Re: What movies are you watching?
Posted: Tue March 08, 2022 2:56 pm
maybe I'll watch that next!tragabigzanda wrote:One of their (Dano/Kazan) best movies is Wild Life. Dano directed, Kazan produced(?), neither is in the film
maybe I'll watch that next!tragabigzanda wrote:One of their (Dano/Kazan) best movies is Wild Life. Dano directed, Kazan produced(?), neither is in the film
oh really? that's cool!Jorge wrote:Ruby Sparks was sweet from what I remember. Written by Zoe Kazan, Ruby Sparks herself. She's had an interesting career
I feel similarly, but he kills it in that Beach Boys movieBurtReynolds wrote:I really don't care for Dano. He's alright I guess, but is not my cup of tea. Maybe in the right movie he could work...
yeah, so I just think that her little "my love contains multitudes" speech was quite nice; obviously it wasn't polyamory because he wasn't aware it was happening, which is just plain "cheating", and maybe going forward and asking if there was a way they could still be together would require a second movieThe Argonaut wrote:"you cheated on me, I'm devastated, oh woe, oh sadness, oh oh oh, oh explode my life and act like a baby" is one of the most boring and immature movie plots, that's for sure
What would acknowledging the existence of polyamory do to advance the film's themes or the story it's telling? And what would it look like in practice? Seems like it would be an awkward and jarring interruption IMO. We already know from what we're seeing that Joaquin doesn't work that way. Or maybe this is polyamorous origin storyMs Harmless wrote:that may be true (for me it wasn't a natural orientation, though, it just made sense after a lot of trial and error), but writers / directors can acknowledge that it's a possibility that exists, and the film doesn't; it assumes "monogamy, or heartbreak"; a lot of "love triangle" plots could be made more interesting if polyamory was even acknowledged to exist in their fictional worldsJorge wrote:I don't think most people can just choose to be polyamorous
the gay stuff between him and his friend was a little ground breaking at the time though, especially for a movie like thatThe Argonaut wrote:The only worse plot is "you were not a virgin when I met you oh woe is me I am so sad" (Chasing Amy)
there ya goJorge wrote:What would acknowledging the existence of polyamory do to advance the film's themes or the story it's telling? And what would it look like in practice? Seems like it would be an awkward and jarring interruption IMO. We already know from what we're seeing that Joaquin doesn't work that way. Or maybe this is polyamorous origin storyMs Harmless wrote:that may be true (for me it wasn't a natural orientation, though, it just made sense after a lot of trial and error), but writers / directors can acknowledge that it's a possibility that exists, and the film doesn't; it assumes "monogamy, or heartbreak"; a lot of "love triangle" plots could be made more interesting if polyamory was even acknowledged to exist in their fictional worldsJorge wrote:I don't think most people can just choose to be polyamorous
She is clearly a robot.. I don't think anyone questions thatMs Harmless wrote:going by the "logic" of the movie, though, Tree
"what is and isn't artificial?" is one question the movie raises
I haven't seen Chasing Amy but he's right that it's an exhausting trope though; men are permitted to have a sexual history a lot more than women areJorge wrote:Argo read one Jezebel article from 10 years ago making fun of mopey male protagonists and thought "this is it, this is the level of analysis I'm comfortable with"
People who defend Chasing Amy are the worst kind of peopleJorge wrote:Argo read one Jezebel article from 10 years ago making fun of mopey male protagonists and thought "this is it, this is the level of analysis I'm comfortable with"