Films/DVD Asylum

SPOILER. A major flaw which in its size in a film like this was absolutely stunning....

97.125.112.68

tinear

In Reply to: RE: German film festival prize: ten Lolas for the White Ribbon! What a success! posted by patrickU on April 24, 2010 at 02:57:10

near the end, why did no one go into the house sooner to realize the woman had gone? There is NO way with kids at risk someone wouldn't have.
There's no way around that flaw.
It amazed me.

Follow Ups:

RE: SPOILER. The flaw is you--- - patrickU 02:24:45 04/25/10 (0)
You has to go back in the mentality of the time before world one. Not understanding by today standards where children are over protected.
Second it adjust fully in the story, methink.

The problem is you.
No flaw..........it's your self-centered hyper-analysis at work.. - afilado 12:48:08 04/24/10 (0)
Watch it again. It works.
...."stunning" Is that, like, the new, like, ......."awesome"?
Stunning is so overused an adjective it has become tepid. Mundane. You've become equally boring and automatic. You could do this stuff in your sleep. Why bother?
How'd that chicken leg turn out? No doubt it would have benefited from some of Lars' "stunning" $175 bottle of white.
You guys are so much alike.

Edits: 04/24/10 04/24/10
RE: You may has missed the spirit of the whole film....Saying so in passing.. - patrickU 08:35:45 04/24/10 (6)
Christine gave me too much Cremant d `Alsace ...Till later..
- No, I very much liked the film but it has this major flaw! nt - tinear 09:31:20 04/24/10 (5)
  sdfa
  - RE: No, I very much liked the film but it has this major flaw! nt - patrickU 09:37:00 04/24/10 (4)
    It has nothing to do of your liking or not.
    The allegory is what you has sorely missed it seems.
    But now with Rose d�ott, bye bye...
    - Of course I understood the allegory; perhaps more than you. Haneke was - tinear 16:39:39 04/24/10 (3)
      born in Germany but educated in Austria and White Ribbon may be an examination of how Catholicism allows for more forgiveness, an assuagement of conscience, that Protestantism does not.
      Again, allegory or not, a film with a logical narrative must be consistent. In a major, critical part of the film, a ridiculously unbelievable event occurs, and yet the film is built--- meticulously--- upon a solid, logical framework.
      - Could be a logical narrative about..... - afilado 21:29:26 04/24/10 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Of course I understood the allegory; perhaps more than you. Haneke was posted by tinear on April 24, 2010 at 16:39:39
        
        illogical human behavior. The film was full of it.
        
        Did you see the film? It is completely ridiculous to think that after - tinear 07:28:45 04/25/10 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Could be a logical narrative about..... posted by afilado on April 24, 2010 at 21:29:26
        
        SPOILER
        discussing the disappearance, those folks wouldn't just go and get into the house instead of waiting days. It is a logical impossibility but it does nicely allow the director to make the ending he felt was needed.
        It was a narrative mistake, not uncommon. What makes this one remarkable is its size and placement.
        
        Of course, I saw the film. The flaw... - afilado 10:10:56 04/25/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Did you see the film? It is completely ridiculous to think that after posted by tinear on April 25, 2010 at 07:28:45
        
        ...is in your hasty, incomplete incorporation of the "linear narrative" that is THERE.
        Also - now - there's your typical intransigence for reconsideration of your position.
        Haneke spent years in the preparation and making of this film. He approved of every aspect of it before release. There has been serious, lengthy critical and public attention/examination given the film. No one else sees what you see. Think about it.
        Watch it again with an open mind. It's critical to follow who had what knowledge, their condition of mind relative to leading events, timing, etc. Break it down; it makes sense. You'll benefit from it.
        There was a time when a deeper, more revelatory exchange and discussion on such a question would have been interesting and fruitful to me and to others (I think) here. Your aggressive, exclusive, declarative manner has to a large extent poisoned the atmosphere. Film viewing is not a competition.
        "Ridiculous" = worthy of ridicule. Are you so dull and remote in your sensibilities that you can imagine that someone is going to be interested in helping you to understand something, to explain something, to provide something you want when you begin by telling them they are worthy of ridicule for possessing what you lack, for knowing something you don't, for having a differing opinion? Unbelievable.
        There's a difference between one-sidedly proclaiming a "major flaw" and in asking a fellow film lover to share insight into what you may have missed in a single viewing of a complex and exceedingly personal expression of cinematic art.
        Would you presume to declare a "major flaw" in a Picasso? In a work of Stravinsky's?
        Peaceful viewing to you.
        
        Edits: 04/25/10 04/25/10 04/25/10 04/25/10

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Amplified Parts