The WHF Film Club

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Did you not laugh when the family sit down for Xmas dinner, and dad goes crazy at the sight of the Turkey?

I thought it was a good joke, yes, but then I thought he spoiled it by doing the 'father in a microwave' routine. I got the joke first time and didn;t need it explaining.

The family headbanging in the car?

Yes, I had forgotten that one actually.

But sometimes I think he just went too far with the explanations - when the dad swoops and picks up the murdering husband when he jumps out the window, you know *exactly* what's happened (and it's the best joke in the film) - you don't then need another few minutes of him flying across the city to hammer it home.

I agree with you there, though I think that image of the father in the microwave is a very striking one, and with it coming from the mind of someone with a career in tv advertising, I can understand why he used it.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Strapped

I think you may be on to something, though I'm almost certain that I do not have the intellect to engage in such a discussion. I will however, read with interest on how this discussion evolves.

One thing I will say. My wife tells me that the weight of opinion from Japanese viewers, is that it's a fun, and funny film, and although they're not sure what it's about, they feel it may be about dealing with the changes life throws at you, and moving forward. Japan has a very high suicide rate compared to other countries, so this theory could well have some truth to it.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Ben

Are you ready with your film suggestions?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Strapped

I think you may be on to something, though I'm almost certain that I do not have the intellect to engage in such a discussion. I will however, read with interest on how this discussion evolves.

One thing I will say. My wife tells me that the weight of opinion from Japanese viewers, is that it's a fun, and funny film, and although they're not sure what it's about, they feel it may be about dealing with the changes life throws at you, and moving forward. Japan has a very high suicide rate compared to other countries, so this theory could well have some truth to it.

Makes sense with the "I will survive" ending too.

 

[strapped for cash]

it may be about dealing with the changes life throws at you, and moving forward.

That's essentially what I was getting at. To move on (or suvive) characters had to resolve deep rooted psychological conflicts (repressed guilt and homosexuality especially).

Japan has a very high suicide rate compared to other countries, so this theory could well have some truth to it.

I hadn't thought about the film in those terms specifically, but now you mention it that's certainly an aspect of Japanese culture worth highlighting.

Japanese culture is also constrained by social conventions and notions of duty over self. (The idea of repression is culturally relevant here, too.) There are interesting parallels with British culture in this regard. (Think Kaz Ishiguro.)

 

[strapped for cash]

That's essentially what I was getting at. To move on (or suvive) characters had to resolve deep rooted psychological conflicts (repressed guilt and homosexuality especially).

To add to that, these are id-ego/superego conflicts, which is where the surrealist element comes in. Indeed, we might interpret the whole film as a dream, or existing on a plane between conscious and unconscious states of existence.

I thought the film borrowed heavily from surrealist traditions, which themselves stem from Freudian theory (that's not a criticism, most filmmakers use established methods and borrow heavily from other traditions).

 

[BenLaw]

I think it's function was to entertain and amuse. I'm a little surprised that not more of you found it as funny as I do, though my sense of humour is a little twisted. Did you not laugh when the family sit down for Xmas dinner, and dad goes crazy at the sight of the Turkey? Vinnie Jones's translator obviously not being able to translate, and just making things up? The gay burglar with the teeth? "Come baby, come come baby" ? The family headbanging in the car? I could go on, because to me it's an extremely funny film virtually all the way through. This was the directors first film, his work before was in TV advertising as far as I can remember.

Again a bit like John in this regard. I found lots of individual parts of it funny, and listed a number of them in my first post. I'd forgotten to mention the headbanging in the car, I probably found that the most amusing,happily and obliviously singing along to the profanity as a nice, wholeseome family activity! Overall, I found the style and the kowledge that we were going to get some slightly crowbarred in linkage between the stories a little intrusive and thus stopped me being able to consider it overall as a very funny film. It may well be that with multiple viewings those other things fall away a bit and one can concentrate on the humour a bit more.

You're right, it was TV advertising he was in not music videos. Has he directed any other films you've watched?

 

[BenLaw]

Here are my thoughts...

For me, the most interesting narrative strand involves the husband that murders his wife, only for her to return in ever more violent manifestations.

Read through a Freudian lens, the wife's repeated burial and reappearance signifies an act of repression and return. (A "return of the repressed," as Freud put it.)

The husband repeatedly tries to bury (literally and figuratively) memory of his actions, but that memory unfailingly returns and gains more powerful form.

The same is true of the monster in horror films that represents contemporary social ills and cannot be destroyed. The more we try to repress something, the more violently or disturbingly it ultimately manifests. (At least that's the Freudian reading.)

In this regard SS5+ is a surrealist film (concerned with unconscious, or both conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche). We might therefore consider what different spaces in the film represent -- the dark woods (id) and home (ego/superego). The murdered wife's ability to transcend these spaces should not be interpreted literally, but as symbolic of the husband's inability to repress memories of his murderous behaviour. (In other words, this narrative strand is about guilt.)

I'm interested as to why you reach such a firm conclusion that this is the correct interpretation of the repeated attack / murder / burial / resurrection. Another interpretation is that he is only considering murdering her and the events are manifestations of his thoughts and fantasies and conflict about those thoughts. Compare the sumptuous meal she cooks, which he ploughs sullenly through with rising tension between the pair, with the simple meal that delights him prior to their apparent reconciliation. Then her ultimate murder by Jones can be read as either the elusiveness of contentment (it is taken away after he / they are happy so briefly) or as an inability to escape the negative thoughts one has had even when objectively things seem to have improved.

Your later tentative suggestion is perhaps consistent with that alternative reading:

we might interpret the whole film as a dream, or existing on a plane between conscious and unconscious states of existence.

My thought on the film generally is that the scenarios other than the feuding couple are insufficiently developed to draw much of a conclusion from. Particularly the case with the gay burglars (maybe not meant to be too deep) and the ad executive (where the ending hints at trying to have a deeper message, wich escapes me). I think five scenarios with some time having to be spent connecting them together almost inevitably means insufficient time can be spent on each to develop a cohesive message such as strapped is trying to draw from it. The feuding couple seemed reminiscent to me of some 70s British portmanteau horror; I wonder if this might have been more successful with fewer stories in a portmanteau format?

 

[BenLaw]

Ben

Are you ready with your film suggestions?

I'll have to think of a third, which I can do tonight if people want me to. Has everyone commented on this film?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I think it's function was to entertain and amuse. I'm a little surprised that not more of you found it as funny as I do, though my sense of humour is a little twisted. Did you not laugh when the family sit down for Xmas dinner, and dad goes crazy at the sight of the Turkey? Vinnie Jones's translator obviously not being able to translate, and just making things up? The gay burglar with the teeth? "Come baby, come come baby" ? The family headbanging in the car? I could go on, because to me it's an extremely funny film virtually all the way through. This was the directors first film, his work before was in TV advertising as far as I can remember.

Again a bit like John in this regard. I found lots of individual parts of it funny, and listed a number of them in my first post. I'd forgotten to mention the headbanging in the car, I probably found that the most amusing,happily and obliviously singing along to the profanity as a nice, wholeseome family activity! Overall, I found the style and the kowledge that we were going to get some slightly crowbarred in linkage between the stories a little intrusive and thus stopped me being able to consider it overall as a very funny film. It may well be that with multiple viewings those other things fall away a bit and one can concentrate on the humour a bit more.

You're right, it was TV advertising he was in not music videos. Has he directed any other films you've watched?

I think he's only done one other full length film, "Quirky Guys And Gals", and it's on my list, but I haven't seen it yet.

So what are your 3 choices Ben?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I think we can continue to discuss SS+5 until we view your choice, so go for it.

 

[John Duncan]

Agreed, let's get choices out there early in case the French postal service has to get involved again...

 

[BenLaw]

Ok then. My three proposals are (click for IMDB links):

(1) Snowtown. Just seen that this only has 6.5 on IMDB which surprises me. This is the true story (pretty faithfully told, as far as I can tell) of some very unpleasant and infamous murders carried out in suburban Australia. Mostly acted by non-actor locals from the area of the murders. Treads a remarkable line IMO between portraying the inexplicable without attempting a simplistic explanation. Portrayals of the darker side of human existence is a particular favourite of mine and it doesn't get darker than this, although brutality is kept to an artistic minimum.

(2) Le Quattro Volte. A massive contrast from Snowtown. Tag line: the best film about an Italian goat herder you'll see all year. From recollection there is almost zero dialogue in this film. I hate the phrase normally, but it does almost 'rewrite the grammar of cinema'. Amazing cinematography which manages to play thematically and visually with the concept of man, nature and man's place within landscape. Before I watched it it sounded like it risked being dull but I was captivated from start to finish, like being mesmerised by a fine piece of art.

(3) In a Better World. My third choice is a film I haven't watched. I've toyed with a few things I own and haven't seen and a few on my lovefilm list. In the end I have played it relatively safe, could have offered some dark, disturbing contenders but we've got that with Snowtown. Winner of the 2011 foreign language Oscar and from what I've read it should be excellent.

Happy mulling.

 

[strapped for cash]

I'm interested as to why you reach such a firm conclusion that this is the correct interpretation of the repeated attack / murder / burial / resurrection. Another interpretation is that he is only considering murdering her and the events are manifestations of his thoughts and fantasies and conflict about those thoughts. Compare the sumptuous meal she cooks, which he ploughs sullenly through with rising tension between the pair, with the simple meal that delights him prior to their apparent reconciliation. Then her ultimate murder by Jones can be read as either the elusiveness of contentment (it is taken away after he / they are happy so briefly) or as an inability to escape the negative thoughts one has had even when objectively things seem to have improved.

Your later tentative suggestion is perhaps consistent with that alternative reading:

Well, it's only my interpretation, based on a longstanding interest in surrealism. I didn't state that it was the definitive reading. Indeed, I qualified my observations by stating that they were based on one viewing; and that my interpretation might change following repeated viewings.

I'd also argue that there is no one "correct" reading of a film, though preferred readings often cement through consensus. These readings may also change over time, as may a film's reputation.

All of that said, there are motifs scattered throughout the film, including burial (liked with repression), and recording (linked with memory), that are common in surrealist cinema. Repression and return is also a key surrealist theme.

I can't impose a reading on other people, and you're of course welcome to disagree. Indeed, one of the difficulties with surrealism is that things get fuzzy round the edges.

 

[Hi-FiOutlaw]

That's essentially what I was getting at. To move on (or suvive) characters had to resolve deep rooted psychological conflicts (repressed guilt and homosexuality especially).

To add to that, these are id-ego/superego conflicts, which is where the surrealist element comes in. Indeed, we might interpret the whole film as a dream, or existing on a plane between conscious and unconscious states of existence.

I thought the film borrowed heavily from surrealist traditions, which themselves stem from Freudian theory (that's not a criticism, most filmmakers use established methods and borrow heavily from other traditions).

Sorry for my ignorance, but it is needed such a deeeeeep interpretation of this movie?!

Ok, it is not a simple and direct movie, there is some subliminar messages such "what is your purpose in live", and when one of the character ( the homicide husband) answered "none" all laught out loud...

My interpretation of this scene is a satire of real life, we just live day to day and don't even think of the great gift ( or not) to be able to live just one more day!

And what we do...??? We just rush into work and rush our way back home again...

 

[BenLaw]

I'm interested as to why you reach such a firm conclusion that this is the correct interpretation of the repeated attack / murder / burial / resurrection. Another interpretation is that he is only considering murdering her and the events are manifestations of his thoughts and fantasies and conflict about those thoughts. Compare the sumptuous meal she cooks, which he ploughs sullenly through with rising tension between the pair, with the simple meal that delights him prior to their apparent reconciliation. Then her ultimate murder by Jones can be read as either the elusiveness of contentment (it is taken away after he / they are happy so briefly) or as an inability to escape the negative thoughts one has had even when objectively things seem to have improved.

Your later tentative suggestion is perhaps consistent with that alternative reading:

Well, it's only my interpretation, based on a longstanding interest in surrealism. I didn't state that it was the definitive reading. Indeed, I qualified my observations by stating that they were based on one viewing; and that my interpretation might change following repeated viewings.

I'd also argue that there is no one "correct" reading of a film, though preferred readings often cement through consensus. These readings may also change over time, as may a film's reputation.

All of that said, there are motifs scattered throughout the film, including burial (liked with repression), and recording (linked with memory), that are common in surrealist cinema. Repression and return is also a key surrealist theme.

I can't impose a reading on other people, and you're of course welcome to disagree. Indeed, one of the difficulties with surrealism is that things get fuzzy round the edges.

I don't disagree, I assume it is left deliverately ambiguous in order to allow for alternative interpretations, I just thought it was worth enunciating the alternative. FWIW yours is probably the more likely due to the opening monologue (from what I can remember of it).

What are your thoughts on the point of man being stuck as bird?

 

[Hi-FiOutlaw]

I think we can continue to discuss SS+5 until we view your choice, so go for it.

+1!

 

[Hi-FiOutlaw]

I'm interested as to why you reach such a firm conclusion that this is the correct interpretation of the repeated attack / murder / burial / resurrection. Another interpretation is that he is only considering murdering her and the events are manifestations of his thoughts and fantasies and conflict about those thoughts. Compare the sumptuous meal she cooks, which he ploughs sullenly through with rising tension between the pair, with the simple meal that delights him prior to their apparent reconciliation. Then her ultimate murder by Jones can be read as either the elusiveness of contentment (it is taken away after he / they are happy so briefly) or as an inability to escape the negative thoughts one has had even when objectively things seem to have improved.

Your later tentative suggestion is perhaps consistent with that alternative reading:

Well, it's only my interpretation, based on a longstanding interest in surrealism. I didn't state that it was the definitive reading. Indeed, I qualified my observations by stating that they were based on one viewing; and that my interpretation might change following repeated viewings.

I'd also argue that there is no one "correct" reading of a film, though preferred readings often cement through consensus. These readings may also change over time, as may a film's reputation.

All of that said, there are motifs scattered throughout the film, including burial (liked with repression), and recording (linked with memory), that are common in surrealist cinema. Repression and return is also a key surrealist theme.

I can't impose a reading on other people, and you're of course welcome to disagree. Indeed, one of the difficulties with surrealism is that things get fuzzy round the edges.

What are your thoughts on the point of man being stuck as bird?

bip bip... Vruuuuum :shifty:

 

[BenLaw]

I think we can continue to discuss SS+5 until we view your choice, so go for it.

+1!

Have done, see post at top of this page.

 

[John Duncan]

I have wanted to see Snowtown for a while, but you have seduced me with your tale of lonely goatherds, you smooth talker you. So, my order of preference is:

2

1

3

 

[Hi-FiOutlaw]

I think we can continue to discuss SS+5 until we view your choice, so go for it.

+1!

Have done, see post at top of this page.

yes, i've saw your choices!

I was just agreeing with the fact that we continue to review the SS5 + while voting at the next choice!

 

[strapped for cash]

What are your thoughts on the point of man being stuck as bird?

Broadly speaking, achieving freedom by coming to terms with oneself. This narrative also functioned as a thematic thread that pulled the different stories together, hence the extended flight sequence checking in on different characters.

As I say, I'm not trying to offer a definitive reading. Surrealist films are notoriously difficult to unpack. Mulholland Drive only really clicked on about the fifth viewing. Once I'd grasped what it was about, I could really get stuck in to the film's symbols and nuances.

I stand by the repression and return reading of SS5+, in very clear visual terms with regard to the wife. (I think burial is a pretty explicit metaphor.) If you want to read this singularly as unconscious conflict (he never really murdered her), who am I to complain.

 

[BenLaw]

If you want to read this singularly as unconscious conflict (he never really murdered her)

? As I said in my last post, I think it's ambiguous, probably deliberately, and the explanation that he has killed her is perhaps the more likely.

However, where does Vinnie's participation fit in with that explanation?

 

[BenLaw]

achieving freedom by coming to terms with oneself.

Good point. I guess that could be seen to link the family, Vinnie Jones, the burglars and possibly the ad executive (the ending is a bit blurry in my memory now). The couple could also be seen as having coming to terms with themselves / their relationship, although they fail to achieve freedom together. The husband could be seen as having achieved the freedom from her he had clearly desired throughout the film once he had come to terms with her / their relationship.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I'm struggling to choose between the three films, they all sound very different, yet all very watchable.

Le Quattro Volte was on Film4 a while ago, and I had recorded it, but my wife's recording of Supernatural in HD meant I had to make some space on the hard drive, so it was gone before I could watch it. So......

Le Quattro Volte 3 pts

In A Better World 2 pts

Snowtown 1 pt