Monday, 5 August 2013

Only God Forgives

 
A fantastic cipher composed of deliberate glances and considered movement that finds itself at the midpoint between Lynch and Tarkovsky.
 
Posted by at
:|

24 comments:

  1. Ed05/08/2013, 09:22

    Faberge Egg of a film from a master of style over substance - great visual style and soundtrack belie a lightweight revenge story with no discernible point. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous05/08/2013, 09:58

    Nicolas Winding Refn presents the second semester of the Ryan Gosling masterclass on how to look at things very slowly whilst half-smiling in a way that suggests your brain comprehends shit that mere mortals don't even know they aren't comprehending because they aren't even aware theres something to comprehend.

    Great sets, great props, great clothing (never said that about a movie before), great style. Ace badass cop... and Ryan Gosling's action man movable eyes.

    Enjoyed it, but really can't say why and left me wanting to be Nicolas' Mum at Christmas lunch so I could eavesdrop in when she asks him 'what was that last one all about son?'

    I am practising my RG mannerisms every day from now on. If I'm not at Frightfest guys it's because I'm up to my ear canals in pussy. Just sayin ya.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous05/08/2013, 10:12

      Ok, I clearly said why I liked it, that's not what I mean. What I mean was I liked it, despite my system 2 not really accepting it as amazing. It's a system 1 movie or nothing.

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0141033576

      Delete
    2. McK05/08/2013, 13:02

      Then this is a system 2 movie and it's your system 1's reading of surface detail along with a need for coherent narrative that is blocking you from seeing it.

      (I did only scan the amazon link, but i'm assuming that system 1 thinking is the stuff that's often incorrect because of the human brain's tendency to impress pattern on the world around us, it's system 2 thinking that usually shows the truth?)

      Delete
    3. Ed05/08/2013, 16:27

      Lynch often refuses to comment on the meaning of his films because he maintains that interpretation of films is entirely subjective and therefore his interpretation of it is irrelevant to the audience's receipt of it.

      You can't really argue with that, but surely this is a license for filmmakers to release self-indulgent, beautiful ambiguity, possibly not even having a clear idea themselves of what it all means, but safe in the knowledge that any problems about its interpretation can be explained away by pushing responsibility for it onto the viewer.

      From the NWR films I've seen to date, I think he's absorbed the visual style and the atmospherics of filmmakers like Lynch, Tarkovsky and Kubrick brilliantly, but unlike their films, it's all surface. If that's wrong, then what is Only God Forgives trying to say? Or is it a mood piece, designed simply to evoke an emotional response rather than connect clearly on an intellectual level as well?

      Delete
    4. James05/08/2013, 18:45

      What only god forgives (and Lynch and Wheatley's even movies and some coen movies and many others were ambiguity is at play) means is all relative to what you give and take from the movie. In this particular case...
      It could all just be a dream/fantasy or maybe starts real and becomes a fantasy/delusion in which case is it gosling or the cop's?
      It could all be real and just a dull revenge movie or it could all be real and an unconventional revenge movie where the hero is the villain and vice versa that challenges narrative moral conventions.
      It could be many other things too, I'm sure the internet it full of interpretations.
      If you want it to be intellectual you can, if you want it to be emotional you can.
      If you thought it looked nice, had good atmosphere, but was hollow and pointless then it was.

      The assumption by people that a filmmaker who makes a deliberately ambiguous film doesn't know what they want to say is being somewhat insulting to the filmmaker.

      Delete
    5. Ed05/08/2013, 18:52

      I wasn't assuming that, I was merely suggesting the possibility exists for them to do that, if we accept the premise that anything goes as long as its done with flair and panache.

      Delete
    6. James05/08/2013, 18:58

      If the resulting film is emotionally, stylistically, structurally, narratively and intellectually incoherent then maybe, yes, but to put together a coherent film at all is because the director knows what they want.

      Delete
    7. Ed05/08/2013, 19:14

      I'm not sure you're getting my point here - what I'm saying is it's possible (not certain) that NWR is simply a great imitator - he may know exactly how he wants his film to look, sound and be cut, but still be operating purely on a stylistic level.

      I could paint a piece of art that was visually stunning but actually meant nothing. I know I wouldn't do that, but people only have my word for it that I do start with a concept rather than just something I think looks cool.

      Delete
    8. James05/08/2013, 19:31

      I think some refn movies have been almost all style (drive, Bronson), although that's open to interpretation too. Both are jobs for hire. His more personal movies (pusher, Valhalla rising) seem to have much more going on. They seem more infused with his ideas and sensibilities. And when you hear/read him talk about his films he seems to believe there's meaning to what he's making.

      Delete
  3. James05/08/2013, 16:22

    Whether what we saw actually happened as presented, was partially just in one characters head (but which character) or was all imaginary depends on how you want to read it. Whichever way, it was fucking brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed05/08/2013, 16:29

      Why?

      Delete
    2. James05/08/2013, 18:12

      Because that is my opinion.

      Delete
    3. James05/08/2013, 18:16

      By that what I mean is when I say "its fucking brilliant" its because I thought it was fucking brilliant, not because everyone must think it was fucking brilliant. It is based on my feelings after watching this film.

      Delete
  4. Ed05/08/2013, 18:44

    http://kubrickontheguillotine.com/2013/08/03/only-god-forgives-an-empty-vessel-of-desire/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McK05/08/2013, 20:06

      http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/01/only-god-forgives-review

      Delete
    2. Ed05/08/2013, 20:13

      Tit for tat? Did you read that review? It's actually pretty positive about the film in a roundabout sort of way.

      Delete
    3. McK05/08/2013, 20:21

      Did you actually just ask me if I'd read something before I responded?

      Better check yo'self before you wreck yo'self fool.

      Delete
  5. Ed05/08/2013, 20:24

    Droll ;-) I meant the first review of course.

    The Guardian review provides an excellent synopsis of the film, but I did actually see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McK05/08/2013, 20:48

      I also meant the first review. Stop being a tit.

      Delete
    2. Ed05/08/2013, 21:04

      Why do you have to descend to name-calling? I thought you were making a joke and responded in kind - or at least I thought I had...

      Delete
    3. Ed05/08/2013, 21:25

      Wanna fight?

      Delete
  6. James05/08/2013, 23:12

    There are more words in the comments for this movie than in the movie itself!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ali06/08/2013, 11:21

    The one thing that sticks in my mind is that NWR has openly stated he has a fetish for violent imagery. Not hard to believe, and there's nothing wrong with just indulging that fetish on film if you're in the lucky position of being a filmaker who can. So I wonder if he even cares what meaning arises, provided he feels he's getting the kind of aesthetic result that gives him a boner.

    Despite enjoying it and finding the atmosphere of the movie compulsive and rather spellbinding, something does still nag at me with this movie. I guess it's wanting to be inspired to some kind of deeper thought or reaction to the violence.

    In this sense I think the 'pornography' quote that's out there is quite apt. What I enjoyed about the film was the sensuousness of it all. It was similar to the feeling of dark self indulgence I get when I watch an exploitation movie full of grimness, except it had been coated in a sheen of arthouse gloss.

    So maybe that's the point? To blend the outward appearance of something arty and deep with the thrill of nasty violence, with the script turned right down so as to stop the viewer from having the comfort of thinking 'oh it's ok, all this violence is a joke.'

    I do know above anything else it's stuck in my head and I will likely enjoy seeing it again.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)