-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
- Status
BenLaw said:
I think I've exhausted them, unless you get a bit of a spark.
BenLaw said:
That makes him more capable than a lot of people I've worked with.
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
In all honesty I enjoyed the film, and have found it difficult to identify elements of the film, to use as the basis of a critical analysis. In #2508 I tried to start some discussion with the comment "I have wondered about the similarities between Laika, and the lads dog. Both were sent to a place, from which there could be no return for either of them."
I was hoping that someone (eg strapped) would be able to mention something about the filmcraft - for instance were the similarities between the fates of the two dogs, used as some form of common thread, to tie the whole film together?
Apologies again for the delay in giving my thoughts.
I hadn't read any description of the film before watching. For some reason, I had it in my head that this was going to be a Japanese film about a boy brought up by dogs, a bit like Mowgli! So it was a rather different film than I had expected and I thought a really good one.
It makes a nice change to watch a film about these sort of sensitive childhood issues without it being relentlessly depressing and with what I saw as a generally optimistic ending. I'm not sure that I found it as laugh out loud funny as BBB did. I thought the modelling / smashing through the glass scene was very funny. I found the penis in a bottle scene to obviously have a comic element but also to be a neat character summary of some of Ingemar's problems: he was clearly an outsider who wanted to fit in, did silly things to try and impress others, got the blame for it from authority figures and stressed out his mum, with her reaction causing a bit of a vicious cycle.
I thought the contrast between his city life and his rural life was interesting. As a character he remained much the same, but his setting accommodated him better. For example, as with the bottle he was just as ready to be crazy and join in the boxing when untrained or jump in the makeshift cablecar, but it all went down much better with other people in the rural setting.
I think the real difference in setting came down to information, which seemed to be the key issue in the film to me. People around Ingemar tried to keep the truth from him in the city, in particular about his mother's illness. Whilst this was no doubt well intentioned it clearly did more harm than good. The rural setting seemed like such a small community that no one could really have a secret: everyone knew the girl was a boy but tolerated it, everyone knew the sculpter was a perv but got on with it, everyone was mean to guy on the roof but clearly really were fond of him. When Ingemar just had to be himself and have others accept that, he thrived, forming close bonds with Gunnar, the girl from the factory and even the old woman he stays with.
Having said that, Gunnar did join in the lie to him about the dog. Gunnar did at least give him time and space to work out these issues for himself.
I was rather troubled by the relationship with the woman from the factory. The film being made in the 80s, it would have been clear even then the filmmakers were presenting somewhat concerning behaviour on her part. I guess it was just another character in the village who enabled Ingemar to behave in a natural way and get out some adolescent emotions and urges in what in fact was a relatively safe way, given that she did not in fact have any intention of taking advantage. I also found the portrayal of pubescent tomboy nudity a little troubling: if she had been a feminine, traditionally attractive 14 year old would that have been acceptable to show?
I thought the segues to space shots / Laika narrations were interesting. Obviously there must be a link between the two dogs but I don't think it's terribly mind blowing. I guess Ingemar's true thoughts that 'it could be worse' change over the course of the film, from not really believing that and having no personal experience of something worse, therefore projecting onto a non-human that he doesn't have personal experience of, to genuinely contextualising his own negative thoughts through seeing other's pain and suffering (eg the death of Arvidsson) and having gained some perspective on his problems.
Thanks BBB, I enjoyed the film very much.
I hadn't read any description of the film before watching. For some reason, I had it in my head that this was going to be a Japanese film about a boy brought up by dogs, a bit like Mowgli! So it was a rather different film than I had expected and I thought a really good one.
It makes a nice change to watch a film about these sort of sensitive childhood issues without it being relentlessly depressing and with what I saw as a generally optimistic ending. I'm not sure that I found it as laugh out loud funny as BBB did. I thought the modelling / smashing through the glass scene was very funny. I found the penis in a bottle scene to obviously have a comic element but also to be a neat character summary of some of Ingemar's problems: he was clearly an outsider who wanted to fit in, did silly things to try and impress others, got the blame for it from authority figures and stressed out his mum, with her reaction causing a bit of a vicious cycle.
I thought the contrast between his city life and his rural life was interesting. As a character he remained much the same, but his setting accommodated him better. For example, as with the bottle he was just as ready to be crazy and join in the boxing when untrained or jump in the makeshift cablecar, but it all went down much better with other people in the rural setting.
I think the real difference in setting came down to information, which seemed to be the key issue in the film to me. People around Ingemar tried to keep the truth from him in the city, in particular about his mother's illness. Whilst this was no doubt well intentioned it clearly did more harm than good. The rural setting seemed like such a small community that no one could really have a secret: everyone knew the girl was a boy but tolerated it, everyone knew the sculpter was a perv but got on with it, everyone was mean to guy on the roof but clearly really were fond of him. When Ingemar just had to be himself and have others accept that, he thrived, forming close bonds with Gunnar, the girl from the factory and even the old woman he stays with.
Having said that, Gunnar did join in the lie to him about the dog. Gunnar did at least give him time and space to work out these issues for himself.
I was rather troubled by the relationship with the woman from the factory. The film being made in the 80s, it would have been clear even then the filmmakers were presenting somewhat concerning behaviour on her part. I guess it was just another character in the village who enabled Ingemar to behave in a natural way and get out some adolescent emotions and urges in what in fact was a relatively safe way, given that she did not in fact have any intention of taking advantage. I also found the portrayal of pubescent tomboy nudity a little troubling: if she had been a feminine, traditionally attractive 14 year old would that have been acceptable to show?
I thought the segues to space shots / Laika narrations were interesting. Obviously there must be a link between the two dogs but I don't think it's terribly mind blowing. I guess Ingemar's true thoughts that 'it could be worse' change over the course of the film, from not really believing that and having no personal experience of something worse, therefore projecting onto a non-human that he doesn't have personal experience of, to genuinely contextualising his own negative thoughts through seeing other's pain and suffering (eg the death of Arvidsson) and having gained some perspective on his problems.
Thanks BBB, I enjoyed the film very much.
BenLaw said:
I don't know if it's just me, but I genuinely don't see anything in either of these situations to be any problem at all. Yes, you may have a point that if the girl had been more feminine and attractive looking, it may not have been as acceptable to show those images, but she wasn't, she dressed and looked like a boy. If someone finds those images stimulating in any way, then it's that person that has the problem. Should we all stop taking pictures of our children if they are not fully clothed because there are a few people out there that get turned on by these images? My dad was told to stop taking pictures of his grandson playing football a few years ago. Why? It's absolutely crazy, and it means that we have allowed these rather sick individuals to change our perfectly normal behaviour.
As for the woman in the factory, I can't see anything in that all. She wasn't grooming him, not everyone who is being friendly to a child wants to sexually exploit them. OK, she was posing nude for a painting, but she specifically told Ingmar not to look, and to stay in another room. She wanted someone there to make sure she was safe with the artist, someone innocent. OK, Ingmar tried his hardest to have a look, but it's only what 99% of young boys would have done.
Any kid now can watch any amount of hardcore pornography on the internet, violent stuff, and IMO, this is the real problem, not innocent images, from a far more innocent time.
Sorry to go on, but as you can see, I do get annoyed by this subject.
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
I don't think the analogy quite holds, because the film is portraying a sexualised scene. There are two or three 'breast scenes' and Ingemar is aroused in each to a greater or lesser extent. So the analogy is not the mere portrayal of a naked 14 year old (although even with that I think care has to be taken where there is a public portrayal, rather than private as with your father), but the portrayal of two sexually aroused 14 year olds, one of whom is semi naked. Is it that clear cut when put like that? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that this isn't a simple example. That may well have been what the filmmakers intended; as I say they can't have been blind to the consequences of what they were portraying.
You're forgetting the bit where he comes up and slaps her bottom when they're in the factory. They are essentially flirting after that. If that was my son, I would expect the woman twice his age to explain it wasn't acceptable to do that to a woman, especially given the age imbalance. The nudity thing then has to be seen in that context, escpecially that she is quite amused / encouraging of the fact he sees her naked. Ultimately, I see the positive from this relationship, in that it allows certain of Ingemar's character traits to mature which might otherwise not have done, but again I think the portrayal is more ambivalent than you make out.
Agreed.
The film's from the 80s, let's not go nuts!
BenLaw said:
But the film is set in the late 50s, which is contextually very important I think.
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
Kind of, but that's not a million miles away from saying the 70s was a more innocent time, just look what Saville got up to! Bad things happened at any point in history, and you still need to come to a conclusion whether it was bad or not.
And the setting definitely doesn't address the 14 year old, which is all about filmmakers' choice of portrayal, which does come back to the time the film was made.
BenLaw said:
Ingemar is actually 12 years old, so I presume Saga is too. I'm not saying that you can not feel sexually aroused at 12, obviously you can, but considering it was set in the 50s, and they are both 12 years old, I don't consider it to be anything other than Innocent. I'll repeat, if anyone found those scenes to be sexually arousing, they are the ones with the problem.
BenLaw said:
I think in some ways the 70s was more innocent, which is why sexual predators like Saville got away with what he did. I watched a bit of a programme the other night about tv in the 70s, and to be honest, a lot of what was said and done was shocking. Beauty contest hosted by Terry Wogan, with 16 year old girls parading in bikinis, with Wogan making remarks about the size of her breast etc. Amazing.
BenLaw said:
Which is why I get so annoyed. There have always been and always will be paedophiles, but the way it is reported now, everyone is too paranoid to let their children go out and play, or to let parents and grandparents take photographs at sporting occasions. We've gone too far the other way, and in protecting children so carefully, we're actually making them more succeptable to exploitation in the future. If we do not do something about violent sexual images being easily available to children, we will create an enormous problem for all of our futures, and especially the futures of young girls. This is the thing we should be protecting our kids from.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
This was being discussed at work just before home time yesterday afternoon...its on my list to watch.
I've just watched the greatest documentary ever, The Act of Killing. Mind blowing stuff, so unbelievable I thought it couldn't be true. It definitely is. Formally pretty interesting too, elements of expressionism, realism and surrealism within the documentary format.
BenLaw said:
Hyperbole, Ben? *smile*
BenLaw said:
I haven't seen The Act of Killing, though I read a few reviews when it was released theatrically. Can you expand on your observations above?
Documentary filmmakers are never objectively capturing "reality" and the camera is never simply a window on the world. If the filmmakers made bold formal choices to incorporate aspects of realist, expressionist and surrealist techniques, what function do these approaches serve, and what might this tell us about the filmmakers' positions/objectives?
To frame the question another way, who has agency here and to what extent -- the filmmakers, the documentary's subject or subjects, the audience at the level of interpretation? (This is, in essence, a question about authorship and documentary filmmaking.)
Strapped, I'll reply properly when I get a chance on the computer, although that may not be for a few days as I'm away this weekend.
All, there's an excellent documentary 12.25 Saturday / Sunday night on film4 called Room 237, a must for any fans of The Shining.
All, there's an excellent documentary 12.25 Saturday / Sunday night on film4 called Room 237, a must for any fans of The Shining.
BenLaw said:
I have seen it, though I'm struggling to remember the details, but I think it was pretty good; worth watching anyway.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
expat_mike said:
I think it must be you who chooses the film for December, Mike. If you want to choose just three films, that is fine, but if you wish, you can also add a fourth from your previous nominations (like I did).
I hope everyone now has a copy of La Antena, or atleast has it on order. I'll be watching it next weekend.
My wife and I went to our annual trip to the pictures on Friday to watch the one film a year we make the effort to go and see.
I can thoroughly recommend The Imitation Game. Terrific cast, great story ( even though I knew the barebones of the Alan Turing story already ) , and best of all the sound was crystal clear. Is it just me and my wife, but half the dramas on TV these days have shocking sound, and all the voices seem muffled and hard to hear? It was a delight to not have to struggle to hear what was going on. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Great film.
.
I can thoroughly recommend The Imitation Game. Terrific cast, great story ( even though I knew the barebones of the Alan Turing story already ) , and best of all the sound was crystal clear. Is it just me and my wife, but half the dramas on TV these days have shocking sound, and all the voices seem muffled and hard to hear? It was a delight to not have to struggle to hear what was going on. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Great film.
.
- Status
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram