JFF: What Was the Last Film You Saw, and How Would You Rate It? (Pt. 20)

The Artifice Girl (2022) - Competently executed slow burn, dramatic SF thriller. 3rd act is a tad anticlimactic but still a very good watch. 7½ / 10

Death's Roulette aka Uno Para Morir (2023) - Highly suspenseful and adequately gory and plot twisty. 7/10

Titans (2018, Season 4) - Strong season of the most consistently good DC series. Pity about it's cancellation. 9/10 (Series: 9/10).

Spliced (2009) - 6/10

Yeah, I've not yet seen it, but I've heard that it demands a lot of suspension of disbelief, that it may not have genuine value beyond shock value. Sounds like it might nevertheless be right up my alley, but if I can't easily track down a copy of the film, then I might not ever see it. I hear that it might very well be just some more Marxist horseshit perhaps more propagandistic than Novecento, which I did see. It is as though the reality of how mean and conniving that 1930s extremist militant fascists (and of course, national socialist workers' leadership) really were isn't enough, so it is imperative to make up shit about them. Haha. Why can't we, for completion's sake, get one for Unit 731? We sure as hell aren't going to see anything so absurd against Stalinists or Maoists.

I have a strong stomach, and I only managed perhaps 10 minutes of this film.

You both seem influence by the film's reputation. I feel that a common mistake that people do is watching this film before having seen Pasolini's other works. I had seen Teorema and The Gospel According to Saint Matthew before watching it. And, I believe it allowed me to see it for more than its shock value.

Beyond the shocking stuff, it is a really great film. The part where one of the victims (the one whose mother has been killed) begins to cry when Signora Maggi tells the story about how she killed her own mother. The victim then asks for the ultimate punishment (death), for her torturers to respect her grief, and for them to reunite her with her mother. The Duke refuses. It was an incredibly powerful moment. And, there are many others.

When at the end multiple victims denounce themselves under the threat of Monsignore, except the last one who simply raises his left fist in protestation (revolt/communism symbol). Those who denounce still end up wearing a blue ribbon. That was really powerful too.

I could go on. Pasolini said the film was for everyone. It is not completely true, but it is not completely false either. Some scenes will be too much for certain people. However, I think that any open-minded person can find intellectual and emotional resonance in the film.

I would not say the same of Sade's novel. Sade is unreadable.

If I had access to the film, I would've seen it along time ago. NYVKE very clearly stated that he couldn't stand to make it past the first ten minutes, no reference whatsoever to the film's reputation. The suggestion to look at Pier Paolo Pasolini is a very good one, Maxence. Thank you. However, I'm probably going to learn a little more about the man's reputation in the process, and I should hope that I won't have a problem with any part of such a record.

Okay, so as it turns out, I had already seen Pasolini's Il fiore delle mille e una notte, twice in the past decade and a half. I did find the film to be amusing, even though the storytelling, the acting, the effects and the editing all left much to be desired. The cinematography was okay, I suppose. One of the tales within the anthology I did find somewhat uncomfortable, namely (and perhaps obviously) the tale in which the man murders his innocent much younger "friend" (somebody who thought that the perverted creep was a friend). I'm not entirely sure I even understood all of these stories, as some of them involved a lot of magic. Thankfully, there was nothing too glaringly anti-capitalist in such a period/fantasy piece. I'll have to see more of Pasolini's work to verify whether or not he was "crazy", for lack of a better word. Maybe he just had a fascination with taboo topics.

@NYVKE​ I never read any PKD books. So, I guess I never had any hangups or expectations from the adaptations that I saw and enjoyed. But an FYI, the Nathaniel Philbrick book isn't a fictionalized novel but a nonfiction history book.

@Tsarstepan 

I watched the TV adaptation of Brave New World recently. For the first few episodes I was fuming "it's not like the book" (I consider BNW a very important book.)

Then I just let go and watched the show on its own merits, and I enjoyed it. Pity it was cancelled after 1 season.

I get that.

I wonder about Apple's Foundation adaptation. But can't comment because of the following conditions.

1. I don't have an Apple+ account so I haven't watched it.

2. It's been decades since I read the first two books. Think I read the second book. 

But I can't remember any action scenes in the book that looks like how they're hinting at in the trailers. 

So, it's good you still found Brave New World watchable on its own merits.

Never read any of the Foundation novels... they looked frighteningly long. Preferred Asimov's short stories and shorter novels.

Haven't seen the show.

Regardless on whether the book is dramatic or full of actions, what bothers me the most is that Hollywood mainstream films almost always find a way to make an action film or a spectacle out of anything. For a good part of its runtime, In the Heart of the Sea looks like a tribute to Chris Hemsworth's fitness and charisma (like the Thor franchise). To me, the narration done by Brendan Gleeson is only a clumsy attempt to hide the film is real purpose, action. All those scenes approximately follow this schema:

Gleeson : "I will not tell you about the Essex. It is such a drama. I will not tell you about it. Leave me alone".

Wishaw : "Tell me about it. It will do you good."

Gleeson: "Fine enough"

action film begins

This film has the pretention of being a serious dramatic film. In reality, it is just a classic action film. It is pathetic that Ron Howard tried to make us believe otherwise by having those lazily written scenes between Brendan Gleeson and Ben Wishaw.

That is one of the reason why I generally enjoy more European films. For example, when Pasolini needs to show a miracle in The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (1964), he does not need CGI, he does not need special effects, he does nothing more than shot-reverse-shot. When Jean Cocteau needed to create supernatural elements in La belle et la bête (1946) or in Orpheus (1950), he wanted them to feel real and simple. Simplicity was his keyword.  For this reason, there are very little things that he did not do on camera. Compare The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (1964) to The Ten Commandments (1956) and La belle et la bête (1946) to The Beauty and the Beast (2017). There is no doubt to me that Pasolini and Cocteau's versions were superior. By using practical techniques, they have managed to create a kind of poetry that you would not get by using ostentatious effects. It is fitting that prior to being directors Cocteau and Pasolini were poets.

Concerning, Foundation. I have not seen the Apple TV series. But, I have read the first two novels. The first novel is not really good, but if you like Asimov's short stories' pace, I think you will be pleased. It is basically a compilation of short stories. There is not such a strong continuity between them. As for the second novel, it is another pair of sleeves.

The first novel is not really good,

I was in high school when I read the first (and perhaps second) novel. I'd concede that my reading ability and tastes have matured since then. Perhaps one reason I have yet to reread them.

"You stay. I go."

Haha!

@Maxence_G​ 

I don't know why the film is getting such a bad rap, it can't be just because it won over "Brokeback Mountain". Anyway, I actually liked "Crash"... and I happen to like it for the same reasons some said they don't.

I try to watch every Best Picture winner but the last ones haven't been 'transcending' experiences, I actually enjoyed "CODA" because it was an improvement on the original, seriously the French version tries hard to be your feel-good crowd pleaser but the negative outweighs the positive some scenes are awkward and dumbly written, too many clichés and the lead actress wasn't that good...

I really wanted to enjoy "Everything etc." but seriously I couldn't, there's just too much going and too many possibilities that it was like watching 10 animes from different screens at the same time, too demanding for poor brain and then I guess I was supposed to tear up with the final scenes but I just didn't care... I also can't believe the film won these acting awards.... What's the point of rewarding a performance where one character can be so many at once, when you have countless vignettes, one for vulnerability, one for goofiness, one for badass fighting skills etc.

Where is the merit of the actor compared to those who display versatility through one personality, character-development through one specific predicament? On that level, it's sad that "The Banshees of Inisherin" didn't get one single acting award...

... and I, for one, think that should have been the Best Picture winner.

I don't seem to be able to explain why I don't like Crash, which is by no means a terrible movie. Something about it just rubs me the wrong way. I disliked Traffic, Babel and Fragments slightly less, for some reason. I did vaguely appreciate Amores Perros and Love Actually (the latter mainly for the "Christmas All Around Me" bit). They all sort of belong to a genre. There are probably some films from the before the mid-1990s that are a lot better than all of the aforementioned. I wonder if anybody has made an IMDb poll about these kind of movies.

@ElMaruecan82​ 

Crash is a bad film in its own right, and not because it beat Brokeback Mountain. Winning or losing the Best Picture race does not make a film worse. 

Crash is a film that wants to portray the dysfunctionality of Los Angeles. In broad terms, it attributes this dysfunctionality to racism and ignorance. It seems to me that its goal is to show that everyone is racist to a certain degree, but that race and racism do not really define anyone. Matt Dillon's character might be a racist and a sexual offender, but he is not a bad son, and he is got at least some understanding of his responsibilities as a cop when he saves the woman he molested earlier from the burning car. 

 The irony is that a film that wants to portray gray zones is unable to portray racism in its most subtle and insidious form. Most of the racism depicted in the film relates to sexual assault, human trafficking, political schemings, etc. There are better scenes, where it is most subtle, for example when the Persians are mistaken for Arabs, but these scenes are too rare and they are drowned in a sea of Hollywoodian nonsense and sensationalism. Seriously, how convenient is it that the racist policeman stumbles on the exact same woman that he had molested hours earlier.

An infinitely better choral film on racial issues and on the inability to communicate is Michael Haneke's Code inconnu: Récit incomplet de divers voyages (2000). 

@Maxence_G​ 

Well, I gave the film a 10. Oddly enough, I didn't care much about it when I saw it when it was just released but more than a decade later, it must have hit a sensitive chord... 

I thought the title gave the right idea by using the metaphor of the car, it is introduced by Don Cheadle's monologue about people needing a crash sometimes to get a sense of touch, to forget how remote they are one to another. This is the same L.A. Tom Cruise had just panned the same year in "Collateral", a town of cold selfishness where cars eventually play a pivotal role in the way they make various intrusions possible, not all  providential of course. Either for a carjacking, a ride, a police control or a rescue, every action has its consequences, some tragic, some inspiring, some driven by the best intentions yet causing unfortunate collateral damages, and vice versa.

Not every intrusion has a cause or serve a point, most of them are accidental yet they have an effect, and the way each effect seems to make some statement about our humanity is a credit to the screenplay. Starting with Matt Dillon as the LAPD officer. This is a man whose establishing moment consists on humiliating a black couple  during a control. In any lesser movie, such a despicable character would get a Karmic revenge. "Crash" ironically makes him the most human one. It all works by contrast, most characters dodge prejudices or racism while having them printed in their subconscious, Dillon's character doesn't cheat with his views and ironically strike as the most relatable one.

And that's "Crash" power in my humble opinion, it dares to challenge our perceptions of the ugliest symptoms of prejudice by showing us how deeply rooted they are in reality and experience, it's not pretty but hey, at least it's real. A rich white woman acts scared when crossing the path of two black kids on the pavement, what happens next actually proves her right and she even uses it as an "I told you" argument to her husband. Yet one of the carjackers is clearly not as ethically challenged as his partner and his fate ends up being a valuable lesson to anyone who believes his conscience is cleaner than the others'.

The way I saw it, "Crash" isn't about feelings, intentions or motives but plain actions, and reactions that translate themselves into action, and car crashes are the right metaphors for these are revealing moments in our lives when we stop being trapped by our inhibitions. Consequently, so many brutal things happen that we might miss the little touches. Take the locksmith who's mistaken for a thug by both the rich white woman and the Iranian who himself was insulted by a gun store owner who took him for an Arab. Interesting that the least troublemaking character in the film, but even he isn't immune to danger or violent misunderstanding.

So many devilish vibes poison relationships between people who have so much in common. The Persian man is obviously worn-down by all the prejudice he might have suffered from and the irony is that it made him more unstable and threatening. Another irony is that some black characters use racism as an excuse to act no better than the oppressors they accuse. The film is full of ironies where people become attackers in the name of victimhood.

And that did remind me of another urban drama classic, "Do The Right Thing" , with people doing the thing they think is right, allowing tragedy to burst out the most random and anticlimactic moments. In fact, it's not about doing the right or the bad thing, but the fact that some people we know to be good can commit reprehensible acts, and vice versa with Dillon first depicted as a hateful cop first but then a caring son to his ill father and a hero..

Yes, today, we live in a world or a culture of plain victimization, it's all about white vs. minorities, women vs. men etc. and the problem with "Crash" is that it was set at a time where there was no smart phone, where most of these things wouldn't happen without someone immediately denouncing it, which is good in theory but who knows how disastrous the consequences can be when everything is shown in a binary black-or-white way. If there ever is one thing "Crash" shows is that the accused ones can be victims and victims aren't always innocent and can even be potential threats.

We all have public faces and backgrounds, some aspects of us are known, others are not, but we also don't know the real content of our characters until we're confronted to the most extreme situations like crashes or similar car encounters. "Crash" is mostly about people learning either a good or a bad truth about themselves. And even if one deems the film as bad, at least, it raised some thought-provoking questions and challenging ideas that find a certain echo in our polarized world.