The WHF Film Club

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

If 5 is too many, so how would you all feel about 4?

Like Ben, I'm still keen on the veto for any film seen by 2 members or more, and for exactly the same reasons.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm last in, so I'm easy. Go with the flow

 

[expat_mike]

If 5 is too many, so how would you all feel about 4?

Like Ben, I'm still keen on the veto for any film seen by 2 members or more, and for exactly the same reasons.

I would prefer to have 5 nominations. I will explain my reasoning, using maths as follows:

Scenario 1 - If you activate the veto for any film seen by 1 member or more, then it becomes very likely that virtually all nominations will have been seen by someone, and end up vetoed. You then need to start with many nominations (maybe 10?), to ensure that two or three remain for the final vote.

Scenario 2 - If you activate the veto for any film seen by 2 members or more, then it is likely (but less likely than for Scenario 1) that many nominations will have been seen by at least 2 members, and end up vetoed. You need to start with less nominations than in Scenario 1, to ensure that two or three remain for the final vote. I suspect that 5 nominations would prove to be the minimum viable number, with 4 nominations posing a risk thet some months we will have all but one nomination vetoed before the vote.

Scenario 3 - If you activate the veto for any film seen by 3 members or more, then it is possible (but less likely than for Scenario 2) that some nominations will have been seen by at least 3 members, and end up vetoed. You need to start with less nominations than in Scenario 2, to ensure that two or three remain for the final vote. I suspect that 4 nominations would prove to be the minimum viable number, with 3 nominations posing a risk thet some months we will have all but one nomination vetoed before the vote.

etc.

I'm not trying to be difficult, just to explain my concern. When push comes to shove, I will go with the majority view on this.

 

[BenLaw]

If films are chosen with the idea of them not being mainstream in mind then I think the 'maths' is pessimistic but I'm happy to go with 5 in order to be sure. It can always be pared back later if appropriate.

 

[BenLaw]

Once Ben and David have had their say, we can discuss the options for going forward, but for clarification, I meant they can nominate a film that had been previously proposed by themself, and no film can be proposed by the same person more than two times,

I'm easy BBB - I've seen As If I Am Not There by the way.

So has everyone seen this by now?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I'm easy BBB - I've seen As If I Am Not There by the way.

So has everyone seen this by now?

Ummmmm.....no!

Tonight should be the night though.

 

[Frank Harvey]

The Shining tonight for me, seeing as its Stanley's birthday...

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

The Shining tonight for me, seeing as its Stanley's birthday...

I'm about to watch As If I Am Not There, so I might need to watch The Shining afterwards to cheer myself up. *smile*

Happy birthday Mr Kubrick. *drinks*

 

[BenLaw]

I'd cheer myself up with Full Metal Jacket, I'm thinking the last scene from training and the finding the sniper scene.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I'd cheer myself up with Full Metal Jacket, I'm thinking the last scene from training and the finding the sniper scene.

I considered it, but I opted for a music session of Radiohead and Red House Painters.. *yahoo*

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Anyway, I've now watched the film, and I suppose whoever is to blame, sorry, I mean whoever nominated the film should now start the discussion.

 

[BenLaw]

I think that's Mike. The discussion should be interesting, as I'm finding it hard to justify why I think something like Snowtown is a great film whereas I found this an ordeal.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Snowtown's brilliant.

 

[expat_mike]

Anyway, I've now watched the film, and I suppose whoever is to blame, sorry, I mean whoever nominated the film should now start the discussion.

With that build-up, I shall prepare my initial post carefully. *drinks*

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Anyway, I've now watched the film, and I suppose whoever is to blame, sorry, I mean whoever nominated the film should now start the discussion.

With that build-up, I shall prepare my initial post carefully. *drinks*

I was just joking Mike, it's a good film, just a little hard going with the subject matter.

 

[expat_mike]

Anyway, I've now watched the film, and I suppose whoever is to blame, sorry, I mean whoever nominated the film should now start the discussion.

With that build-up, I shall prepare my initial post carefully. *drinks*

I was just joking Mike, it's a good film, just a little hard going with the subject matter.

Yes I knew you were tongue-in-cheek, and I agree that the subject matter was rather grim.

When I select my nominations, I try and keep several factors in mind including:

1 - Am I interested in seeing the film?

2 - Is the film likely to have elements to it, that can trigger/sustain a group discussion? (these elements can include subject matter, film-making style, directoral style, film-making artistic movement etc)

3 - Are the other club members likely to want to watch the film? (if the answer to this question is no, then the nomination is likely to be voted into third place, so probably best not to nominate the film in the first place)

4 - Do the nominations have a common theme? (this is a nice-to-have, rather than a must-have consideration)

So I felt the film satisfied the first two criteria, but was not sure about the third.

Anyway to whet appetites, when I first watched the film, my first thoughts were that it was rather grim, and would the other club members enjoy it more, and was there anything to discuss? However the more I thought about what I had seen, and then read what other people had written about it on the web, I realised that there are aspects of the film to discuss.

These I shall write about in due course. *biggrin*

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Finally got around to watching a DVD I've owned for a few years tonight.

I won't say much, as it's on the possible list for my next film choices, but if it doesn't make it to the list, I think it's most definitely worth seeing, especially as there's an American remake in the offing. *stop*

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305806/?ref_=tt_rec_tt

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Yes I knew you were tongue-in-cheek, and I agree that the subject matter was rather grim.

When I select my nominations, I try and keep several factors in mind including:

1 - Am I interested in seeing the film?

2 - Is the film likely to have elements to it, that can trigger/sustain a group discussion? (these elements can include subject matter, film-making style, directoral style, film-making artistic movement etc)

3 - Are the other club members likely to want to watch the film? (if the answer to this question is no, then the nomination is likely to be voted into third place, so probably best not to nominate the film in the first place)

4 - Do the nominations have a common theme? (this is a nice-to-have, rather than a must-have consideration)

So I felt the film satisfied the first two criteria, but was not sure about the third.

Anyway to whet appetites, when I first watched the film, my first thoughts were that it was rather grim, and would the other club members enjoy it more, and was there anything to discuss? However the more I thought about what I had seen, and then read what other people had written about it on the web, I realised that there are aspects of the film to discuss.

These I shall write about in due course. *biggrin*

The only criteria I have for choosing my films are:

1. Do I think it's a good film?

2. Do I think others should see it?

I try to avoid any kind of common theme, or language, infact, one of my possible choices next time will be a rather controversial choice, as it's in English, and the reviews of the film are either in the love it or hate it camp, very little in the middle ground. I'm obviously in the love it camp.

Anyway Mike, we're waiting for you to kick the discussion off.

 

[BenLaw]

I'm a bit of a hybrid between the two of you. Definitely BBB's two but I've learned from my book club that a good film alone isn't the best film for a club, as there's got to be something to discuss there, not just six people going 'yeah, that was good'. Fortunately BBB's choices (and some other recommendations of his I've watched) have also had the 'discussability' element!

Anyway, I'm also waiting on more from Mike.

 

[expat_mike]

I will try and start the discussion off.

When I finished the film, I felt a bit dumbstruck, because the film itself was pretty grim, and I was unsure how the rest of the members would react.

But now that I have read a bit more, and thought a bit more about the film, I see that there is more to it.

This is a film of a book, written from listening to the trials of some of the key players involved in what was one of the most unpleasant conflicts in modern history. Consequently althought it is "fictional", it is not "overly fictional" And yet the film and book are structured differently. The film starts at the very beginning, and finishes with Samira realising that by keeping the baby, she has a chance to make good things come, from all the evil that went on. So in simple terms, it is the storyline of forgiveness and hope, coming from unspeakable evil. In contrast the book starts with Samira already escaped to Sweden, and presumably uses flashbacks of the past events, to support her gradual change of mind from abortion (foetus too old), via adoption, to eventually wanting to keep the baby, and bring hope. I wonder if that is a more interesting structure to tell this story, rather than the film structure.

For a while, I had not realised that Samira had escaped to Sweden, which makes me question whether a couple of minutes of film could have been added, making clear the act of fleeing.

I don't think the portrayal of many acts in the film, could have been anything but grim. And they do bring out the soldiers inhumanity to innocent people caught up in the conflight. And yet we should not be surprised - One of the first acts of propagandists, is to portray the opposing tribe/village/country as populated by beings no better than animals. It quickly becomes easy to persuade soldiers to kill/torture/rape the other side, because in the soldiers minds they are not dealing with people, but sub-humans. This has been the practice of propagandists for centuries, and shows no sign of disappearing.

Well that starts things of, hopefully one of you will have something to add. *bye*

 

[BenLaw]

Thanks Mike. I think that's a good way to kick off he discussion. I think any disagreement about the merits of the film may boil down to this sentence:

So in simple terms, it is the storyline of forgiveness and hope, coming from unspeakable evil.

If one sees the film like that, I can see why someone might like it. I didn't get that from the film. I thought there was a nice, almost pastoral, section of the film at the beginning. I then felt almost all of the film was a miserable, bleak ordeal. And the concluding scenes felt tacked on and unrelated to the ordeal. I never saw coming that it was going to be that film about whether you keep a bay conceived by rape. And if it was going to be that film, I thought the emotions and considerations were criminally underdone. As I say, it felt tacked on. Given what you say about the book, it makes sense now why it was tacked on at the end, but for me it didn't put what happened earlier in context, nor did it have enough for me to get inside someone's head about having to make that sort of decision. The book structure, and no doubt length and detail, does indeed sound preferable.

 

[BenLaw]

I'm going to split my response up, as even on the computer I can only see a few lines at a time and cutting and pasting quotes makes it a mess.

There were a couple of other aspects that troubled me as well. I was almost angry at the brief portrayal of the childbirth. There was a few second snapshot of the labour. You could choose any moment, and not every birth has screaming agony. But it seemed to be there was a clear compilation of shots leading up to and including the childbirth to show how horrific having a baby conceived in rape was, and that we had a screaming agony shot, which had the effect of showing 'a rape baby is really painful'. I thought this was really ill thought through and arguably quite offensive.

I've also made a note to myself that I wasn't convinced by the 'feminist debate' re wearing makeup when the girls were all locked up together. I can't now, a few weeks after watching, remember exactly what happened. Soz, maybe someone has a better memory than me.

I take on board what you say Mike about dehumanisation and degradation in war. I think if this was the first film raising these sorts of issues then I may have been more tolerant of it. It's not, and I'm familiar with the issues you raise. Indeed, and unfortunately, warfar has moved on since this war. I only recently watched Hotel Rwanda (an amazing film) and read up online on the subject quite a bit. Rape in that war was actively used as a weapon. Patients infected with AIDS and HIV were sent out as 'rape squads' as a further means of genocide. I'm not sure where that takes us, other than that despite being utterly grim this film did not exactly push the envelope in terms of the bleak situations that go on in war. I think I just don't like watching portrayals of systematic sexual abuse.

 

[expat_mike]

So in simple terms, it is the storyline of forgiveness and hope, coming from unspeakable evil.

If one sees the film like that, I can see why someone might like it. I didn't get that from the film.

I believe that is the story that the film, and presumably also the book, is trying to communicate - but like you I don't think the film does a good job of it.

I then felt almost all of the film was a miserable, bleak ordeal. And the concluding scenes felt tacked on and unrelated to the ordeal. I never saw coming that it was going to be that film about whether you keep a bay conceived by rape. And if it was going to be that film, I thought the emotions and considerations were criminally underdone. As I say, it felt tacked on. Given what you say about the book, it makes sense now why it was tacked on at the end, but for me it didn't put what happened earlier in context, nor did it have enough for me to get inside someone's head about having to make that sort of decision. The book structure, and no doubt length and detail, does indeed sound preferable.

I agree that the concluding scenes felt tacked on, with several important story elements following on, one after another, much too fast to really understand whilst the film was running. It was easy to deduce from the body language, that Samira ended up wanting to keep the child - however the transitions from wanting an abortion, through wanting the child adopted, to eventually wanting to keep the child, happened too fast to understand what persuaded her to change her mind. Like you, I think the book format probably allows the reader to get inside Samiras mind, and understand her decisions.

 

[expat_mike]

I was almost angry at the brief portrayal of the childbirth. There was a few second snapshot of the labour. You could choose any moment, and not every birth has screaming agony. But it seemed to be there was a clear compilation of shots leading up to and including the childbirth to show how horrific having a baby conceived in rape was, and that we had a screaming agony shot, which had the effect of showing 'a rape baby is really painful'. I thought this was really ill thought through and arguably quite offensive.

I hadn't thought about that, and I would need to watch the film again before I could comment.

I've also made a note to myself that I wasn't convinced by the 'feminist debate' re wearing makeup when the girls were all locked up together. I can't now, a few weeks after watching, remember exactly what happened. Soz, maybe someone has a better memory than me.

I took that to be what was referred in the DVD description as "In a final act of courage or madness, Samira decides to make one last stand: to dare to be herself. And this simple act saves her life." However the film does not do a good job of explaining this decision, given that it is considered a key turning point in the story. We are left unsure as to whether it was madness, or "acceptance" that looking more appealling may result in less degrading treatment. Alternatively does it carry echoes of Stockholm Syndrome, with Samira beginning to empathise with her captors, after being a prisoner for several months? Again I think the book probably provides more information, to understand her thoughts.

Instead of "feminist overtones" I thought the response of the other girls was similar to in many occupied coultries during wars. There is usually an ethos that one should not fraternise with the enemy, in order to gain better rations/treatment etc. That includes wearing makeup, to make oneself more attractive to the troops. However the girls did not seem to hold a deep grudge about the matter.

I only recently watched Hotel Rwanda (an amazing film) and read up online on the subject quite a bit.

When I was choosing my nominations, I mentioned to a friend that I was considering trying to find 3 films with a common theme of portraying how war puts/affects individuals in difficult situations (ie not gung ho war films), and she recommended Hotel Rwanda. In the end I thought that 3 war films would too much to offer, so I just chose the one. Given the new rules for nominating films, Hotel Rwanda would be a risky film to nominate, because at least one member of the club has already seen it.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

My Goldfish like memory is struggling to recall the details of the film, even though it was less than a week ago I watched it.

Concerning the childbirth scene, I'd have to watch it again to give an opinion.

I can't quite remember if the Captain had already noticed Samira before she chose to start wearing make-up, or if he only noticed her once she decided to start wearing it, but whilst watching the film, I remember thinking that she had decided to sacrifice herself for the sake of the group. Thinking about it now though, I'm pretty sure that she did it to make things easier for herself, and any benefits the others girls received from Samira going with the Captain, were secondary to her own. The sex she had with the captain was far less brutal than the gang rapes she had suffered before, and although any non-consensual sex is still rape, a bed, and a level of normality has got to be preferential to what she and the others had endured at the hands of the others, and who among us wouldn't take that option if it was offered?

I can't say I enjoyed the film, as any film with this subject matter is going to upset and anger the viewer, but it was watchable, though not a film I'd like to return to other than to clarify details.