Notes on a Scandal

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

flipp525, leave me alone!!!!!!! i did not turn this thread political. all i said was that NOTES ON A SCANDAL was homophobic. filmfan720 wanted to know what was wrong with a film being homophobic, so i explained it to him by pointing out why negative portrayals in film are a little more painful when you are not a full citizen in your own country. then out of nowhere criddic3 decided to get into a political debate. not a single one of my posts did not some how directly relate to NOTES ON A SCANDAL, unlike other people.
i agree with what others are saying. in my discussions about certain movies i include other aspects than just the filmmaking. if you do not like that then do not join in. i promise never to bring up a subject that has nothing to do with the particular movie being discussed, but i will not limit my discussion to just the pros and cons of the movie.

all i said was i found the film to be homophobic, like something out of the 80's when a.i.d.s hysteria made films and audiences particularly anti-gay. however, all of this was secondary to how bad the film was. i loved dench's performance. she was so deliciously evil. unfortunately, the rest of the film did not hold up. i thought blanchett did a good job, but found her sheba a little ridiculous. the whole film was just over the top, and not in a good way. i usually like philip glass, but his music was as annoying as the characters. everyone shouting with shaky close-ups of their red faces with the veins in their necks bulging. it was so stupid. dench's character said it best when she is describing the fight between sheba and her husband: "i had front row seats to the opera." the whole thing was an opera, a very bad opera.

flipp525, stop being a bully. if you and criddic3 have some sort of cat fight going on, keep it to yourselves and do not drag me into it ever again.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
danfrank
Adjunct
Posts: 1009
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Post by danfrank »

Sabin, I agree that Fatal Attraction was unintentionally campy, and that Notes on a Scandal probably wouldn't have worked even if it had attempted to be over-the-top campy. And of course Lyne's movie was atrocious and Notes has a better pedigree: better acting, better writing, etc. But I still think Notes is a lousy movie. What is it trying to do or say? That repressed sexuality results in bad behavior, whether it be pedophilia or obsessive, predatory behavior? Or is it just a chance for the audience to feel superior to (or at least bemused by) some whacked out, pathetic old dyke? Methinks that most of the audience, even the intelligent ones, will come away with more of the latter, even if they don't think all lesbians are like the Dench character.
Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Akash »

Sabin wrote:Are we not permitted to depict heartless, lusting, AARP card-carrying dykes anymore? Must they all be left by their dying lovers and kept out of funerals, as their families desert them? As played by Judi Dench, Barbara would piss all over that. While standing up.


ROTFLMAO! :laugh:
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

I think 'Fatal Attraction''s campiness was totally unintentional and I think 'Notes on the Scandal' falls into the same vein. Like Adrien Lyne went out to make THAT movie. Richard Eyre is in the same situation. I find his refined campiness a lot more enjoyable than Lyne's, and I genuinely don't understand how people are complaining that its not campy enough. Phillip Glass' overbearing score aims for psychological undertones and ends up servicing some of the ludicrousness, especially in the final act.

I found the movie to be a hoot. I rarely took it too seriously. I think a great deal of the fun to be had is that everybody else is. It certainly helps that it's a well-written, well-acted film, but between the great strain that everybody else is going through to make the whole thing look stately and that there is equal amounts of truly witty humor as unintentional hoots, 'Notes on a Scandal' to some degree does remain neither fish nor fowl but I don't think it's hampered by those factors to any serious degree.

Not to open up a whole can of worms but, are we not allowed to make a homophobic movie anymore?

(backing off, backing off)

...especially considering that this is for all intents and purposes a respectable film with plenty to offer, but homophobic nonetheless, wherein a character begins with intents of predation and ends with the same. I don't think there's any doubt it's homophobic because the story (mostly) demands it be. The elipses ending is lazy and cheap and demanded alteration. It's distasteful and casts a shadow on the film. But for this film to be told, the Barbara character needs to be depicted as cunning, heartless, and predatory.

For this story, is that a bad thing? Do we want Judi Dench to portray a more pained, sorrowful Barbara whose every predatious instinct is ripe with internal struggling? Ugh. Are we not permitted to depict heartless, lusting, AARP card-carrying dykes anymore? Must they all be left by their dying lovers and kept out of funerals, as their families desert them? As played by Judi Dench, Barbara would piss all over that. While standing up.

Is this film homophobic? Yes. I don't want to live in a world where every single movie has to cater to the dumbest in the audience lest they live out the rest of their lives assuming that all lesbians are like Judi Dench.
"How's the despair?"
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6197
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Akash wrote:I haven't yet seen Notes and I don't know if everything Rolo has said is convincing. But I also don't think it's fair to say putting a "homophobic slant" on a film does it a disservice.

Well, to be fair, I actually said that placing a homophobic slant did a disservice to Dench's character, not the entire film. And that's mainly because I think it's too reductive a critique of Dench's work (which I've expounded upon in one of my initial reviews of the film).

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you and Penelope. One of the things I love about this board is the sometimes challenging twists and turns a thread can take. However, I feel like criddic3 (and, more recently, rolo) will use any old thread as a platform to prop up his political beliefs which more often than not, engenders a flame war that ends up taking over the entire thread until a) OscarGuy has to actually lock it down or b) someone successfully steers us out of the morass with an insightful post. This, not off-topic discussion, is what I have a problem with.




Edited By flipp525 on 1168223691
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Akash »

Penelope wrote:Now, wait, flipp--I like the fact that a movie thread can propel a discussion into many different areas--for me, it's a reflection of what makes this such a dynamic board.


I agree, Penelope.

Flipp, believe me, I share your frustration with criddic. I've only been here a short while and already his comments drive me up a wall (and it's even more pathetic watching him give Sonic Youth the run around in the Politics section - evading good points, not answering questions, outright lying etc. Honestly, I dont know how Sonic Youth keeps it up), so I can imagine how long time posters like yourself must feel. BUT, I don't think it's bad in general, for healthy discussions of society and politics to emerge from a discussion about a film which does exist in such a context.

One of the things that's maddening about a lot of people my age in America is their unwillingless to discuss their politics and social beliefs and - as a result - the lazy, negative connotations that have been conflated with saying "I'm interested in politics" or "I'm liberal." As if these affinities are abstract concepts and not the very fundamental verities that define who we are and how we behave in society.

I haven't yet seen Notes and I don't know if everything Rolo has said is convincing. But I also don't think it's fair to say putting a "homophobic slant" on a film does it a disservice. Whether we agree with him or not, he has the right to interpret the film however he wants and once again, no work of art (a film or a novel for example) is free from its social context. Again, this is not an endorsement of Rolo's position for a film I have not seen, but rather his right to argue for what could be an uncomfortable subtext.

Sometimes a film can be offensive or misguided despite the best liberal intentions of its makers. (For example, I thought Dreamgirls celebrated the same thing it pretended to criticize and merely ratified white upper middle class and upper class privilege despite the fact that Bill Condon is a sensitive gay man with left politics).

We don't have to agree with them, but it would be far worse to silence them. John Stuart Mill said that we should allow arguments - however ridiculous they may seem - because sometimes the back and forth can reveal something more nuanced and more honest than the limiting binaries of "True" and "False" ever could. With so many intelligent people on this board, it would be a shame to limit that kind of discourse. Would we rather this place turn into the petulant ass-hattery and fanboy wailing of Goldderby?

I still think Criddic is aggravating though.
danfrank
Adjunct
Posts: 1009
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Post by danfrank »

I'd be more interested in discussing whether Notes on a Scandal is homophobic if it weren't such a ridiculous movie. At least Fatal Attraction had the good sense to be campy and fun.
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2875
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

Is it me or have I stumbled into a tug of war?

Personally, I like to discuss many things branching off a topic, but if my responses to such derailed conversations is seen as problematic I'm more than willing to limit myself to self-contained topic threads. Or am I making myself the center of attention again? ???
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

Now, wait, flipp--I like the fact that a movie thread can propel a discussion into many different areas--for me, it's a reflection of what makes this such a dynamic board.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2875
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

flipp525 wrote:
criddic3 wrote:Don't you think that creating a separate thread for every sub-topic would take up more space than devoting a few posts to them?

I didn't say that you had to create entirely new threads. I specifically cited threads that were already in existence that cover the topic of gay marriage. If you look hard enough, most likely, there's already a thread that pertains to whatever you want to discuss. And no, I don't think it's out of the question to say something like, "Since this topic seems to be going in another direction, I'll post my next comment in 'More Appropriate Thread X'. You, in particular, have a history of intentionally veering the conversation into your own specific realms of discussion. It's almost an epidemic with you, actually.

Honestly, it is not intented to take away from the discussion. I wish only to add to it. What you describe as a selfish inclusion for my own satisfaction is actually just adding my opinions and observations into the conversation. I'm not the only one who does this. And the things I add usually are in response to something that triggers my posts. I realize that sometimes this veers things in different directions, but I really mean no harm by doing so. Besides if I'm responding to a person's comment, and I do as you suggest, would my move to another thread be ignored? Maybe I'm a bit insecure sometimes, but it does stop the flow of conversation to say let's go to the other room to finish this discussion...perhaps we'll put the kettle on and settle into the living room. Online this does seem rather odd, but I see your point. One topic is set up for a specific movie, and someone makes a comment that jumpstarts a new discussion.

I guess the damage to the conversation would be minimal if we moved to an already existing thread in miscellaneous. I doubt that every such occassion merits this move, but if that will make everyone happy I will try to do my part.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6197
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

criddic3 wrote:Don't you think that creating a separate thread for every sub-topic would take up more space than devoting a few posts to them?

I didn't say that you had to create entirely new threads. I specifically cited threads that were already in existence covering the topic of gay marriage. If you look hard enough, most likely, there's already a thread that pertains to whatever you want to discuss. And no, I don't think it's out of the question to say something like, "Since this topic seems to be going in another direction, I'll post my next comment in 'More Appropriate Thread X'. You, in particular, have a history of intentionally veering the conversation into your own specific realms of discussion. It's almost an epidemic with you, actually.




Edited By flipp525 on 1168215875
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2875
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

Hey, i'm sorry, but when a topic comes up in a thread it isn't exactly necessary to make up an entire new thread for it. Especially if the topic comes up out of the subject of a particular film. Obviously conversation is out of the question here. The objection to getting into other matters stemming out of the current topic is really annoying. In real life when discussing a movie, people often get into other subject not entirely unrelated to the starting point. Discussions do tend to grow branches to other topics. Don't you think that creating a separate thread for every sub-topic would take up more space than devoting a few posts to them?
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6197
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Can't the two of you just have your own thread where you can constantly go back and forth so, ya know, like none of us have to read it? Criddic, rolo: both of you have consistently "hijacked" various threads on this board to veer the conversation into your own agendas and it's getting really old. The large jump in subjects from villifying gay characters in film to the overtly-politicized topic of gay marriage is tenuous at best and belongs, if anywhere, in 'New Developments' 'New Jersey Court Backs Gay Rights' or somewhere else under Politic Off-Topic. This thread is about Notes on a Scandal, not the ghetto-izing of a group you claim to be a part of.



Edited By flipp525 on 1168214097
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2875
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

Sonic Youth wrote:
criddic3 wrote:I am, as you know, a gay conservative and have been wriiten off as such. But while I would like to be able to be legally recognized with a partner, I do not support the over-zealous hijacking of the word marraige. Sorry, but that's what it is.

Yet Criddic the hypocrite has no objection to the hijacking of the word "gay", which originally meant "happy" and "light-hearted" before the homosexual community tainted it forever.

But he'll love to pretend to care about things he has no interest in, like meanings of words, because that's exactly what the talking points have been saying for years, and Criddic is wholly incapable of giving a reason for anything other that what he hears other people say.

You know what's a worse hijacking of the word marriage, Criddic? Your embarrassing inability to spell it correctly.


Yeah so i switched the a and the i a few times.

Anyway, what I posted before is my genuine belief. I have no idea who originated the hijacking of the word "gay" but it's been in use for a long time to mean homosexual. It's like "straight" being used to mean heterosexual. Is this use of word meanings at all confusing to you? I'm not the one who started using these words in this fashion, and the fact is you've probably used them this way plenty of times. So what is the point of your response? You didn't say anything about the substance of my post, which says a lot about the way you view the subject. I already know how you view me, but the opinion I have on gay marriage is a legitimate one. Many gay ...excuse me... homosexuals have said the same as I have. It's just that the wider "community" has opted to push as hard as it can, ramming the issue down the public's throats. I think this is alienating supporters of gay rights in other groups. Why is this not a legitimate concern?

In any event, I'll be content with the label of "happy" conservative.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8055
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

criddic3 wrote:I am, as you know, a gay conservative and have been wriiten off as such. But while I would like to be able to be legally recognized with a partner, I do not support the over-zealous hijacking of the word marraige. Sorry, but that's what it is.

Yet Criddic the hypocrite has no objection to the hijacking of the word "gay", which originally meant "happy" and "light-hearted" before the homosexual community tainted it forever.

But he'll love to pretend to care about things he has no interest in, like meanings of words, because that's exactly what the talking points have been saying for years, and Criddic is wholly incapable of giving a reason for anything other that what he hears other people say.

You know what's a worse hijacking of the word marriage, Criddic? Your embarrassing inability to spell it correctly.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Post Reply

Return to “2000 - 2007”