 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.176.121
2006 film which examines the prejudices held in the hispanic community (the older generation) relative to homosexuality and bearing children out of wedlock. Magdalena is a young girl of fourteen, who has a boyfriend. She becomes pregnant, assuring her father, a minister, that he has not had intercourse. He kicks her out of the house, at which time she moves in with her great-uncle, a very religious man who takes her in. Already living there is her cousin Carlos whose father kicked him out of his house for being gay. Their respective fathers are brothers.
The film plays like a character driven as opposed to a plot driven film. Which is to say, more like a foreign film. Probably about one third of the film is subtitled. The film takes on the journey these three people make as they try to live with each other, and their community that does not, or will not, understand them, and the road back to where they began.
As with all good character driven films, the quantity of characters is minimal, allowing us to get to know them, and develop something of a bond. It is a concise film, with little wasted dialog. Very recommended.
Follow Ups:
but I don't think the story was about the Latin American community as much as all of us.
A sweet little film that I too would recommend.
Later
D
"but I don't think the story was about the Latin American community as much as all of us."
My comment came from representing a hundred or so hispanic folks for a variety of issues. Although society generally still has a stigma against homosexuals, the prejudice appears stronger in the hispanic community. I am not sure there is much of a stigman anymore relative to single parent births. I suspect the stigma is still stronger in the hispanic community that outside it.
a
There are always exceptions to the rules, about 15% of American films are independent, but I think it generally accepted that American films are generally plot driven, and foreign films character driven.
Here is an essay that I think cogently describes what I am referring to: http://www.explorewriting.co.uk/PlotVersusCharacter.html
Or here: http://www.filmfestivals.com/academy/oscar_2000/3_foreign/index.htm - "Clearly, however, it has not been a roadblock to getting involved in films that could be described as very much Hollywood product but with a strongly humanistic bent. Johnson's producing career has, in some ways, mirrored his affinity for foreign films, most of which, it seems, rely strongly on character-driven narratives as opposed to modern Hollywood's typical reliance on action.
I suggest you Google "Character driven films and Foreign Films" and "Plot Driven films and Foreign Films", and see for which you get more hits, and then Google "Plot driven films and Foreign Films" and then "Plot driven films and American Films", and see the results.
I can't take credit for the characterization (no pun intended). Many others made the claim before me. I simply agree with them. I guess we are all flawed.
totality of foreign film but merely the art house ones which make it across the pond. If one compares art films of the US vs. other countries' the differences you agree with vanish.
I'd also point out that "foreign" and "international" hardly are interchangeable.
"If one compares art films of the US vs. other countries' the differences you agree with vanish."
Please refer to my prior post. Approximately 15% of films from the U.S. are made outside the Hollywood system - independent films. I will agree that the majority of those films are generally character driven, but they make up a small percentage of U.S. based films.
"The reviewers that hold that opinion probably aren't considering the totality of foreign film but merely the art house ones which make it across the pond."
Well, if you live in the U.S. and have seen the film, you likely have seen it because it has made it across the pond. On the other hand, if you have not seen the film, how do you know it exists? Care to give specific examples of all these films that you have seen and are not available in the U.S., either in a theater or on D.V.D.? Perhaps then we could discuss specific examples rather than these unknown films to which you refer.
One simply can't lump so much: European films, for instance, must be considered differently than "Asian."
Hong Kong produces more (except, perhaps, for India) films than any other market. There are many styles of martial art films, almost all of which, by definition, are plot driven. Films like those of Wong Kar-Wai are in a very, very small minority.
India also produces few films similar to those of Ray or Mehta, most being Bollywood cheapie productions. Ditto China. Taiwan.
I might add that Brasilian films, also, follow this general rule of many plot driven, few character.
Perhaps Patrick can enlighten about the situation in France: I'd bet that most films there are NOT character driven but the ones we know, historically, and the ones exported to our shores, are.
When one says "international" or "foreign," it takes in a lot of ground, doesn't it? :-0
"European films, for instance, must be considered differently than "Asian."
Sure. But films there are really two choices in terms of structure - plot driven or character driven. On the other hand, subject matter, scenery, language (by which I mean style) are always different.
"There are many styles of martial art films, almost all of which, by definition, are plot driven."
No argument there
"Films like those of Wong Kar-Wai are in a very, very small minority."
Not sure what you mean by this. You mean that most films from Hong Kong are martial art films? I would disagree.
"India also produces few films similar to those of Ray or Mehta, most being Bollywood cheapie productions. Ditto China. Taiwan."
Cheapie production does not equal plot driven, or character driven.
"I might add that Brasilian films, also, follow this general rule of many plot driven, few character."
In looking over my notes, I have seen two Brazilian films relatively recently, Mango Yellow and Carandiru. Mango Yellow was unquestionably a character film. I would argue Carandiru was as well because the film spends 95% of its running time exploring the various characters within a static environment. Place the same characters in a bakery, restaurant, etc., and you have essentially the same film. The signigicance of the the fact they are in prison does not take place until the last twen minutes.
"I'd bet that most films there are NOT character driven but the ones we know, historically, and the ones exported to our shores, are."
So now you are supporting your arguments not with facts but with assumptions? I'll play. I'd bet that most Films in France are character driven, and that what we see over here is a representative sample. Sort of like in an election when the first 20% of the votes are counted from a representative geographic area, the remaining 80% will more likely than not reflect the first 20%.
overwhelmingly martial arts, as are several other Asian markets.
The two Brasilian films you mention are both "art" films, Carandiru being considered among the ten best from the Samba country. Mango also is an "art" film; neither is typical of the Brasilian industry which has a lot of crime and slapstick type of fare.
Plot driven films are the norm in all markets for a very understandable reason: the writing needn't be as excellent. Also, the actors needn't have the same acting skill level. A knowledge of popular television, which is similar in Europe and SA, will confirm that plots drive it.
is regurgitation, or as you put it, "many others made the claim before me".
Be sure to also alert us when you say something of your own creation. ;~)
I think I probably have time now for a good long nap.
Do you dress yourself? Feed yourself? Do you drive? Someone teach you these things? The founding of this country? The Civil War? Discuss any of those topics? Moron, it is all regurgitation.
Maroon, doc.
Is there no original thought? That's preposterous!
"Is there no original thought? That's preposterous!"
Where did I write this?
who said "it is all regurgitation"? Regurgitate=throw back the same=unoriginal.
James, once more I implore you to truce. I really have no more time to teach you how to escape your dogmatic world.
Let's move on to something that's more interesting. You are a bore. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure your family and friends still love you.
I understand now that you have a crippled thinking and deserve sympathy rather than derision. That kind of stupidity is the fault of genetics and your local school system. You are truly a victim of sorts.
And you are not yet ready for the cure that I offer.
I'm sorry I got involved in all this and don't need any apology from you at all.
I sense your frustration that your little personal attacks have no traction.
to discern such a thing standing next to someone, much less at this distance.
I've been pondering what profession you might be in given your incredible need for structure and outside reference. Engineer? No, Post Office. Burger King! That's it. LOL.
For me it's like playing with monkeys at the zoo. All the monkey can do is jabber and toss shit. I can walk away; the monkey is still in his cage. Or like poking a slug with a stick.
Actually, I've been using you to cultivate my YECHness. I'm long past a point of emotional investment in any of this. It's just fun to see you always trying to catch up. Or catch on.
I've developed a genuine little fondness for you. I predict we'll be friends soon. Nothing would please me more.
I want to get back to movies.
...schmuck!
It's fine to disagree with someone, but it's not necessary to bloat yourself up quite so big in the process!
Elliot Berlin
You want to talk about film or fight?
I was just someone reading the thread who found the degree of your sense of superiority surprising. It was enough that way to make me feel the need to defend the side of the people who aren't as "elevated" as you.
I've had my disagreements with people on the Asylum but I hope I've not taken the tone that you have in this series of posts.
Beyond that I'd say I neither have the desire to discuss film with or fight...with you at least.
You just came into something "mid-reel" so to speak. You obviously don't know the full background of what was going on.
I thought it truly ironic that your immediate reaction was to inject yourself - uninvited,
uninformed - by using the same kind of language toward me that you objected to my using toward my budding buddy, jamesgarvin.
I forgive you and hope to earn your future admiration.
Did you see my lovenote to jamesgarvin at the top of the page?
Cheers.
c
"A bee in his bonnet". Ouch! Now that smarts.
I just have low regard for people whose chief contribution here consists mostly of mouthing habitual words. Or who display personal rancor or laziness to the neglect of the beauty of film art and a healthy discussion of it.
I admire intellectual honesty, good humor and constructive, thoughtful opinion.
Take you for example. In this case you have taken a side and just snipe from a distance. If you want to engage me in any respect having to do with film, let's go. Otherwise, butt out.
I am having a spat with jamesgarvin that I didn't intend and I'm trying to find a way out. I've offered truce but he refused. And he said he will not leave me alone. So, we'll battle until a pleasing conclusion is reached.
So far, I find you and jamesgarvin to be dullards. Parrots. You're squawkers and repeaters. Your very nature forces me to entertain myself. There's nothing fresh about you. Even your insults lack vitality. LOL.
One thing is for sure, if you can be civil towards me, I promise you I will return the courtesy.
Enlighten me or ignore me. Please.
...you know that?
You're a gentleman. I guess.
I've learned that everything is not what it appears to be here on the old internet. Usually, it takes some time to sort through things. Sorta like TV and the movies. Mostly just entertainment. Interactive, man!
Why take it personally? Especially if you're a bystander?
All my offenses - well, most - were so absurd, outrageous and intentional that I thought certainly they wouldn't be taken seriously. I'm surprised I didn't get exiled to "Outside". Well, maybe the moderator has a keener sense of humor than...........someone. Or, maybe he knew the full context. Or enjoyed a good story, unfolding. Unlike............someone.
Did you read my recent note to jamesgarvin? I had mixed feelings about writing it. Woulda been more fun and more meaningful if you and EBerlin had been patient enough to let it play out between the two of us without getting involved. We were close.
He really can take good care of himself without anyone else's help.
When you encounter me again, just pretend you have stepped into the theater. Join in. Entertain the people. Entertain me. Otherwise you risk appearing that "dullard". Like............someone. ;-)
Cheers
You had sideswiped both him and me at approximately the same time and place; I was simply calling his attention to the little gnat.
"Entertain me." Go ta hell -- does that amuse you?
clark
you to draw his attention.
You stuck your pointy nose in this.
You're a sad little hippokrit, is what you are. Very quickly you resort to the same language and tactics you find objectionable in me.
Let's talk about film.
s
nt
.
(1) "To my new friend jamesgarvin..." - nothing about film.
(2) In response to powermatic: "victim of your prejudices. I doubt you know much beyond what you read in headlines."
(3) "Be sure to also alert us when you say something of your own creation. I think I probably have time now for a good long nap."
(4) You are a bore. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure your family and friends still love you. I understand now that you have a crippled thinking and deserve sympathy rather than derision. That kind of stupidity is the fault of genetics and your local school system. You are truly a victim of sorts.
(5) I've been pondering what profession you might be in given your incredible need for structure and outside reference. Engineer? No, Post Office. Burger King! That's it. LOL. For me it's like playing with monkeys at the zoo. All the monkey can do is jabber and toss shit. I can walk away; the monkey is still in his cage. Or like poking a slug with a stick.
(6) So far, I find you and jamesgarvin to be dullards. Parrots. You're squawkers and repeaters. Your very nature forces me to entertain myself. There's nothing fresh about you. Even your insults lack vitality. LOL.
(7) Otherwise you risk appearing that "dullard". like............someone. ;-)
(8) You're a sad little hippokrit, is what you are.I kept the number of your references to "films" under ten so you could keep your shoes on while keeping track.
...are all my invitations to make up and move on.
You are always so selective and elusive. Intellectually dishonest. LOL.
You mean like when Germany wanted to "make up and move on" after it was reduced to rubble, or when Japan wanted to "make up and move on" after it was was chock full of crispy critters?
.
"I am having a spat with jamesgarvin that I didn't intend and I'm trying to find a way out. I've offered truce but he refused. And he said he will not leave me alone. So, we'll battle until a pleasing conclusion is reached."
Me and the Tinman have a little repartee' under my posting Quinceanera, in which you responded with the following comment: "I think most of what you say is regurgitation, or as you put it, "many others made the claim before me". Be sure to also alert us when you say something of your own creation. ;~)I think I probably have time now for a good long nap.""
Now, you were not involved in that conversation, I did not address you, refer to you, or involve you in any way. Yet you felt compelled to jump with the smarmy comment. What was it that you did not intend with that comment?
Now, what do you write to Clarke: "In this case you have taken a side and just snipe from a distance." Hmm. Sound familiar.
Under the "Breach" topic, in response to your query "which conclusion" which I provided you, your ressponse? "You'd appear a whole lot smarter if you'd address the original question with some original thought", and then the shenanigans begin. And you did not intend, what?
In this case you have taken a side and just snipe from a distance.
.
a
.
a
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]