Ha ha, the description will probably make Kes sound like a sentimental kid's movie, but it really isn't. Having been to Northern England, its just so familiar I also like Closer, Ian Curtis' bio-pic for the same reason.
Yeah, thats another one of my fave movies, hilarious. The director did Tristram Shandy as well which I also enjoyed and a really amazing TV movie about illegal immigration between Afghahnistan and the UK. I have so many movies to see yet. Thanks everyone for the suggestions.
that was epic! thank you! What did salvador dali do in this? direct? was that him acting? I loved the death scene in the woods, and also the beginning with the eye slit "opening your eye"
Please, don't act like you're smart because you pretend to understand or 'appreciate' it. If you liked that, you might enjoy a little story I just wrote: A man walks into a bar, and orders some bread, but it turns out the people behind the counter are actually bears, and the bar is a UFO, but it's not really a UFO, it's just a UFO in his mind, but he's dreaming, so he never really was in a bar, but the bears are still real, because there's one in his room looking at him now playing a violin. BLA BLA BLAH, cut to a scene of a confused woman masturbating and voila, i present you with the latest master piece.
Bunuel directed it and was the guy in the beginning who cuts the eye. Dali wasn't in it but he thought up a lot of the ideas for it; I know for sure that the part with the ants crawling out of the hand was his idea.
that's my favorite argument: if someone claims to like a difficult piece of art, it must be because they're trying to affect intelligence or coolness. the film actually makes a lot of sense if you meet it halfway and take the time to think about it.
yeah, hadn't seen that before tonight. great painter too, obviously. though on the whole I prefer Duchamp's paintings:
he's probably best known for turning a urinal upside down, writing "R. Mutt" on it, and putting it on display as a sculpture titled 'Fountain'.
And if someone claims to just think it's random nonsense, they're labelled unintelligent or incapable of understanding the 'finer' side to cinema/art, works both ways. For me, it was just so convoluted, there was no plan to it, it's whatever you want it to be, completely for interpretation. I interpreted it as crap, you thought it was brilliant, I guess the movie in that sense works.
as far as I know, random. it was a fake name because when he first submitted it he didn't want anyone to know it was his.
look, no one believes more than I in the subjectivity of criticism. don't you think that ambiguity and being open to interpretation can be a good thing? instead of just being lead by the hand? it is very convoluted; it plays more like a dream than a traditional narrative. but I can assure you that people who take the time to watch it more than once end up understanding it better.
I like things being open for interpretation up to a certain point, for me, it just went over board with the randomness where I felt like I needed to be on whatever the writer was on when he wrote it. I've actually got the movie here, it's a sunday, I might watch it again.
I encourage you to watch it again. sure some scenes some totally disjointed and separate from the Naomi Watts story, but I think if you give it a chance it will make sense on an intuitive level instead of a logical one. it's also good to keep in mind that a lot of seemingly random elements in the film (the monster behind the dumpster, the old couple, etc) are symbols or metaphors for parts of the plot. something I always tell people who are trying to "get it" is that it makes more sense if you think of the whole film up to the last half hour or so as a fantasy/dream.
I think Drawing Restraint 9 was one of the coolest movies I ever watched. Mathew Barney is weird, and I love weird. I guarantee most people would hate this film.