Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Also, I don't see anything in Frances Ha that Girls didn't already do much better and with a lot more depth and honesty.

Oh yes, that's true. Girls is way better. Absolutely. But that doesn't take away from Frances Ha. There's room for both.

But in a world in which Girls exists, does Frances Ha really matter?

Of course. Different voice. Different story. Different characters. Some variations on themes. Different goals, even if just on a micro level. Absolutely.

I guess. It's just hard for me to not judge one work of art against another if they're exploring such similar themes and aesthetics, especially when the works were released around the same time. And when one is so much better than the other, the other winds up feeling pretty worhtless.

Frances Ha effectively captured a demographic that you happen to hate. Get over it. You weren't complaining when they decided to remake Godzilla. Maybe, part of the problem with Frances Ha is that it's so meandering that a lot of people hate it for that reason too...

Dev wrote:Frances Ha effectively captured a demographic that you happen to hate.

When did I say that?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Dev wrote:Frances Ha effectively captured a demographic that you happen to hate.

When did I say that?

isn't that why everyone hates frances ha? because the characters are shitty people? maybe I was projecting.

Dev wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Dev wrote:Frances Ha effectively captured a demographic that you happen to hate.

When did I say that?

isn't that why everyone hates frances ha? because the characters are shitty people? maybe I was projecting.

I think you were. malice basically said she didn't dig it because it didn't do or say much of anything, and that's similar to my reasons for disliking it. Shallow/unlikable/shitty/whatever characters alone do not a bad movie make, but it comes off like Baumbach has no insight, critique, or anything else to offer regarding anything in the movie.

Without having watched it, I'm curious as to how Girls could portray the life of struggling artists with more 'honesty' considering that its main creative force has lived a life of opulent privilege since birth.

theplatypus wrote:Without having watched it, I'm curious as to how Girls could portray the life of struggling artists with more 'honesty' considering that its main creative force has lived a life of opulent privilege since birth.

The characters in Frances Ha are of the same privileged class as the characters in Girls. Lena Dunham genuinely coming from that background considerably helps with the honesty, I'd say.

It's a film about someone who's deeply insecure. She's poor, her love life is a mess, she's constantly surrounded by wealth and priviledge that she's only allowed to live on the margins of, she tries and tries at an art that everyone basically tells her she sucks at...in all these ways I really identified with it. And in the midst of this she doesn't lose herself, manages to find a kindred spirit here and there (I love the sweetness of the undateable guy), and finds herself a little bit as an artist. I found her very realistic and relateable. The way it was filmed was really lovely as well.

And I find the "x exists so why care about y?"argument to be painfully reductive and lazy, and I'm surprised someone like Jordan would make it. I've seen Tiny Furniture and about two episodes of Girls and you know what? I liked this better than both. Many things exist that are similar, and in the case of something like this that is obviously made with love and craft I think that's just a painfully shitty argument. I also enjoyed that it passed the Bechtel test with flying colors.

I guess my biggest problem with Frances Ha is basically what malice first said: what does it say in the end? Okay, she's insecure. Struggling. Basically untalented. Her life isn't going that well. She's dislocated, a bit numb. But what conclusion does the movie come to in the end? What insight does it offer? Does any of that go anywhere? Is it explored in any way that's actually meaningful beyond merely depicting something some people might relate to? I'm asking sincerely; if someone thinks there's more to it, I'm all ears. The optimistic, "cute" note it ends on felt so hollow and disingenuous to me.

remains of the day wasn't unsuccessful in putting forth a deeply touching portrait of a specific class of people yet still wasn't hugely interested in the irony of that existence... (as in: it just: WAS)

i think where remains of the day succeeded, frances ha fails.

it's a very self conscious look at that lifestyle and therefore, in some ways overly caricatured and funny when it should be more melancholy and rather bittersweet.

malice wrote:remains of the day wasn't unsuccessful in putting forth a deeply touching portrait of a specific class of people yet still wasn't hugely interested in the irony of that existence... (as in: it just: WAS)

i think where remains of the day succeeded, frances ha fails.

it's a very self conscious look at that lifestyle and therefore, in some ways overly caricatured and funny when it should be more melancholy and rather bittersweet.

Armond White made a great comparison to Godard's Band of Outsiders in his review in which he pointed how Godard "subjected [the characters] to absolute moral scrutiny." I think that scrutiny is a big part of what's lacking in FH. It doesn't necessarily need to be moral, but without any kind of probing, exploration, penetration, anything beyond mere affection (and even that felt telegraphed to me), the movie just feels inconsequential.

She finds security in the end, peace; she is on the road to being okay with herself as a person. She finally experiences a bit of simple joy, she (quite literally) allows herself to levitate a little bit. It totally resonated with me as someone who has had those ups and downs and felt that bit of freedom and lightness myself amongst all the shit. It's not a crime if you didn't get anything out of it, it happens. But I definitely did. I thought it was a really beautiful little movie.

Guys. I'm so undateable.

BurtReynolds wrote:Guys. I'm so undateable.

it's because of your common name. have you ever considered a nickname? that'd prolly help

malice wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Guys. I'm so undateable.

it's because of your common name. have you ever considered a nickname? that'd prolly help

I think it's because I'm just another pretty, quirky, white girl in the city.

BurtReynolds wrote:

malice wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Guys. I'm so undateable.

it's because of your common name. have you ever considered a nickname? that'd prolly help

I think it's because I'm just another pretty, quirky, white girl in the city.

Orpheus wrote:It's a film about someone who's deeply insecure. She's poor, her love life is a mess, she's constantly surrounded by wealth and priviledge that she's only allowed to live on the margins of, she tries and tries at an art that everyone basically tells her she sucks at...in all these ways I really identified with it. And in the midst of this she doesn't lose herself, manages to find a kindred spirit here and there (I love the sweetness of the undateable guy), and finds herself a little bit as an artist. I found her very realistic and relateable. The way it was filmed was really lovely as well.

I think you did a good job of describing what was about her struggle throughout the film. So, for the rest of you dorks, THIS. However, I don't the film was really moving towards any conclusions, but I enjoy films like that. I'm not talking Holy Motors, but this was another one of those snapshots of life movies, and I think it did a good job of making a case for it's characters.

I should probably state for context: I generally think the concept of a slice-of-life movie is worthless.

I don't watch slice-of-life movies for story or monster fights

theplatypus wrote:I don't watch slice-of-life movies for story or monster fights