into what-me-care excesses in the first place.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply4m
LikeShow more reactions
Reply8h
Valda Vee And while you might feel Get Out had higher ideals, IMO it failed to achieve its aims simply because it was a clumsy, undergraduate attempt which floundered amidst dreadful dialogue and slapstick. A Quiet Place was a tight, gripping, story in which I could totally suspend my disbelief and fully enjoy the ride. All I wanted to do in Get Out, was to do exactly that- get out.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply7h
Rowna Sutin WOW! So your take was very different from mine, but no one will care because I am just an average movie goer. I thought this was an excellent portrayal of family life, if a little overly romanticized in light of the futuristic context. I loved the interaction between the parents and children - how the mom was teaching division, and the dad providing survival skill lessons. The movie got better after I marinated on if for 2 days . . maybe you rushed to judgment or maybe you just saw it differently.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply6h
Valda Vee Yes I agree with your views. “We’re all average” - as Clint Eastwood wished he’d said
Manage
Reply5h
Patrick McEvoy-Halston A person has a different reading from you and your first thought is that they rushed to judgment... that if they just sat with it a bit, they'd have come to exact same conclusion as you? 

People seem to be taking way too much pride on being ostensible
 objects of disdain right now. One feels a pumping up, and a getting ready to dispatch those who'd counter the ostensible only real take the collective has decided you should have on a matter.
Manage
Reply2h
Rowna Sutin Patrick McEvoy-Halston not at all. I did say “maybe”. After viewing many movies I have felt one way, and then over time, my opinion has moved to a different take.
Manage
Reply1h
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Rowna Sutin You drew no logical association between yourself and Richard; in fact, the opposite: he's someone people will care about for being exceptional, and you're someone no one will care about for being simply average. It's such a plight of isolation, you fairly draw attention to your woe (and garner it). So you have no relation, you've established that. Then after you delineate how the movie got better with you over a couple-day's absence, SUDDENLY you're both assumed to be sufficiently similar that your first thought would be incline him to consider that the same would have gone for him as well. This is out of nowhere, for you'd already established that he was someone different from you, who, for that reason, saw the film differently, from the start.
Manage
Reply1h

My books at Amazon.com

Essays on the Lord of the Rings Draining the Amazon's Swamp Wendy and Lucy, Star Trek, and The Lord of the Rings (and free at scribd...