-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
- Status
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
Hi-FiOutlaw
Well-known member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 236
- 0
- 18,790
Hi-FiOutlaw
Well-known member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 236
- 0
- 18,790
Hi-FiOutlaw
Well-known member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 236
- 0
- 18,790
The first thing that come to mind after watch the film was, ok this is a film based on Lavoisier Law: "In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed. " it is a simple message but never put on film before.
And there is a mix of science and religion, the science is the message behind the film, but with God supervision of all elements.
I see this movie more as a documentary...
And there is a mix of science and religion, the science is the message behind the film, but with God supervision of all elements.
I see this movie more as a documentary...
Hi-FiOutlaw
Well-known member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 236
- 0
- 18,790
:cheer:Hi-FiOutlaw said:
So in your view, is the film an open text, inviting a multitude of readings and appropriations, including theological interpretations? (A less polite way of putting this would be to describe the film as a Rorschach.)
I'll leave you with that question as I go to bed.
Hi-FiOutlaw
Well-known member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 236
- 0
- 18,790
strapped for cash said:
Why not!?
The society still live divided regarding religion and science, i don't want to do a big fuzz out of it as this club is not to discuss religion or science, but the film point that out quite well.
The popular belief of the goat herder that can be cured with church dust. And the next morning he dies, caused by what??? By the advanced health problem or from the lack of taking the wonder "medicine" or from the placebo effect of not taking it...
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
I thought it was interesting. It was like listening to something like 'Adagio for Strings' - it meanders a bit and there are no clues as to what it's about or for unless you look it up on the internet, but enjoyable nonethless. It wasn't quite as beautiful to look at as I'd imagined it might be, in fact I found it a bit monotone. Having read some explanations from the director, I kind of get what he's trying to portray with the cyclical nature of life.
Having read around it, some critics found it 'funny' but I'm not sure I share that impression. I did find amusing the connection between the snails that escaped when the brick was dislodged and chucked out the window, to be dislodged next day by the dog to free the goats. And so continues the circle of life!
Having read around it, some critics found it 'funny' but I'm not sure I share that impression. I did find amusing the connection between the snails that escaped when the brick was dislodged and chucked out the window, to be dislodged next day by the dog to free the goats. And so continues the circle of life!
Hi-FiOutlaw said:
I'm not arguing against you. I think it's an incredibly open text that creates space for a multiplicity of worldviews, including religious and scientific.
For instance, the theme of reincarnation, suggested in the title, can be interpreted as a form of transubstantiation, signified by the eating of church dust and the Easter ceremony; or in line with Buddhist teachings; or as a more scientific transference of energy from one form of life to another, as you point out.
The director describes man's disconnection from nature as a defining theme. For me, this manifested as an unending tension between human efforts to establish order, and nature as an unpredictable (chaotic) force. In other words, it's a film about a loss of equilibrium with our environment.
This was signified repeatedly throughout the film, through escaping snails, to a dog moving a brick to cause an accident; the sweeping of a barn and the knocking over of a broom; to images that bookend the film of meticulously constructed geometric structures. (Notice the attention given to their construction and symmetrical arrangement.).
I really liked the film. I also thought much of the humour stemmed from the futility of efforts to control unpredictable forces.
There's a lot more to say about style. You describe the film as "documentary," and an array of "realist" techniques are used, including middle distance shots, long takes, and the casting of non-actors. However, this realist aesthetic becomes a canvas for existential questions about the inevitability of disorder, and life's continuation in the face of this. In short, it's a film about life as struggle.
I've not seen the interview, so maybe if I did, the film would make more sense to me, but, to be honest, I was bored, and my concentration kept wandering.
I really wanted to enjoy the film, as I'm not averse to a slow moving, deep thinking movie, but, I found there was nothing to grab my attention, pull me in, and keep me interested. The "funny" scene, wasn't particularly funny, and I found it void of emotion. To me, it was almost like a wordless documentary, following the lives of a small, remote village for a short time, when nothing really happened.
I may try to watch it again, but then again, it may well be up for sale very soon.
Sorry, but nothing more to add.
I really wanted to enjoy the film, as I'm not averse to a slow moving, deep thinking movie, but, I found there was nothing to grab my attention, pull me in, and keep me interested. The "funny" scene, wasn't particularly funny, and I found it void of emotion. To me, it was almost like a wordless documentary, following the lives of a small, remote village for a short time, when nothing really happened.
I may try to watch it again, but then again, it may well be up for sale very soon.
Sorry, but nothing more to add.
Sorry I've been a while to post some thoughts on this. I'm also sorry that at least two members don't seem to have enjoyed this, although that's always inevitable to one degree or another. I'd hope that even if it wasn't enjoyed then there's still a fair bit to talk about.
I'd say it's definitely important to watch the interview with the director (I intend to rewatch it soon) as it makes clear some of what he was intending and also what he was leaving open for interpretation.
I can kind of understand the 'getting bored' thing as we viewers aren't exposed to this kind of film very often; it does require an effort of concentration. Interestingly, as I'm watching a lot of children's TV at the moment, the analogy that this is Pingu compared to most film's being Postman Pat occurred to me: as it's silent, one has to concentrate on the narrative depicted visually. One has to put oneself in the character's position to try and work out what they may be thinking and feeling and one has to think more widely about the situation going on around them, rather than have a simple narrative of a follows b follows c. In a sense, there's almost more of a narrative through it being told this way. I would also say this is something it has in common with our last film, SS5+.
I thought this film represented something very fundamental about cinema. It is an incredibly adaptable art form that can portray content and theme in so many different ways. As JD said, the cinematrography isn't the greatest ever, but I thought the images portrayed were lovingly selected and almost endlessly fascinating. So many of the shots, for me, worked like a great piece of art. This varied from the great landscapes as the goats were herded, or the village was shown high up on the cliff in the background, or the tree was hoisted in the village, to the greater intimacy of the village (I love the rooftop shot looking down into the valley), and even more intimate as we get into the stark bedroom with the three chairs or the living room with the saucepans covering a wall. I thought the shot of the dust motes in the light in the church was beautiful. This concept was epitomised I felt with the shot of the goat herder's craggy face with the ant walking on it. This also led into the reversed theme of man's place in nature and played with the idea of landscape and actor.
I can't do better than the director and strapped in terms of the themes. I thought this had a lot to say (and / or allowed the viewer to ponder on the subjects of) life and death, the cycle of nature, rebirth, community, society, control and disorder, happiness, loneliness and so on. I'd say a corollary has to be added to the portrayal of man's inability to control nature, in that the goat herder found a middle ground by allowing the goats to wander and graze but directing them where needed; the scenes of him wandering in the mountains showed a certain harmony between man and nature. This was perhaps summed up (and I thought amusingly) by him having a sh*t on the ground and then the ants working away at the magazine he'd used as paper to get at what was underneath! It was only upon his illness and death that the dog was unsupervised and the goats became loose.
Does anyone know what the purpose of the burning wood was? I thought it was a remarkable closing scene (as strapped said, it bookended the film) and again both said something about man's attempt to control nature but also perhaps the community's acceptance of the primacy of nature and the cycle involved, as they venerated the tree when they raised it in the earlier scene.
I'd say it's definitely important to watch the interview with the director (I intend to rewatch it soon) as it makes clear some of what he was intending and also what he was leaving open for interpretation.
I can kind of understand the 'getting bored' thing as we viewers aren't exposed to this kind of film very often; it does require an effort of concentration. Interestingly, as I'm watching a lot of children's TV at the moment, the analogy that this is Pingu compared to most film's being Postman Pat occurred to me: as it's silent, one has to concentrate on the narrative depicted visually. One has to put oneself in the character's position to try and work out what they may be thinking and feeling and one has to think more widely about the situation going on around them, rather than have a simple narrative of a follows b follows c. In a sense, there's almost more of a narrative through it being told this way. I would also say this is something it has in common with our last film, SS5+.
I thought this film represented something very fundamental about cinema. It is an incredibly adaptable art form that can portray content and theme in so many different ways. As JD said, the cinematrography isn't the greatest ever, but I thought the images portrayed were lovingly selected and almost endlessly fascinating. So many of the shots, for me, worked like a great piece of art. This varied from the great landscapes as the goats were herded, or the village was shown high up on the cliff in the background, or the tree was hoisted in the village, to the greater intimacy of the village (I love the rooftop shot looking down into the valley), and even more intimate as we get into the stark bedroom with the three chairs or the living room with the saucepans covering a wall. I thought the shot of the dust motes in the light in the church was beautiful. This concept was epitomised I felt with the shot of the goat herder's craggy face with the ant walking on it. This also led into the reversed theme of man's place in nature and played with the idea of landscape and actor.
I can't do better than the director and strapped in terms of the themes. I thought this had a lot to say (and / or allowed the viewer to ponder on the subjects of) life and death, the cycle of nature, rebirth, community, society, control and disorder, happiness, loneliness and so on. I'd say a corollary has to be added to the portrayal of man's inability to control nature, in that the goat herder found a middle ground by allowing the goats to wander and graze but directing them where needed; the scenes of him wandering in the mountains showed a certain harmony between man and nature. This was perhaps summed up (and I thought amusingly) by him having a sh*t on the ground and then the ants working away at the magazine he'd used as paper to get at what was underneath! It was only upon his illness and death that the dog was unsupervised and the goats became loose.
Does anyone know what the purpose of the burning wood was? I thought it was a remarkable closing scene (as strapped said, it bookended the film) and again both said something about man's attempt to control nature but also perhaps the community's acceptance of the primacy of nature and the cycle involved, as they venerated the tree when they raised it in the earlier scene.
BenLaw said:
I'm fairly sure the wood is used as fuel. I thought images of the kiln (or pyre?) were again about transference of energy, or rebirth; one of the "four times" or "four lives" the director spoke of.
I also found it interesting that the director spoke explicitly of a distancing from nature, since as you say, the people of Calounia retain traditional methods and crafts. The film might also be read as a lament for a simpler way of life, in the face of globalisation and exploitation of resources as capital. Perhaps this tension between old and new worlds and traditional and modern techniques is pivotal to unpacking the film. (Not just thematically but also stylistically.)
Whenever I write about a film I watch it countless times and make extensive notes. One of the difficulties with film club is a need to deconstruct a film based on one viewing (and perhaps a week or more after sitting down to watch it). I'll certainly watch Le Quattro Volte again; as I think there's considerably more to be said than we've touched upon here.
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
What did you enjoy about the film?
I think we should elaborate on good/bad appraisals on the film club thread.
strapped for cash said:
I'll try to elaborate once the cider has worn off.
It's a good film though isn;t it?
BBB,
I watched Elling last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. My only complaint is that I would have liked it to have lasted longed.
Also even though I enjoyed the film, I do think it might have proved difficult to analyse it in the same level of detail that we have used for the first two film club choices.
I watched Elling last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. My only complaint is that I would have liked it to have lasted longed.
Also even though I enjoyed the film, I do think it might have proved difficult to analyse it in the same level of detail that we have used for the first two film club choices.
expat_mike said:
I'm glad you all enjoyed it Mike, and I think you may be right about analyzing the film.
There's a few other films which you may be interested in, which have a similar gentle Scandinavian humour to them; Kitchen Stories and O'Horten, and don't forget Mt Life As A Dog, which is one of my favourites, funny, and touching.
strapped for cash said:
I'm guessing you've seen the film Strapped, and enjoyed it too.
It's a fantastic looking film, the setting (which is in a national park), is so beautiful, and reminded me of my visit to Japan, especially Kyoto. It's a very simple coming of age story, well told, and both funny and touching. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a fast moving film, but it never drags, and it kept my wife and myself gripped to the end. The more I think about it, the more I loved it.
I've contemplated it as one of my next 3, but I think I'll just recommend it to all of you, and if you do wish to see it, get the blu ray, I'm sure it will look stunning.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374546/?ref_=nv_sr_3
Hi-FiOutlaw
Well-known member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 236
- 0
- 18,790
I haven't seen the film, BBB, though I'm glad you enjoyed it.
To be honest, I've never been less up-to-date with film viewing than during the last few years, largely because I spend a lot of time looking further back.
It's interesting that the films we enjoy are so often praised for their ability to move us. I wonder if that's why people were less impressed by Le Quattro Volte?
To be honest, I've never been less up-to-date with film viewing than during the last few years, largely because I spend a lot of time looking further back.
It's interesting that the films we enjoy are so often praised for their ability to move us. I wonder if that's why people were less impressed by Le Quattro Volte?
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
I wonder if the film pays a large debt to Ozu, whose work was organised around themes of seasons and age? Have you seen any of Ozu's films?
This film also owes a particular debt to Ozu:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/make_way_for_tomorrow/
The Masters of Cinema Blu-ray is sterling.
- Status
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram