Change Your Image
begy
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againNOTE: Please note that I in no way condone such relationships in real life. And while it should go without saying, I will include it just in case: sexual abuse of ANY kind, whether directed at ADULTS or MINORS, regardless of the victim’s gender or the familial relationship to the perpetrator, is DESPICABLE and HORRENDOUS.
This list is for reference only. The thinking behind it is that while every other kind of relationship and every other type of violence has been portrayed in the media so much that the audiences have become desensitized to them, incest specifically still retains at least some of the taboo that has been historically associated with it. It is still the “big” thing filmmakers resort to when they are looking for shock value. But even that has been changing over the last several decades. Case in point - Game of Thrones with its current and planned spin-offs.
SPOILER ALERT!!! My descriptions below may contain spoilers revealing important plot twists. However, I had to put them in to specify the nature of the relationships depicted in a particular film.
Tried to put them in some sort of chronological order, starting with the nearest and most likely future.
Reviews
Mermaid Down (2019)
Not the worst movie out there
I'm giving it a slightly higher rating than it actually deserves, because clearly a lot of work went into this movie from a bigger than usual cast and crew, and the result is not horrible.
The writing is not the worst thing about the movie, because the premise was actually interesting (enough to make me want to watch the movie), there is some sort of a plot in there, and there is even attempt at some character development. But the story is still weak.
The acting was pretty decent from most of the cast (the old man in the beginning, the asylum inhabitants, and its female employees), with some exceptions (the goofy dude in the beginning, the evil doctor, the male orderlies). The main villain especially seemed extremely wooden and seemed to have a multitude of evil hobbies - as many as the writers could come up with/fit into the runtime. That being said, maybe it's not the actor's fault - maybe he was just following the direction he was given. I certainly felt that the actress playing the main nurse had to literally slow down her delivery or just act dumb in order to make the scenes more believable.
Which brings me to the directing, camerawork, and editing of this movie. All of that felt very amateurish, to the point that I think in the hands of a more experienced / talented director this could have been a much better movie. The scene transitions are non-existent. Plotlines are sometimes so disjointed, there is no explanation of how characters A and B, who were locked up in the previous scene, are now sitting and watching TV with everyone else. The "contemplative" scenery is simple hammered in at random points. Oh, and I didn't need to be told the director was male, when one of the female characters suddenly decided to lower her shorts to expose her ass to the camera. Or when the main character, who had been wearing a hospital gown until then (for no good reason), apropos nothing disrobed completely and was walking around like that. Or when the nurse finally decided to cover the naked girl, only the closest thing at hand was a white bodysuit that was a perfect fit, which she called "kinky". Or when a bunch of women, who are in the middle of escaping from the asylum, decide to go take a dip in the pond/lake/river in the middle of the night, and undress down to their underwear (which is of non-standard design). I was expecting all of the actresses to completely undress at some point in the movie, but after this scene the gratuitous nudity is dialed back, so I stuck it out till the end.
Overall, you're likely to enjoy it only if you go with very low expectations and like some violence in your movies, even if it's not depicted that well.
Women Talking (2022)
Fable of female condition
I have just watched this film at the TIFF, where the director, Sarah Polley, was present herself, and held a short Q&A session after the screening. Before seeing the film, I've only read the synopsis and seen the main cast list, both of which looked promising. It wasn't until I saw the introductory credits and later heard the director talk about the origins of the plot, that I first learned it was based on a novel by Miriam Toews, who in turn based her book loosely on the events that took place in Bolivia around 2010.
The film is very well made, the acting is spectacular, the writing is strong and purposeful. Not having read the novel, I don't know how much of this vision comes from the book author and how much from the screenwriter (also Sarah Polley), but it was clear to me what the message was that the film was trying to get across, and I think the film accomplishes its goal extremely successfully. As a viewer, you are invited to experience, just for the duration of the film, what it is that being a woman means. And that experience leaves you reeling.
The plot of the film consists of a handful of women being tasked with deciding the path that women of a religious colony should take. The women have just discovered that what their elders had made them believe were Satan, demons, and ghosts coming to prey on them, were, in fact, the men of their own community drugging them with animal tranquilizer and raping them. When the rapists get arrested, the rest of the men go to the town where they are being held, in order to raise money and bail them out. Women are told they have to find it in themselves to forgive the rapists, otherwise they would be excommunicated from the colony, and their souls would be forever banished from entering the Kingdom of God. After the initial self-organized voting in the absence of men, the women are left with the two most popular options - stay and fight or leave. The members of the oldest families in the colony then spend the next two days discussing and arguing each option, with August, a teacher and the only male left behind, taking the meeting minutes.
Taken at a face value, the plot doesn't make a lot of sense. It's certainly not very realistic, the discussions held by allegedly uneducated and illiterate women are too academic in nature, and the practical problems they face aren't well addressed. But that's not a shortcoming really, because it's mostly intentional.
The story isn't supposed to be taken at a face value. The director called it a fable and that is exactly how it comes across. Very soon into the film it becomes clear that the story is an artificial setting - a framework or a stage if you will - in which the tragedy of women's lives is meant to play out and be inspected.
It is the reality of life that women are raped. They are raped to satisfy men's urges, they are raped as a show of power by men, they are raped as a form of warfare, of humiliation, of subjugation. Yet rape is still not classified as a war crime. It is still not considered a crime of the highest order, unlike murder, because it is not as final. And yet, doesn't the fact the victim is left to live the rest of their life with the scars of this crime what makes it worse? Apparently not. It's an expected byproduct of being a woman.
Women are denied education. In many societies across the world today, but in all of them historically.
Women are denied a voice. They didn't have voting rights until about 100 years ago, still don't have those in some countries. But outside of the political voting, a woman's opinion is almost always worth less than a man's. They are not listened to at home, they are not listened to at work, they are not listened to in government, because all of these areas are overwhelmingly dominated by men. They get this dominance through sheer numbers, yes, but also through financial dependency of women on them, better career prospects, better education, more free time, and, finally, through simple physiology - men can establish their dominance through physical force or through having the woman carry out the child bearing and rearing, because that is how "nature intended it".
And women are beaten. Because they are not physically strong enough to fight back. Because they have too much to lose. Because they have nowhere else to go. Because they are afraid of the unknown. Because no one is going to protect them or support them. Because their suffering never outweighs the damage a man could face, should he be held accountable for the violence.
All of this you see in the film. Each of the main characters is an archetype of sorts. There are women who attack other women and question their motives and experiences. There are women that contribute to the systemic abuse by being the apologists and enablers. There are women who love their abusers. But all of them are also united in having faced the abuse, having let it happen - to themselves and to the next generation of women - and in being afraid to change things.
And then there is the lonely male character, August. He is supposed to be a witness, a listener, but also to represent the hope for the male half of the population. He is "good". Despite his position of privilege in the society, he is still able to hear and to empathize and to learn.
There is another purpose for having August in the story as well. It's an acknowledgment that the system cannot be changed by women alone. Unless those in power are brought to the table and are willing to work on it, a change cannot occur. It is telling then, I guess, that even this lonely scion of what is good in men still has to be given a personal connection, a love interest, in order to be able to empathize with the plight of women. As chafing as I personally found this plotline, I also can't deny that it reflects the reality - how many men have you heard talking about their wives, daughters, mothers, when explaining how they arrived at a position of support for women's rights and protections?
My only criticism of the film and its director is the choice of an all white cast. Now, I do not say this lightly - I'm not a fan of introducing diversity just for the sake of it, especially in settings where it doesn't make sense. However, there is a very good reason why this story should have been delivered by a diverse cast (Black, Native American, Indian, Asian, Middle Eastern, and yes, white) - because it's a story about the universal experiences for women. Abuse, subjugation, and discrimination are by no means limited to white women - if anything, they would be the group that has been historically better off compared to women of other races/ethnicities, as white women, as has been pointed out by many, would have been on the slaveowning and colonialist side of society. And because this is a fable, for once, the considerations of realism wouldn't have been a factor.
In fact, this question was asked of Sarah Polley during the Q&A, but the reasons she gave (that BIPOC projects don't get enough funding, that she thought bringing race into the mix would dilute her main message, and that since the story is based on a Mennonite community it wouldn't be realistic to have a racially mixed cast and would make it feel like a cult) were in direct contradiction with her positioning of this film as a fable and with her message in the film. Moreover, it illustrated to me how easy it is to not see your own bias - just as men, even those who call themselves feminists, fail to see when their actions are oppressive and stifling to women, so does Sarah Polley seem not to notice how her reasoning is reminiscent of rhetoric that is used to rationalize systemic racism. In fact, I felt that this Q&A session actually tainted my impression of the movie and its creator.
All that is to say, I recommend watching the film. Be prepared that it might be a very traumatizing experience, depending on how much of what's depicted will resonate with you. And maybe stop at the film and skip all the interviews with its makers.
Sherlock (2010)
WAS sure I wouldn't like it...
After the recent "masterpiece" starring Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law, and learning that this was a "modernized" version of the classics, I was indeed very skeptical about the new series. It was, I think, the second time I was completely mistaken (the first time was when I started watching Prison Break upon my friends' insistence).
I have never actually been an absolute fan of Sherlock Holmes stories, but I really like and respect this character deeply - none of other famous literary investigators managed to gain such a great sympathy from me. Having watched quite a few film versions, the only one I really liked until today was the Russian series, with Vasiliy Livanov as Holmes and Vitaliy Solomin as Watson - there should be a version translated into English, and I strongly recommend that you watch it, as it's the most true to the books, although might have culture-related faults as a non-British production.
After watching "A Study in Pink", the first episode of the new "Sherlock" series, I suspect that I've a new favourite. I think the greatest advantage of the new production is the addition of clever humour - the famous British one you hear so much about. It makes the series incredible fun to watch - I can't remember laughing so much over a film so far.
The leading actor, Benedict Cumberbatch, was a very good choice - he is able to make his character clever, enigmatic, ... immoral but at the same time full of charisma. I'm not yet so sure about the actor playing John Watson. DI Lestrade (is his name supposed to be pronounced le'stra:d ?) looked stupid enough, as he should, but not funny at all. And Mrs. Hudson was a complete miss.
The plot was unfortunately not strong enough. But you can't usually have everything, so let's just say the fun has compensated it so far.
I absolutely loved the re-worked references to the original story: Holmes's deductions about Watson's background (Afghanistan or Iraq :D), the mobile phone story, Mycroft (although the actor did a bad job here), etc. But there were some exaggerated moments, which were a bit irritating: one could get an impression that people in London eat/sleep/etc. without putting their mobile phone away. Besides, it wasn't funny at all, when Sherlock made a dramatic note about the "vacant faces" around him ... for the second time.
My sister was also a bit uneasy about the first-name terms ("Sherlock", "John"), but looking at Cumberbatch, I indeed saw Sherlock, not Holmes, and the best part is - that's not a bad thing here at all! All in all, I could say it in one sentence, already given by another reviewer here: I constantly refer to IMDb, but this was the first film that made me actually register on the site! :D
P.S. One other factor for my liking it, was the actual sense of London - one of my favourite cities.