blue is the warmest color - Abdellatif Kechiche

me too, but still

THE ACCLAIMED MOTION PICTURE

phenomenally good

i just love the idea of ppl seeing this advertised on the london underground and not knowing what its about at all and then being stuck in the cinema watching 3 hours of teen existentialism with discussions about sartre when they'd rather be watching carrie (which btw, is the best of the recent horror remakes and actually quite underrated, forget what de palma fanboys/canonical critics may like to think)

love the quotes on the faces poster - you never see critics quotes that excitable/exciting anymore - they always seem either too measured or blandly hyperbolic

well, people usually read about the movie before they go and see it..

carrie (which btw, is the best of the recent horror remakes and actually quite underrated, forget what de palma fanboys/canonical critics may like to think)

GTFO

Haven't seen this specific movie, but I feel like I have seen this general movie before, several times over, both with a straight couple as the focus and with a gay (male) couple as the focus. Is this one a big deal because they've finally gotten around to two female leads? Quality of performances aside, it's starting to feel a bit like, you know, the second Spanish woman with one leg climbing Everest sort of thing.

yeah, if it wasnt for the leads playing two lesbians, im not sure this would merit so much comment. but then, there havent been many films about two lesbians like this, so it does deserve all that comment.

xpost - carrie is great (chloe grace moretz is too pretty for the role, but she does a good enough job emoting etc)

It's cool if you think the remake's great, but don't blame the world disagreeing with you on De Palma fanboys.

i dunno this is a great movie that's worth talking about for lots of reasons besides the fact it's about two women: the way it deals with the intersections of love, sex, class, and adulthood; the performances from the two leads; the nervous, intimate cinematic style

would have liked to see him explore the male gaze concept a little more, feels like he got off to a great start but didnt quite nail it (no pun intended)

"but I feel like I have seen this general movie before, several times over,"

don't judge a movie by it's cover/genre.

it's like saying: i've seen gangster movies before, i don't wanna see another one.
or: Tokyo Story? what's so special about a family drama?

the plot/genre are just the frame.

the male gaze concept is def. not the main issue in this movie. it's no Hitchcock..

the film does teenage response to love really well i think, that one moment when emma and adele kiss and then she looks so awkward/giggly/silly, its such a perfect few seconds

How's it compare to:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Fucking_%C3%85m%C3%A5l_original_poster.jpg

Haven't seen this specific movie, but I feel like I have seen this general movie before, several times over, both with a straight couple as the focus and with a gay (male) couple as the focus. Is this one a big deal because they've finally gotten around to two female leads? Quality of performances aside, it's starting to feel a bit like, you know, the second Spanish woman with one leg climbing Everest sort of thing.

seriously Josh

Yeah, seriously. It's cool to like this movie, and this may be the best movie of its type, but from my nil-point vantage the discussion at large has mainly been about the love scene, or the fact that it's about two women, but not about the direction or the story. I'm sure the acting is great. Every movie is worth watching, pretty much. And obviously every great film is worth watching. But I'm trying to pin down whether this film is great or whether it is simply a great version of a film we've all seen before. And yes, I make the distinction.

Fucking Amal/Show Me Love is amazing, btw.

Just about every person on this thread – not to mention the serious reviews – barely mentioned Those Scenes, or used Those Scenes to unlock the rest of the movie.

plus: Haven't seen this specific movie

I said "discussion at large," not discussion on ILX. Critics and folks have been talking about this movie for months. This thread was started a few days ago. And the reason the ask is because I'm trying to figure out if I should see it or not, or see it on the big screen or whatever. I can't see every movie, unfortunately, and three hour movies are particularly tough for me, so I'm vetting it through people whose tastes I somewhat trust or at least think I understand, vs. some hyperbolic NPR critic who extols the film as some monumental work but fails to explain just why.

Like, on that other thread someone linked to an essay extolling the virtues of Paul Walker, but fucked if I'm going to watch ten car chase movies.

see it on a big screen

there are other films like this, so don't see it

see it on a big screen. It's a good movie with scene constructions, lines, moments to think about for a while. The sex scenes bored me tbh cuz I'm a peculiar gay man who believes that for cinematic sex brevity is the soul of dick.

Thanks!

xp how true that is

Some lovely night in front of the fire.

damn josh those posts are steamin turds even by your standard

I have low standards.

I dunno, they make sense to me, I guess. There are a ton of rom-coms which could be described the same way, and not every one is "Some Like it Hot" or "Bringing Up Baby" or whatever. The way this is described, on paper, makes it sound like a Euro/art-film punchline from the '70s - which I know it is absolutely not - so I was trying to figure out what sets it apart by hearing discussions and reading conversations about it. And the way I heard it described made it sound like a lot of other movies I'd seen, which is by no means a reason not to see a movie, but depending on my time/mood may be enough to dissuade me. I finally saw "12 Years a Slave," for example, but in retrospect don't feel like I needed to. I'm trying to be judicious with my ticket buying.

Speaking of which, "Frozen" really isn't that good, but the snowman's summer song is great!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFatVn1hP3o

my main complaint is that the love story itself could have been a little more original in terms of its twists and turns and the way it ends and the characters disentangle themselves. its more about what it does within and around that familiar framework than the framework itself. it is powerful, if not the absolute transcendental-existential masterwork its been made out to be. but maybe i would feel differently if i was still a teenager. it felt like a very 'big' vision for an intimate story and even when i kinda drifted away a little, i never felt it was boring. i want to see it again actually, though weirdly, as moved as i was, im not sure i really felt wholly sucked into it which is what i would want from a film thats meant to be as emotionally involving as this. my appreciation for it is a bit removed.

fair enough xp

Lowering expectations is the way to go for most things imo

you also have to have a certain affection for conversationally driven and intellectually meandering european art films mixed in with a bit of an interest in modern euro realism (i know its not 'realism' in the gritty/verite sense exactly, but its filmed quite nakedly, and unfussily which surprised me, i was expecting something more sublime visually, like ulrich seidl or something, idk)

unfussy is a good word for it, though there is some excellent camerawork in this

fyi josh it has subtitles too

am reading some of the reviews of this just now as have ignored them up to now, but this from littlewhitelies, seems right:

it is a lovely movie, albeit one which is so thorough and single-minded in intent, that it doesn't really leave anything much to ponder after the lights have gone up.

i dont think thats otm

a criticism that makes more sense applied to 12 Years a Slave.

xpost I think your divergent takeaways are possibly themselves a worthy ratification of the movie. Minus the revelation that there are subtitles, of course. Quelle horreur!

for about half the screening i saw the subtitles started showing up like this:

□□□□ This is a line of dialogue □□□

4 squares in front, three behind, for like 30mins at a time

especially during key moments of lesbian sex

http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/Magritte_the-treachery-of-images-this-is-not-a-pipe-1948.jpg

I liked this alright, but the breakup fight is both the worst and most predictable scene in it.

classroom scenes are v much akin to his L'esquive (a better movie)

nostormo yr analysis rocks

i think Kechiche made a mistake when choosing to somewhat abandon the political part in the 2nd part of the movie.

otm. there was enough space (p.sure the film is about 10 hrs long) to explore more fully the ideas abt class etc than the nods we get

instead, prosthetic fannies

Thoughts on this: I don't think Adele was ever political. The demo at the beginning is just a youth-thing, every highschool student in europe goes to those things. Adele and her friends act political instead of being political, it's meant to mirror the Gay Pride parade. Actually, most of the film is built of scenes mirroring one another. My reading of the ending is that it mirrors the scene at the lesbian bar. There, Emma turned up by coincidence. In the end, Samir turns the wrong way, again by coincidence. It shows just how much Adele has built her life on what seemed like destiny, but was pretty much coincidences.