| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
TarTar
* Dog in the Sand *
1968 Posts |
 Posted - 12/17/2003 : 18:52:24
|
Has anyone else here seen this extremely disturbing but very funny film? I thought it was excellent. With the film jumping around between all the loosely intertwining stories, I was only bored by the story about the old folks divorce, which didn't take up very much of the movie. For as sick as many of the characters were, none of them were portrayed as monsters, they were just confused humans trying to achieve happiness, if even for a brief moment before realizing how awful they truly were. I'm not sure that this is a film that would get better with each viewing, but I really enjoyed it the first time. I will want to watch it again, definitely with someone who has not seen it so I can re-live my shock through their shock to the events that take place within this twisted masterpiece. I think it's a lot better than Harmony Korine's Gummo, which I guess is mostly only similar in shock-value, since the characters in Gummo do not live a nice, happy little life on the surface, and aren't necessarily aware that their actions are wrong. In Happiness, their is a moral standard that all the characters must break to achieve a feeling of liberation from the monotony of the mold they're trapped in. Great film.
Alcohol or pot? VHS or Beta? Man or Astro-man? |
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 19:13:49
|
the brilliance of HAPPINESS is that it gets the audience to sympathize with a child molester.. which is pretty subversive, groundbreaking stuff.
that said, i'm not a huge fan. i respect him as a filmmaker and i'll go see anything he makes because i know it'll be interesting. but he's just too mean-spirited, even for my taste. other filmmakers have an equally cynical, darkly humorous take on things, but at least have some soul at the center of their work.. the overall tone of his stuff is just too pessimistic.
for my money, the first half of STORYTELLING is his best work yet. that's a nice piece, in and of itself. like, a perfect short film. very well written. |
Edited by - floop on 12/17/2003 19:33:06 |
 |
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 21:16:25
|
Though it's been a few years since I saw it, I remember it as being both disturbing and entertaining, but not something I'd want to watch again. Welcome to the Dollhouse was more enjoyable.
 "Join the Cult of Dustin / And vanish without a trace" |
|
|
|
realmeanmotorscutor
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1764 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 21:34:50
|
Ok, I don't mean to be really offensive here but I can't not ask this. What the fuck is wrong with you!? I was working in a movie rental place some years back and this was in the comedy section. The kid I worked with suggested I see it claiming it was "hilarious." I watched it with my girlfriend and did not stop clutching her in terror for the entire movie. Nothing in it was funny and I don't think that it was just that I "didn't get it." It was sick and I certainly did not sympathize with the child molester. Now I know what you're going to say . . "that's just because society has caused you to be disgusted by child molesters and you refuse to see them as human." Not true. There's this internet-admit site that I recently visited and sure enough there was a guy there who said that since he was 10 he was attracted to infants and toddlers. He said that he has hated himself all his life and slit his wrists at 14. He said he'll probably kill himself one day. I wrote back to him saying that he clearly has a conscience and not to kill himself. His is a deviation that was beyond his control and he realizes that it's not a good thing. You have to feel bad for a person born with this strange sexual orientation. The pedophile in this movie, however, was revolting. I didn't for a second feel bad for him. I cannot understand how anyone considers this movie funny and, suffice it to say, I ripped my co-worker a new asshole. He quit shortly after; I think he felt like a deviant in my presence.
 "I joined the Cult of Popeye / The CoF required my good eye" |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 22:05:35
|
well, there's no accounting for taste.
Todd Solondz isn't my cup of tea, but not because of the subject matter of HAPPINESS. i thought the whole child molester angle was the one truly inspired part of the film. yes, child molestation is horrible. no one's going to argue with you about that. but people with this sickness (yes, it's definitely a sickness) are people.. and this is one film that presents that angle. someone who has this sickness.. but you see the human side of them. what other movie has done that?
as for the funniness.. i did think the film had some hilarious moments too (especially the scene involving the dog), but that's because i have a sick sense of humor. that's not to say i think child molestation is funny, or that i was laughing at those scenes.. remember, there were many different stories and characters in this film. just because someone says they thought it was funny doesn't mean they think child molestation is funny - or those particular segmets in the film were funny.
if anything, i'd say during those scenes - like the talk the father has with his son - there was a bit of nervous laughter. which is about the only way you can respond to that kind of material.
that defense aside, i'm not a fan of Solondz. i stand by the claim that his work lacks any heart or soul. which is fine.. he's like the director of pessimism and bleakness. but personally that's not always my thing.
filmmakers like Hal Hartley, or Rainer Fassbinder, or even David Lynch, have a similar dark, absurdist view of the world, but beneath all that there's always some heart, for lack of a better term (yes, even in Lynch)..
|
Edited by - floop on 12/17/2003 22:09:38 |
|
|
|
TarTar
* Dog in the Sand *
1968 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2003 : 23:57:33
|
Yeah, it's not that I found the child molester scene humorous for what it directly portrayed, but what the film accomplishes by showing this is that there is an evil lurking in all of us that we occasionally feel the need to unleash. The pedophile is an extreme example of this, but hasn't cinema always been about exaggeration? We do not know how often the child molester acted upon this; from what I gather, he had been holding this urge in for a long time, and had finally acted upon it and could not stop. He immediately was shunned from society for deviating so much. Of course, it's wrong, but an evil like that exists in our culture, and this movie shows that the evil does not only lurk in trashy, scummy people, but in people who make decisons based on personality and thoughts. Many psychiatrists/pyschologists get into the field of work they are in not because they are strong, righteous people, but because they are trying to get a grip on their own personal struggles. I think it's important to understand this when viewing the movie, because if you don't, it's very easy to label it garbage that capitalizes on the most horrid things in life.
In the same film, we have a man (the Phillip Seymour Hoffman character) who is obviously the victim of a perversion he cannot truly acknowledge, and spends much of his time fantaciszing on this perversion in a fake world, but when he finally must face these fantasies, he has to accept that they are merely figments of his imagination that are reaching beyond the boundries of his capabilites, and his kindred spirit is a woman who has the same boundries but allows herself to know that she cannot deal with sexual expectations and lets these feelings turn her into more of paraih than they should, so the two characters meet in the middle of their bizarre ways. It's a fantastic portrayal of humanity at it's least and most human (remember, most ideologists will agree that there is no definition of human nature) and should not be written off as a film that aims to bring out the worst in people and nothing more.
Alcohol or pot? VHS or Beta? Man or Astro-man? |
Edited by - TarTar on 12/18/2003 00:04:46 |
|
|
|
realmeanmotorscutor
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1764 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 09:50:34
|
well said Tar Tar and lest I be misunderstood, particularly by floop(yes, it's definitely a sickness), I did actually say that I felt bad for people with this sick desire. I guess all I was saying was that it wasn't funny even if it did accomplish something in showing us the human side of deviants. Maybe it's because I already knew these things that I simply found the movie atrocious. I don't remember it making me sympathize with too many of the characters. I suppose it's because I don't excuse the the behavior but rather the feelings as with the guy I mentioned in my previous post.
"I joined the Cult of Popeye / The CoF required my good eye" |
|
|
|
STITCHES
= Cult of Ray =
USA
915 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 09:52:17
|
I guess I shouldn't bother telling all my clergy molestation jokes on this board then, huh?
-----------------------
MAMASAYMAMASAMAMACOOSA |
|
|
|
Itchload
= Cult of Ray =
USA
891 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 12:43:08
|
Oh man, this movie at least deserves points for the best Freudian slip of all time.
"What were you saying about Ronald Farber?" "Who's Ronald Farber?" "Oh!..uh..I mean Johnny Grasso" |
|
|
|
STITCHES
= Cult of Ray =
USA
915 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 12:46:56
|
I had a freudian slip once. One time, when my exgirlfriend and I were still together she told me she loved me. I meant to say "I love you too", but what came out was "you're ruining my life." We broke up shortly after that
-----------------------
MAMASAYMAMASAMAMACOOSA |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 15:28:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by realmeanmotorscutor
well said Tar Tar and lest I be misunderstood, particularly by floop(yes, it's definitely a sickness), I did actually say that I felt bad for people with this sick desire. I guess all I was saying was that it wasn't funny even if it did accomplish something in showing us the human side of deviants. Maybe it's because I already knew these things that I simply found the movie atrocious. I don't remember it making me sympathize with too many of the characters. I suppose it's because I don't excuse the the behavior but rather the feelings as with the guy I mentioned in my previous post.
"I joined the Cult of Popeye / The CoF required my good eye"
i don't think i was misunderstanding you scootie. but that could just be a misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
realmeanmotorscutor
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1764 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 18:41:00
|
oh, I thought by saying, "yes, it's definitely a sickness" you were suggesting I didn't think it was. Just wanted to make sure y'all didn't think I was heartless.
"I joined the Cult of Popeye / The CoF required my good eye" |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2003 : 20:39:04
|
| no, not at all. i was agreeing with you. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
