Do You Think During Movies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Danoff
  • 44 comments
  • 2,544 views
Danoff, did you see Lost in Translation by Sofia Coppola?

Indeed. That's one of those movies that I'm sure I didn't get everything out of. Of course, I tried to understand as much as possible.
 
Those are not analogous. You still hear ever note and see every stroke if you don't analyze each one. But if you're not understanding the movie, you're not even hearing most of the notes.
I can't agree with this one. There is art also to acting, cinematography, other eye candy stuff involved(SFX, actor/actress, action). If we were talking about novels or something, probably.

I do agree with your point of view, but Kyle is not an idiot. So if he watched a film like the Fight Club, he will get the general point without trying to dissect the film. Fincher(director) pretty much shoves it in your face.

While I really enjoy watching movies too, I do understand that most people do not(or try to) enjoy it, or understand it the same way some of us do.
 
Danoff, did you see Lost in Translation by Sofia Coppola?

Beat me to the punch. One of my favorite movies ever. But to me, the most incredible thing about this movie wasn't even it's themes or symbolism in relation to the story.

It was about how it felt that really moved me. The movie just felt... familiar, I guess. I can't really put my finger on it, it just felt completely personal. I've never really connected with a movie like I did the end of that one (when he meets her on the street). It's a really powerful scene.
 
I can't agree with this one. There is art also to acting, cinematography, other eye candy stuff involved(SFX, actor/actress, action). If we were talking about novels or something, probably.

Yea but understanding the movie can exaggerate all of the rest of that stuff. But do you really take issue with me saying that not understanding the movie = not hearing most of the notes? I mean, if you didn't get it - a lot of notes must have gone past unheard.


a6m5
I do agree with your point of view, but Kyle is not an idiot. So if he watched a film like the Fight Club, he will get the general point without trying to dissect the film. Fincher(director) pretty much shoves it in your face.

I've talked with a number of non-idiots about Fight Club who didn't understand the movie. A lot of people think it's about anarchy or an anti-society movie - which is really not the case. I can see where you get that message, but it takes a major back seat to the real message. It's those people that this thread is really about. I mean, how can you watch a film like fight club - where the concept is shoved in your face over and over again, and come away without having understood it? Especially if you're not an idiot. My only conclusion is that these people are shutting their brains down when the movie starts.
 
Gil
Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but think "cowboy story, set in outer space"
All the themes are there.
The good guys are flawed,
Some of the bad guys aren't all bad, or are trying to make their way back to good. (See about half of Audie Murphy's old cowboy movies)
In the end, all that the good guys are trying to achieve is a home that is safe for little girls to walk down the streets unmolested at night.👍
And the citizenry can live free and pursue their simple dreams.

Yes my view is simple, but it's pretty much the same as many episodes of "Gunsmoke", "Bonanza", and "Have Gun will Travel".

You're right. Lucas was pretty much a dumbass and had some of the worst ideas in cinematic history. There's a reason he never went far beyond Star Wars.

Apparently he's tried to do collaborations with a few other directors, and his ideas were so stupid they kicked him off the project.

sn00pie
Danoff, did you see Lost in Translation by Sofia Coppola?

I was also about to quote this (I hadn't read to the bottom yet when I started writing this). GREAT film; the techniques used and the symbolism in it are top notch—especially the scene where Johansson and Murray are laying on the bed.

Zrow
Beat me to the punch. One of my favorite movies ever. But to me, the most incredible thing about this movie wasn't even it's themes or symbolism in relation to the story.

It was about how it felt that really moved me. The movie just felt... familiar, I guess. I can't really put my finger on it, it just felt completely personal. I've never really connected with a movie like I did the end of that one (when he meets her on the street). It's a really powerful scene.

Beat me to the punch; I know exactly where you're coming from, and that's what I praise most about this movie. The maturity of the direction always cuts you off, just wanting a little bit more of the scene—something which echoes the relationship between the two, and done so in a way so realistic it's almost too grounded to want to relive.

That film summarized nearly a year of my life, and similarly, I haven't seen her again since. All too familiar, as you noted, the power of the final scene—but knowing he's never going to see her again just brings up real-life memories.

Marie Antoinette, on the other hand. . .

a6m5
Fincher(director) pretty much shoves it in your face.

Have you seen The Game?
 
I think there's almost always something more than the roughly hour/two-hour product you end up watching on a screen. Symbolism, implicit themes, metaphor, allegory and so on...I've taken Critical Studies classes on movies and television media and from what I've studied you can analyse movies in much the same way you analyse literature. Authors don't always intend for certain analyses to be derived from their texts but it happens and that demonstrates the richness of their material and its relevance to many different people. I would generalise that to movies but I could well be wrong. I enjoy watching bad movies and I really mean bad, Frankenfish, DinoCroc, Man-Thing and sci-fi channel straight-to-dvd releases and well, at least when I'm watching these sort of movies, I don't think about anything deeper than how entertainingly ridiculous they are.
 
Was Fight Club a movie about some guys who hit each other? Or was it a comment on the importance of meaning, accomplishment, and emotion in life.

I would like to put forward a suggestion that Fight Club is representative of the dangers of repressing masculinity and instinct. The actual Tyler (ie not the Brad Pitt Tyler) is trapped in a cyclic world where all instinct is suppressed. This encased masculinity is then embodied in the form of Brad Pitt Tyler, a physical manifestation of what is lacking in Tyler's life. To win back his identity he destroys his home and everything in it and creates the Fight Club as an outlet for the pent up primevil animalism welling up inside him. Project Mayhem and Fight Club is simply a medium for his release.

But on the subject of the thread, I usually endeavour to watch films more than once for the following reason. The first time through I devote my thought to the basic events. I want to mentally grasp the events transpiring.

On the second viewing, I feel more at ease with the plot to focus more closely on analysing events. Why did he do that? What is she thinking? How is this a metaphor for the state we live in? I'm more comfortable leaving out bits of dialogue to think more about the workings of the film. The characters and the abject arealready established on the first viewing, and by the second I can focus on their actions.

I read this article a while back, I hope you'll find it interesting reading. I certainley did.

Davidbordwell.net
Normally we say that suspense demands an uncertainty about how things will turn out. Watching Hitchcock’s Notorious for the first time, you feel suspense at certain points–when the champagne is running out during the cocktail party, or when Devlin escorts the drugged Alicia out of Sebastian’s house. That’s because, we usually say, you don’t know if the spying couple will succeed in their mission.

But later you watch Notorious a second time. Strangely, you feel suspense, moment by moment, all over again. You know perfectly well how things will turn out, so how can there be uncertainty? How can you feel suspense on the second, or twenty-second viewing?

I was reminded of this problem watching United 93, which presents a slightly different case of the same phenomenon. Although I was watching it for the first time, I knew the outcomes of the 9/11 events it portrays. I knew in advance that the passengers were going to struggle with the hijackers and deflect the plane from its target, at the cost of all their lives. Yet I felt what seemed to me to be authentic suspense at key moments. It was as if some part of me were hoping against hope, as the saying goes, that disaster might be avoided. And perhaps the film’s many admirers will feel something like that suspense on repeated viewings as well.

Psychologist Richard Gerrig in his book Experiencing Narrative Worlds calls this anomalous suspense: feeling suspense when reading or viewing, although you know the outcome.

Anomalous suspense has been fairly important in the history of film. One of the most famous instances in the early years of feature film is the assassination of President Lincoln in Griffith’s Birth of a Nation (1915). Griffith prolongs the event with crosscutting and detail shots in a way that promotes suspense, even though we know that Booth will murder Lincoln. Anomalous suspense, of course, isn’t specific to movies; we can feel this way reading a familiar book or watching a TV docudrama about historical events. Young children listening to the story of Little Red Riding Hood seem to be no less wrought up on the umpteenth version than on the first.

This is very odd. How can it happen?

One answer is simple: What you’re feeling in a repeat viewing, or a viewing of dramatized historical events, isn’t suspense at all. Robert Yanal has explained this position here. He suggests that you’re responding to other aspects of the story. Maybe in rewatching Notorious you’re enjoying the unfolding romance, and you attribute your interest to suspense. And there are feelings akin to suspense that don’t rely on uncertainty–dread, for instance, in facing likely doom. (This is my example, not Yanal’s, but I think it’s plausible.) Another possibility Yanal floats is that on repeat viewings, you have actually forgotten what happens next, or how the story ends.
 
Suspense is really a unique feeling in movies for me. I find that I often feel it more the second time around (as has been alluded to in the aforementioned article), and one of the best recent examples of this (for me) has been in Death Proof.

More recently, in the past couple of months, I've been getting goosebumps while I watch movies. And usually only during movies I've already seen. I rarely get them the first time round; the second time around, I feel much more connected to the film and absorbed in the characters.

The scene in Death Proof where the girls are driving down the freeway is innocuous and innocent—but when the reel jumps and they're replaced by the black Nova following them is just SO powerful to me that I get goosebumps. I can't remember a moment in recent cinema history where doom was so clearly, yet not readily apparently spelled out for someone.

The first time around, you think "oh hey, it's the grind-house reference-- jumpy reels, shots missing etc", but the second, you know it's predicting their fate and foreshadowing the impending doom. I found it a great technique and expertly executed.
 
I would like to put forward a suggestion that Fight Club is representative of the dangers of repressing masculinity and instinct. The actual Tyler (ie not the Brad Pitt Tyler) is trapped in a cyclic world where all instinct is suppressed. This encased masculinity is then embodied in the form of Brad Pitt Tyler, a physical manifestation of what is lacking in Tyler's life. To win back his identity he destroys his home and everything in it and creates the Fight Club as an outlet for the pent up primevil animalism welling up inside him. Project Mayhem and Fight Club is simply a medium for his release.

First of all, you seem like the kind of guy who puts some thought into the images/dialog presented to you - which is great. But I think this may be too narrow a view of fight club.

At the beginning of the movie, Norton's character is very detached from life. I would say, it's not so much a detachment from instinct, but a detachment from emotional connection or meaning. His job is a prime example of how he could end up detached - dealing with grotesque images and death on a regular basis is desensitizing. So during the first portion of the movie, the pre-fight club portion, he's searching for a meaningful connection so that he can have some sort of emotional outlet. He's going to support groups so that he can try to borrow other people's pain (not particularly masculine). But in the end, he realizes that what he's looking for isn't just emotion - it's meaning, accomplishment, and fundamentally, to feel alive.

I think it's best expressed in the "this is your life" speech from Tyler.

This Is Your Life
and you open the door
and you step inside
we're inside our hearts
now imagine your pain
is a white ball of healing light
that's right, feel your pain,
the pain itself,
is a white ball of healing light
i don't think so

this is your life
good to the last drop,
doesn't get any better than this
this is your life, and it's ending
one minute at a time
this isn't a seminar
and this isn't a weekend retreat
where you are now
you can't even imagine
what the bottom will be like

only after disaster
can we be resurrected
it's only after you've lost
everything that you're
free to do anything

nothing is static,
everything is appalling (evolving),
everything is
falling apart

you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake
you are the same decaying
organic matter as everything else
we are all a part of the same compost heap
we are the all-singing,
all-dancing crap of the world
you are not your bank account,
you are not the clothes you wear
you are not the contents of your wallet
you are not your bowel cancer
you are not your grande latte
you are not the car you drive
you are not your ****ing khakis

you have to give up

you have to realise that someday you will die,
until you know that you are useless
i say let me never be complete
i say may i never be content
i say deliver me from swedish furniture
i say deliver me from clever art
i say deliver me from clear skin and perfect teeth
i say you have to give up
i say evolve, and let the chips
fall where they may

i want you to hit me as hard as you can

welcome to fight club
if this is your first night
you have to fight

He starts out by talking about pain as healing, that's the first step of the movie. Norton borrowing everyone else's pain so that he can feel something. Then he talks about losing everything/hitting bottom, so that you can be free. And I think that's the very same image portrayed in the V for Vendetta scene I talked about earlier (perhaps the lye scene in this movie or the convenience store clerk). Losing fear, not acting out of fear. Coming to grips with your own mortality so that you can really do what you what to do. It's part of feeling alive and having real meaning - being in control of your own fate instead of letting your fear of whatever (failure, social repercussions, etc.) control you.

So now that you're broken down, and have come to grips with reality, he tries to get you to focus on what's really important. To search for an internal identity rather than allowing something external (like cancer or pain, or an artificial sense of accomplishment) define you or give you meaning.

Eventually, the main character does come to grips with his mortality and no longer needs his destructive alter-ego to push him. He starts to develop meaningful relationships (Paulson, what's-her-name) and even realizes that his little experiment isn't necessarily accomplishing the goals that he thought it was - as he observes his follower's searching for an identity to be provided by project mayhem itself ("in death, we all have names. His name was robert paulson"). He also eventually realizes that it's wrong to force others to go through the same experience he did, even though the movie kinda sees it as necessary.

That's my take anyway.
 
I greatly admire your way of thinking, but I honestly believe you're reading too much into it.

“How much can you know about your self and never been in a fight.”

Violence is a form of expression for Tyler. You could quite easily argue a case for Tyler being reminiscent of the Lost Generation, drifting aimlessly around America at the turn of the century. He escapes from the ties of his material possessions which are, in this day and age, the things that define us. He wants to be defined by his actions and it just gets out of hand, with one violent life-statement after another.
 
Violence is a form of expression for Tyler. You could quite easily argue a case for Tyler being reminiscent of the Lost Generation, drifting aimlessly around America at the turn of the century. He escapes from the ties of his material possessions which are, in this day and age, the things that define us. He wants to be defined by his actions and it just gets out of hand, with one violent life-statement after another.

That's definitely in the right direction. There are some statements in there that I would disagree with, but the writers definitely got through to you. However, I don't think it can be summed up as "representative of the dangers of repressing masculinity and instinct." I doesn't have anything to do with repression of masculinity or instinct. It has everything to do with the search for meaning and feeling. Which is why he starts out by trying to connect at support groups.

I recently finished watching a movie called Big Fish - which was a fairly poor movie in my estimation, but I was stricken again with the notion that probably most of the people who watched the movie didn't understand the themes present in it. For example, if you don't understand the very last scene in the movie, where the fish swims away - you didn't get it.

The movie contained a series of highly inter-related stories that all fed off of each other and were remarkably consistent. I thought it was an incredibly dull subject and wasn't the slightest bit interested in the characters, but given the subject matter, the movie was well written and had some excellent metaphors (not the least of which was the big fish). I'm not going to pretend that I got everything out of that movie - I was barely interested in it, but I think many of the people who watched that movie didn't understand the main points it was trying to make despite the fact that some of them are literally explained to you during the movie.

...I've been having a frustrating discussion of movie analysis with a buddy of mine that got me thinking about this thread.
 
I've been putting off seeing Fight Club for years, for no good reason. The two times a year I rent movies, I always forget to rent it.

I like a good suspenseful movie, but once you've figured it out, it's rare that you want to see the movie again. They're kind of disposable in a way, but I can make an exception for Memento and The Usual Suspects; there's not so much of a David Lynch-type of contrived confusion, but more of a did-this-happen, or did-that-really-happen, or did-none-of-it-happen the way we interpret the events that's fun to discuss after the credits roll.

I like a movie where I can put myself into one of the roles, and care about the outcome of the character; if I can put myself into multiple characters, even better. There's really nothing deep or symbolic about Godfather I and II, but there's a gravity to it all that you can (legally) applies to life. Every time I see those two (and I feel obligated to watch #III as well), I choose I different character to pull for. Even if he's going to die sometime in the flick. I suppose that's losing yourself in a movie, not really thinking deep, but involving yourself; it's transcendent of thought in a way.

If I watch the Star Wars trilogy, I do the same thing; the difference is that there's so much visual symbolism that I feel I catch something new every time I see it. I interpret what see differently, and the actions and scenes can be personally interpreted many different ways. Like Lord of the Rings, there's an internal struggle within a character, and a universal struggle on the outside playing simultaneously. You could put Star Wars on mute and watch it, since the dialogue is not much to behold (it was intended to be simplistic, I suppose...but I was 3 when they came out).

But sometimes I want to go along for the ride; a Jerry Bruckheimer movie can do that. They're fun for the entire family, and if you miss something while getting a soda...who cares? You didn't miss anything you can't figure out in a few seconds. And you feel like a hero at the end anyhow. Plus, you have a soda in your stomach.

My problem tends towards over-thinking during movies, to the point where I forget some movies are about losing yourself in the action/plot, and forgetting whether these things are possible or not. Sometimes this leads to actually enjoying bad movies, or hating really good ones. I don't watch as many as I used to anymore; I tend to see some trailers and just write many of them off before ever seeing them. Although I admit that many "remakes" aren't worth my time, once again.

Does a comedy have to be "deep"? No, it has to make you laugh. Does a horror movie have be insightful? No, it has to scare you. And does a romantic-comedy-chick-flick have to...(er, let me get back to you on that one). If anything else comes out of those movies, it's an unexpected bonus.

I don't try to claim that I get more out of a movie than others, but I think I'm turning into an undesirable movie snob, without all the proof and witty responses that makes me a snob by definition. But I think I personally enjoy movies more than I let on, even if they're typical crap.
 
Last edited:
I'm already a movie snob... I feel if a movie doesn't bring anything to the party, it's not worth my time to watch it... and I can't stand poor acting and scripting... (which kind of half-ruined StarWars for me...). I don't get out much to watch movies anymore... thanks to this... very few movies get my attention, anymore... sometimes... the trailer alone convinces me not to watch it.

That's definitely in the right direction. There are some statements in there that I would disagree with, but the writers definitely got through to you. However, I don't think it can be summed up as "representative of the dangers of repressing masculinity and instinct." I doesn't have anything to do with repression of masculinity or instinct. It has everything to do with the search for meaning and feeling. Which is why he starts out by trying to connect at support groups.

I recently finished watching a movie called Big Fish - which was a fairly poor movie in my estimation, but I was stricken again with the notion that probably most of the people who watched the movie didn't understand the themes present in it. For example, if you don't understand the very last scene in the movie, where the fish swims away - you didn't get it.

The movie contained a series of highly inter-related stories that all fed off of each other and were remarkably consistent. I thought it was an incredibly dull subject and wasn't the slightest bit interested in the characters, but given the subject matter, the movie was well written and had some excellent metaphors (not the least of which was the big fish). I'm not going to pretend that I got everything out of that movie - I was barely interested in it, but I think many of the people who watched that movie didn't understand the main points it was trying to make despite the fact that some of them are literally explained to you during the movie.

...I've been having a frustrating discussion of movie analysis with a buddy of mine that got me thinking about this thread.

I kind of agree... Fight Club wasn't about the Violence, per se... but more of becoming more human and less of a cog in society... rejecting social conformity to reconnect with what's human. Of course, it tries to be a little too clever in parts, but overall, it's one of the best "action" movies I've ever watched.

I think Big Fish was a very interesting movie... about how a son comes to grips with his relationship with his father, and how we live our lives through the fictions we create... and how those fictions relate to fact... facts that the boy/man starts to unravel as he digs further into his father's past.

I can't pretend to remember every detail of significance, but I believe the Big Fish was a metaphor for... immortality? It's treating the story and storytelling as a living thing, a breathing legacy passed on from generation to generation... and represents to the father his son's love and acceptance... finally... after all those decades of separation (both physical and emotional).
 
Last edited:
So I'm curious, how did you guys interpret No Country for Old Men?
 
Back