-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
Film: Closer
- Thread starter MynameisnotDeja
- Start date
CuriousCub
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2001
- Messages
- 2,403
he also directed "Virginia Woolf" and that movie was not at all as bad as this one, so i don't see how you can call him forumulaic just because some of the storylines in his film are similar.
"Can't say I enjoyed this film, but that's because I get tired of the glorification of infidelity in films. I actually heard someone call this "a love story for adults", which made me want to throw up. Are we to believe that everybody is as fucked up and cruel as these characters are?"
i agree with you. However, I think they want to normalize people into believing that being fucked up, cruel, and edgy is normal. Similar to how fashion magazines want you to believe that their "suggestions" for how to be and look are a very normal thing to do, and that it should be considered normal to want to follow their "suggestions" and throw out your clothes every season just to buy new ones for the next season, etc. The media makes arbitrary definitions all the time to control popular thought.
"Can't say I enjoyed this film, but that's because I get tired of the glorification of infidelity in films. I actually heard someone call this "a love story for adults", which made me want to throw up. Are we to believe that everybody is as fucked up and cruel as these characters are?"
i agree with you. However, I think they want to normalize people into believing that being fucked up, cruel, and edgy is normal. Similar to how fashion magazines want you to believe that their "suggestions" for how to be and look are a very normal thing to do, and that it should be considered normal to want to follow their "suggestions" and throw out your clothes every season just to buy new ones for the next season, etc. The media makes arbitrary definitions all the time to control popular thought.
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 14,382
Originally posted by uglycasanova
Can't say I enjoyed this film, but that's because I get tired of the glorification of infidelity in films. I actually heard someone call this "a love story for adults", which made me want to throw up. Are we to believe that everybody is as fucked up and cruel as these characters are?
Can't say I enjoyed this film, but that's because I get tired of the glorification of infidelity in films. I actually heard someone call this "a love story for adults", which made me want to throw up. Are we to believe that everybody is as fucked up and cruel as these characters are?
interesting
i generally attempt to keep my moral judgements seperate from art (i don't mean to sound pretentious; i just mean that i try to enjoy a fascist book or film as much as any other, as long as it's well-made). i can understand your problem with the glorification of infidelity, and i think there's a fair case to made against this film for that very thing.
that said, sometimes it's worth watching a film like this, because it represents a realistic part of the world and its inhabitants...and it's not represented (with such conviction) all that often in film, i don't think. because of the fact that virtually everyone in this film is a 'bad guy', we have to consider where we're going to hold our sympathies. while this might result in people deciding that their sympathies don't hold at all, like yourself, at the very least there are some interesting - and perhaps confronting - issues being raised.
now, by no means am i saying that you *have* to like this film, just 'cause i say so, but i'm pointing out that i don't think a personal moral issue with the film is worthy of criticism. personal taste, sure, but it doesn't make it a bad film.
kiss2remember
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 51
STUPID movie. That is all I need to say.
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 14,382
^^^ not really.
what exactly about this film made you decide that it was "stupid". i actually found it quite intellectually stimulating.
what exactly about this film made you decide that it was "stupid". i actually found it quite intellectually stimulating.
kiss2remember
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 51
I generally like films that jump around as far as time and people, but this one didn't have a good flow and was confusing at times why the director made certain choices. I usually love those actors, but I didn't think they worked well together at all. I liked the premis, but just overall didn't think it was put together well. It bored me.
L2R
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 43,528
I also found this stimulating.
The dialogue in the first half seemed ridiculously overly clever while at the same time these characters were (IMO) making ridiculously stupid decisions. I thought on more than one occasion that it should be called "How Clever People Do Stupid Things". I didn't enjoy the first half for these reasons.
The second half, on the other hand pays up for the first, when these characters must sleep in the beds that they themselves each made, and lessons are learnt TOO WELL.
I thought this was an incredibly clever script.
The person I was with prefered the first half to the second. Different people take away different perspectives, and that's always good in art.
The dialogue in the first half seemed ridiculously overly clever while at the same time these characters were (IMO) making ridiculously stupid decisions. I thought on more than one occasion that it should be called "How Clever People Do Stupid Things". I didn't enjoy the first half for these reasons.
The second half, on the other hand pays up for the first, when these characters must sleep in the beds that they themselves each made, and lessons are learnt TOO WELL.
I thought this was an incredibly clever script.
The person I was with prefered the first half to the second. Different people take away different perspectives, and that's always good in art.
CuriousCub
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2001
- Messages
- 2,403
the actors and the acting is what made this movie horrible. i think different actors that have a diverse film history or no film history could've made quite a difference to this movie and made it something significant in the film exploration of relationships. It is damaging when you have seen an actor (Portman) play the same role in every film for almost a decade. It doesn't do anything to help the quality of the movie to add other actors who are also fond of choosing self- flattering roles such as Roberts and Law. It was like, who is this movie really being made for? An audience or these egomaniacal celebrities? When i read the behind-the-scenes stories on the making of the film, what happened there was just as dumb as what appeared on the film.
The only thing that stimulated me was seeing how alike the characters are to the actual personalities of celebrities in reality. I just can't fathom why people pay to see celebrities act as themselves, a range from A to B, in every fucking role they play. Range was had in great quantities by Liz Taylor in Nichols' better half of a career in "Woolf."
The only thing that stimulated me was seeing how alike the characters are to the actual personalities of celebrities in reality. I just can't fathom why people pay to see celebrities act as themselves, a range from A to B, in every fucking role they play. Range was had in great quantities by Liz Taylor in Nichols' better half of a career in "Woolf."
CuriousCub
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2001
- Messages
- 2,403
^^funny you should say that in a film forum where overzealous behavior is normal towards this type of entertainment. movies need criticism to justify their existence.
CuriousCub
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2001
- Messages
- 2,403
^as many as i feel are necessary in accordance with what other people are saying. what do critics do? they argue the same points in a similar or different fashion while their opponent does the same thing. you can agree to disagree, but it's sometimes harmless to not in this case, because you're trying to prove someone wrong. Again, in this scenario doing that isn't a big deal, since fists are flying and no one is getting an ultimatum. Normally i wouldn't condone such behavior.
kryalkastleE
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 31, 2002
- Messages
- 4,501
i just saw this.
brilliant, but i didnt enjoy it. appreciated its dialogue and its story though. Heres what i thought -
Because Closer is not a mainstream romantic film, where the endings are happy and the characters are moral, it challenges the romantic values of popular cinema. Closer concerns itself with the realistic aspect of the human relationship, how people can become immoral and indecent in the flicker of an eye, and how the togetherness of two people can generate so much more than just love. Closer challenges the formal and narrative structure by focusing on the aspect of the relationships between people, not the journey they take. Although the first encounter of what seems to be “love at first sight” leads the audience to believe that this may just be another Romantic Comedy, the thematic focus is deeper into the human soul. Closer is simply the stories of four people who come together in some way throughout the film. These characters have their ups and downs, breaks ups and make ups but there seems to be no real story that we are actually following. There seems to be no real mass climactic moment where we have cathartic release, and the narrative form of resolution is definitely not apparent, because although the film is finished we feel as if the characters will continue to struggle, and that the bonding relationships of human beings can have no end.
In most mainstream cinema relationships and romance seem to be quite simplistic. This is because film cannot regenerate the massive complexity that is the human being, or the relationships that we form. In a way Closer tries to capture the way in which humans try to function with one another, but doesn’t give a shining hope to the value of love as most mainstream films do. Popular film prophesizes love above all else, and uses characters that instill the basic moral values of society and the way that we are expected to act. Closer almost denies love exsists except through lust, and through the immoral manner in which all the characters act it gives a bleak and futile outlook on the notion of love. The character's have virtually no consciences, and care about little more than appeasing their own personal urges and impulses. The men in particular seem to be the most primitive in their acting upon their animal instincts. Although, the woman are far from innocent. The character's are all detestable and obnoxious, yet still put on a facade of refinement. Closer pushes the limits by having the entire film revolve around the 'behind closed doors' aspects of a relationship. Sexual slurs, derogatory statements, and painful betrayal are what goes on in some real relationships, but are not the happy ending that is needed for a mainstream film.
For me personally I don’t think Closer was a pleasurable film to watch. It is about the disintegration of relationships, hurt, lies, betrayal and sexual jealousy. For me, a film about these types of things is not pleasurable to watch. Although I think it was an accurate portrayal of some people’s relationships in society and that it explored it’s moral issues well, it just didn’t strike the right chord with me. Perhaps it’s because when viewing relationships I like to think that positive aspects will always override the negative and that indeed “love will conquer all”. The realism of the language and communication between the characters about the aspects of the relationship was very genuine but for me to actually enjoy it, I have to connect with the characters and feel as if I have something in common with them. To me the characters were so far beyond my realm of understanding that it made me worried that perhaps I might be a “hopeless romantic” and everyone around me was living in the ‘real world’. Although I did enjoy many different aspects of this film, it just didn’t constitute pleasure for me, as pleasure to me is a film that I can relate my own values too and connect with.
brilliant, but i didnt enjoy it. appreciated its dialogue and its story though. Heres what i thought -
Because Closer is not a mainstream romantic film, where the endings are happy and the characters are moral, it challenges the romantic values of popular cinema. Closer concerns itself with the realistic aspect of the human relationship, how people can become immoral and indecent in the flicker of an eye, and how the togetherness of two people can generate so much more than just love. Closer challenges the formal and narrative structure by focusing on the aspect of the relationships between people, not the journey they take. Although the first encounter of what seems to be “love at first sight” leads the audience to believe that this may just be another Romantic Comedy, the thematic focus is deeper into the human soul. Closer is simply the stories of four people who come together in some way throughout the film. These characters have their ups and downs, breaks ups and make ups but there seems to be no real story that we are actually following. There seems to be no real mass climactic moment where we have cathartic release, and the narrative form of resolution is definitely not apparent, because although the film is finished we feel as if the characters will continue to struggle, and that the bonding relationships of human beings can have no end.
In most mainstream cinema relationships and romance seem to be quite simplistic. This is because film cannot regenerate the massive complexity that is the human being, or the relationships that we form. In a way Closer tries to capture the way in which humans try to function with one another, but doesn’t give a shining hope to the value of love as most mainstream films do. Popular film prophesizes love above all else, and uses characters that instill the basic moral values of society and the way that we are expected to act. Closer almost denies love exsists except through lust, and through the immoral manner in which all the characters act it gives a bleak and futile outlook on the notion of love. The character's have virtually no consciences, and care about little more than appeasing their own personal urges and impulses. The men in particular seem to be the most primitive in their acting upon their animal instincts. Although, the woman are far from innocent. The character's are all detestable and obnoxious, yet still put on a facade of refinement. Closer pushes the limits by having the entire film revolve around the 'behind closed doors' aspects of a relationship. Sexual slurs, derogatory statements, and painful betrayal are what goes on in some real relationships, but are not the happy ending that is needed for a mainstream film.
For me personally I don’t think Closer was a pleasurable film to watch. It is about the disintegration of relationships, hurt, lies, betrayal and sexual jealousy. For me, a film about these types of things is not pleasurable to watch. Although I think it was an accurate portrayal of some people’s relationships in society and that it explored it’s moral issues well, it just didn’t strike the right chord with me. Perhaps it’s because when viewing relationships I like to think that positive aspects will always override the negative and that indeed “love will conquer all”. The realism of the language and communication between the characters about the aspects of the relationship was very genuine but for me to actually enjoy it, I have to connect with the characters and feel as if I have something in common with them. To me the characters were so far beyond my realm of understanding that it made me worried that perhaps I might be a “hopeless romantic” and everyone around me was living in the ‘real world’. Although I did enjoy many different aspects of this film, it just didn’t constitute pleasure for me, as pleasure to me is a film that I can relate my own values too and connect with.
smotpoker
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,773
I thought this movie was very boring for the first half, then all the sudden fucked up shit started happening, and boy, the younger guy(I'm not good with actors names) got totally screwed in the end. He lost his girl and got made a complete ass of. It's been like 2 months since I saw this, and I was really drunk, so I can't remember details of the movie, except Natalie looks HOT as a stripper.
fizzygirl
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2000
- Messages
- 7,818
That was the feeling that I got from it too. I'm not one that requires my love stories to be all flowers and romance, but this didn't even feel like any story of love. This felt like people using one another to get back at others, and nothing more. I just didn't feel any convincing spark between any of the characters, and it jumped over long spaces of time (julia roberts' character getting married to that guy?!) which I think tended to increase this lack of connection I felt between the characters.
Nice review kryalkastleE...I don't exactly agree with all of that, but it's very well-written and insightful
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 14,382
Originally posted by kryalkastleE
Closer challenges the formal and narrative structure by focusing on the aspect of the relationships between people, not the journey they take.
Closer challenges the formal and narrative structure by focusing on the aspect of the relationships between people, not the journey they take.
i'm operating on shady memories since it's been a couple of months since i saw this (yes, it only takes that long for things to leave my brain without a trace
), but that was something i found too; a lot of the time we'd skip forward in time, iirc, only to find ourselves examining not what's happened in the time between ('the journey') but what is happening right now between the characters ('the relationships'). one of the film's strongest points i think; well spotted.In most mainstream cinema relationships and romance seem to be quite simplistic. This is because film cannot regenerate the massive complexity that is the human being, or the relationships that we form.
i object! get yourself le mepris from the la trobe library
The character's have virtually no consciences, and care about little more than appeasing their own personal urges and impulses. The men in particular seem to be the most primitive in their acting upon their animal instincts. Although, the woman are far from innocent. The character's are all detestable and obnoxious
i wonder if i'm really the only person who *enjoyed* this film, and moreso i wonder what it says about me as a person. despite the fact that these characters do treat each other like shit most of the film, i have a sort of grudging respect for them anyway. i LIKE jude law's character for much of the film (though perhaps i shouldn't emphasise 'like' - it may be that i merely empathise), and clive owen's charismatic brutalism is really quite endearing to me - at least he has the balls to stick by his convictions.
still, perhaps that's all i really admire; the combined charm of their hollywood personas along with the fact that their characters, whilst mostly utter cunts, have the vast quantities of intestinal fortitude that i so wish i were blessed with. these are the reasons why this film is damn interesting, and very, very good.
It is about the disintegration of relationships, hurt, lies, betrayal and sexual jealousy.
that i'm not so sure about. certainly there are 'hurt, lies, betrayal and sexual jealous[ies]' in this film, but i think that it's pretty atypical as to how most relationships disintegrate. and in fact, a great deal of the hurting and lies in this film comes during courtship, not at all during the dying stages of the respective relationships (though much also occurs there, of course). do i have a point? not that i can find...
anyway, nice analysis kke.
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 14,382
Originally posted by fizzygirl
I just didn't feel any convincing spark between any of the characters, and it jumped over long spaces of time (julia roberts' character getting married to that guy?!) which I think tended to increase this lack of connection I felt between the characters.
I just didn't feel any convincing spark between any of the characters, and it jumped over long spaces of time (julia roberts' character getting married to that guy?!) which I think tended to increase this lack of connection I felt between the characters.
i think that was much the point..
kryalkastleE
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 31, 2002
- Messages
- 4,501
1234 - i did like clive owens character, i thought he was the most honest character in the film, and i actually found his animalistic brutality quite appealing? but jude laws character i really didnt like, i found him to be whiny and somewhat of a mommas boy. but i think im gonna have to buy the film and watch it again.
it came out a few days ago... hmmm.
it came out a few days ago... hmmm.
cravNbeets
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2001
- Messages
- 10,826
i didnt really like this movie. the flashes forward in time irked me for some of the same reasons noted in posts before me. this was a film all about love @ first site / instant connections.... whatever you want to call it, it just seems so superficial and hollow, which resulted in my inability to empathize with anyone of the characters or really give a flying fuck when they bounced back and forth between eachother.
ugh the idea of love at first sight in a film is trite enough but for it to be showcased essentially 4 seperate times in the same movie was enough to make me laugh and little else. somehow i feel like this was all intentional however, perhaps some comentary on all love/relationships being as superficial and disposable as those portrayed in closer.
there were some parts that made me chuckle and i think natalie portman is one of the most captivatingly beautiful people i've ever laid eyes on... well aside from jude law *bites fist*
the acting? meh. i dont think there was much room in the script for any breakthrough performances, but i feel like the actors cast fit their roles quite well....
curious cub~ i hesitate to even ask for fear that you'll have to restate your original opinion 8 more times, but i just have to ask because i dont think you have a proper answer. your problem with jude law, natalie portman, and julia roberts is that they're boring and they always take the same roles yes? how does that relate to any of their performance, or better yet, the quality of this film? would you have liked this movie any better had someone else been in garden state? it seems to me like all you want to do is grandstand about overrated actors and rail against "the media". this isnt some simple cheeseball 20- something romantic comedy... like it or not, this movie raises some questions if not some eyebrows so at the very least it gets ups from me for showcasing a darker side of a sunny subject...
ugh the idea of love at first sight in a film is trite enough but for it to be showcased essentially 4 seperate times in the same movie was enough to make me laugh and little else. somehow i feel like this was all intentional however, perhaps some comentary on all love/relationships being as superficial and disposable as those portrayed in closer.
there were some parts that made me chuckle and i think natalie portman is one of the most captivatingly beautiful people i've ever laid eyes on... well aside from jude law *bites fist*
the acting? meh. i dont think there was much room in the script for any breakthrough performances, but i feel like the actors cast fit their roles quite well....
curious cub~ i hesitate to even ask for fear that you'll have to restate your original opinion 8 more times, but i just have to ask because i dont think you have a proper answer. your problem with jude law, natalie portman, and julia roberts is that they're boring and they always take the same roles yes? how does that relate to any of their performance, or better yet, the quality of this film? would you have liked this movie any better had someone else been in garden state? it seems to me like all you want to do is grandstand about overrated actors and rail against "the media". this isnt some simple cheeseball 20- something romantic comedy... like it or not, this movie raises some questions if not some eyebrows so at the very least it gets ups from me for showcasing a darker side of a sunny subject...