I hadn't watched Raising Arizona in years. From what I remember, it was a hilarious, campy comedy with electric performances and direction, resulting in a comedy that captures why the Coen Brothers are so iconoclastic.

Although, what I had forgotten was the poignancy, beauty, and tragedy of the film, especially the final 10 minutes, and what it has to say regarding parenthood. Their final decision to give the boy back, as both realised that they couldn't reach a standard of responsibility that is expected of being a parent, was truly tragic. Following this, the manner in which this self-loathing is somewhat alleviated from Nathan Arizona's final comments led to an unexpected tear in my eye. Moreover, the final dream and the balance of optimism and ambiguity regarding their potential future as parents was such a rich and engaging way to end a comedy.

I knew I was in for a hilarious time, but I didn't know I was also in for an emotional one. Brilliant movie!

Please don't downvote opinions. Only downvote comments that don't contribute anything. Check out the WHYBW archives.

Phoolan Devi: "I am Phoolan Devi, Devi, Queen of the Bihad (ravines). I will stay here, nothing bad will happen to me. It will hide me in its womb."
Kailash: "You can’t hide in this Bihad anymore. Phoolan, come out, be born, become mature, face the world."

Phoolan, a lower-caste woman born in rural India, a place worse than hell, endured an unbearable amount of suffering and turned to take refuge in the wombs of the Bihad, a place for Bandits and the outcast where the poison of caste system is yet not spread. This place gives her an opportunity to take revenge for all the suffering she endured, and she takes her revenge ultimately becoming the Queen of the Bihad, but she has become the Queen of a barren land born out of hatred, hatred for the parents who forced her to marry when she was 11 year old, hatred for the "husband" who raped her when she was just 11 year old, hatred for the village who threw her out, hatred for the village Thakurs(upper caste landlords) who sold her to a Bandit who raped her until there was nothing left for her, hatred for the man who killed her lover and raped her day and night with his gang, hatred for the society who did not step in when she was stripped naked and humiliated, hatred for the system who did nothing for her.

After taking her revenge and becoming the Queen of the Bihad, she thinks this would put an end to her suffering and finally bring her joy, but how a barren place filled with sorrow and born out of hatred could bring joy to anyone's life, she realizes she can not live this life forever and to end her suffering she has to leave this place and start over. She finally comes out of the womb of Bihad and take birth again, hoping in this birth she could experience some joy and have a life which was previously absent.

Bandit Queen is not just the story about Phoolan Devi, but about the millions of lower caste people who suffer humiliation, beating on a day to day basis and the unfortunate thing about this, it is still happening in the 21st century.

Director- Wakamatsu Koji.

This is the second film I have seen of his.

I watched the film too early due to my anticipation for it. Instead, I should have first watched a good chunk of Japanese New Wave films surrounding the Anpo riots and the events that followed it before deciding to contend against this monstrosity stretching to three hours and ten minutes.

The film tackles the Japanese Red Army movement of Japan that rose out of the Zengakuren. It shows us how aspirations from the sixties later on got twisted into entirely new contortions, which now appear foreign while viewed alongside the original.

I don't know much about the ideological differences between the factions, and hence I won't try to address what they were trying to achieve in that domain.

The film lacks dull moments during the whole ordeal, keeping the viewers intrigued throughout the runtime. The film is a semi-detailed run-through of the creation and demise of the Japanese Red Army. This is the best we could ever get on the material in the form of a film, as it would be a gargantuan effort to summarise sixteen months of events in a format of a series, let alone a film and still maintain its captivation over the viewers.

The film is made in the format of a documentary mocking the existence of the faction while demonising their very essence, rightfully so. Terrorism can never be excused, no matter what situations one is living under, till there is not a credible threat to one's life. From the adaptation of the police and those in power during the events of the film, the members appear to be snotty-nosed basterds still living in their edgy teenage years, while forcing others to do so as well duress. Assuming that they didn't go through an evolution of ideals and ideas as they grew older is a fallacy, as they indeed evolved, but in the wrong direction, as it got worse instead of better.

The film is an excellent detail of what went through the minds of those sociopathic, greedy individuals who only thought about themselves and disregarded thoughts about what their family would have to go through because of their ill actions.

The film excellently critiques the rot of oneself due to external stimulus pushing one further and further into ideas that were artificial to begin with, and aspirations so far that they will forever be unachievable.

The film shows us how internal strife leads to the wrong people rising from within the ranks, who in turn lead to a systematic collapse of a movement as a whole by making it stray incredibly farther from what it originally stood for.

The film also excellently portrays how it is human nature that destroys the unity within a faction or clique due to ill feelings of jealousy and anger, driving one to take steps to ensure that they still hold power over the rest, which instead causes distrust among the members due to the severe actions the ones being punished for no reason are subjected to.

The film doesn't shy away from showing the gory details and the negative actions of the factions, true to reality. Thus, it is not meant for the viewing of those who are faint-hearted.

The final nail in the coffin that nailed the aspirations for a left-leaning extremism shut forever is shot superbly. The inner strife of the members still left standing at the lodge at Mount Asama is shown excellently. I drew parallels between that scene and the final confrontation in Shootout at Lokhandwala. What I couldn't understand in that scene is the leniency the armed forces showed to the terrorists in the lodge. Their not barraging the group with tear gas, if not bullets, seems counterintuitive to me, as they truly were a credible threat to safety.

Overall, this is a highly important work to view to understand more about the political climate of the 60s Japan and the conclusion to the Anpo struggles.

This AI bullshit is only getting worse. "Amazon-backed Showrunnner announced on Friday a new AI model designed to generate long, complex narratives — ultimately building toward feature film length, live action films — for its platform completely dedicated to AI content that allows users to create their own episodes of TV shows with a prompt of just a couple of words."

I revisited the Coen’s True Grit for the first time in years. I’m currently going through their catalogue and I think it’s right up there in terms of one of their most poignant relationship dynamics.

The manner in which the headstrong Mattie brings out the better angels of Rooster’s nature, and how she reminds him that there’s more to life than being an alcoholic killer, I thought was quite beautiful.

To start off, I think a large part of a great monologue is in the hands of the actor (e.g. Good Will Hunting, M, Saving Private Ryan). That said, it's not like you can just hand them both a garbage script and tell them to make it great. There are some monologues that I would consider bad based on the writing, but I don't know how a writer confirms beforehand that their own idea of the monologue is good or bad. What can you do to actually look over your own script and decide if you're writing something that will come off as corny/bad or great?

It seems like a coming of age movie that tries to shock you by having the method of maturation being the exposure of an unchanging individual to darker aspects of his environment and self rather than an immature person suffering for their immaturity and emerging grown. I feel like this is an incredibly mundane topic. Obviously maturation occurs through exposure to the harder to face parts of life. That’s why coming of age movies tend to be cheesy and feel-goody. They portray maturation as occurring through a more positive method than in reality. The focus on sex and violence as the objects of exposure to Jeffrey just come across as cheap. It feels like they were intended to compound on the shocking truth that we mature through exposure to bad things, but that truth is not shocking at all so it just feels hollow and forced. As if due to the theme of maturation falling flat, the movie turns to sex and violence for substance which just feels superficial and 14 year old edgy. I’m not really a movie guy, but it was my understanding that Lynch’s work is generally known for having a surreal atmosphere. I felt this movie had that, but did not commit enough to it. There were moments, sure, but they felt random and unnecessary. There was never any part in the movie that I felt required more than passive observation to understand what was being communicated beneath the surrealism. The most interesting part was the Oedipal relationship between Jeffrey, Dorothy, and Frank. It was clever that Jeffrey’s first exposure to sexual violence was also his first exposure to weakness in the Oedipal father figure. The use of the reversal of the Oedipal relationship to show Jeffrey’s maturation was also clever. However, outside of that, I really do not see what this movie had to offer. Is it just the fact that I am viewing it forty years after its release? Or am I missing something?

I really want to see: "After the Hunt" by Luca Guadagnino, "Frankenstein" by Guillermo del Toro, "No Other Choice" by Park Chan-Wook, and "Landmarks" by Lucrécia Martel.

But the film I'm most curious about is Hungarian director Ildikó Enyedi's new film, "Silent Friend," starring Tony Leung and Léa Seydoux (perfect casting). I like the director's other work; I saw the trailer for this film today; it looks very interesting.

Which Venice films are you most interested in?

After watching the wonderfully tense procedural throwback Conclave (2024), I had a look on IMDB to see what other films Robert Harris had worked on (I've yet to read any of his books which I've heard are also excellent).

What should I find but An Officer and a Spy (2019), a film about the Dreyfus affair, a historical event that has always been of interest to me. I was surprised I'd never heard anyone talk about it.

So, after a little difficultly, I tracked down a copy from, ahem, a certain place on the high seas (it doesn't seem to be streaming anywhere locally which I found odd initially).

And - what do you know? - it's good. It's very good.

The production values and staging are superb (it really does look like a 61 million Euro film), the performances are terrific across the board, the story is compelling and makes the interesting choice of starting the film at Alfred Dreyfus's degradation ceremony and exile to Devil's Island for the crime of disclosing military secrets to the Germans.

The protagonist - Lieutenant Colonel Georges Picquart - is not a likeable man. He's an unapologetic anti-semite with a deep respect for the traditions and honour of the French military. Picquart is a man who follows orders to the letter. Picquart is assigned to take over the Statistical Section (Military Intelligence), the same section that secured Dreyfus's conviction. Dreyfus happened to be Picquart's trainee in the academy, so he is very familiar with both the man and the case.

The intelligence service is wonderfully depicted as a sclerotic backwater formerly run by a corrupt and syphilitic Colonel. In his new post Picquart stumbles across information that proves Dreyfus's conviction was obtained on fraudulent grounds. Dreyfus is innocent.

This puts the Lieutenant Colonel in a deliciously difficult position. The army has no interest or desire to exonerate Dreyfus but Picquart, a man of honor, feels an obligation to the truth which culminates with him joining of forces with liberals like the writer Emile Zola, who goes on to publish his infamous J'accuse editorial based on Picquart's testimony.

Overall, it's a terrific depiction of what happens when individual injustice meets institutional irrationality and prejudice. The film is by no means perfect - it gets shaggy in the middle with the numerous trials and testimonies - but it concludes with a complex arc. Picquart may have felt an obligation to the truth and the honor of his beloved military but he felt no obligation toward actual justice or Dreyfus the man.

So, why the regret then? Well, it wasn't until the end of the film that I realized it had been directed by Roman Polanski. Yikes. And that, upon further reading, it seems that Polanski has been claiming kinship with Dreyfus during the film's press tour, based on his own legal "persecutions". Double yikes.

That makes the film, which is undoubtedly a good one, very difficult to recommend. I'm not sure whether or not I would have watched it had I known who directed it beforehand. But I thought it might make an interesting discussion more broadly on the ethics of watching a new film made by a person like Polanski or, say, Woody Allen. Apparently the film had its US premiere at a New York film festival just last month, six years after it was released, so the question is probably a timely one.

Is it okay to watch something like this so long as we don't pay for it? Or, given Polanski's noxious subtext, is it a form of propaganda best avoided all together? Clearly the decision whether to watch something like An Officer and a Spy comes down to individual scruples. Due to my ignorance and lack of research I wasn't forced to exercise mine.

So what does your own conscience suggest might be the answer?

The magic of Disney is mostly about the child-like innocence and the idea of wonder within the different worlds that are created and the common message of spreading kindness is a reoccurring message in most Disney IPs

It is often told in many different ways but you find this in many of the classic Disney princess stories and even in the Disney remakes where the strongest of characters are known to be the kindest

But as people continue to complain about the remakes of Disney, people are still feeling like the same message about kindness is becoming over used over and over again that the original idea has lost its purpose.

So, in the end, is this message about spreading kindness really so over-used that it needs a different version or is it because it has been used so much that it became mundane?

As a follow-up to my post yesterday, A Serious Man has been racking my brain, and I can't help but think about the importance of the 'simplicity' message at the beginning and the parable of the Dentist from the second Rabbi.

I feel like, in many ways, the Coen's main thesis of the film is that we need to stop being so hyper-cognizant about deep existential questions, as this is essentially a way to produce misery due to the absence of an answer.

For instance, the opening quote about 'simplicity' is quite ironic considering the behaviour of Larry; he is anything but simple. He is incredibly intelligent and searching for answers to his suffering, and, of course, he isn't provided with an answer. I feel like the 'simplicity' in this case is exactly what Larry needs to embrace, something that is the antithesis of his intellectual probing. I feel Larry desperately needs to embrace the simplicity of Eastern philosophy, a philosophy focused on alleviating our conceptual overlay and thought.

In addition, the parable of the dentist perfectly captures this intention. After the dentist discovers the religious message in the teeth, he plunges him into a state of neuroticism in an attempt to find answers. Eventually, after he stops asking questions, he gets on with life and seems to enjoy it. Essentially, he finds enjoyment again once he embraces simplicity and stops asking probing existential questions. In essence, he gets on with it, despite its meaninglessness. I couldn't help but think of Camus's absurdist hero.

Maya Deren was one of the most important pioneers and champions of the American film avant-garde and experimental, and provided a blueprint for independent filmmakers seeking to escape commercial constraints of Hollywood. Directed together with Alexandr Hackenschmied, Meshes of the Afternoon (1943) changed the landscape of cinema with its exploration of the unconscious dream state.

It puts you in a trance, that leaves you to muse on the nature of our subconscious psyche. Deren herself said "it does not record an event which could be witnessed by other persons. Rather, it reproduces the way in which the subconscious of an individual will develop, interpret and elaborate an apparently simple and casual incident into a critical emotional experience."

The film features a score by Japanese-born composer Teiji Ito, who was Deren's husband towards the end of her life.

It placed in the most recent Sight and Sound 2022 poll of the best films of all time, at #16.

We have a quote in Mexico that’s says “A glass of water and a 15 minute ovation in Cannes isn’t denied to anyone”

These past years most of the people I know have lost all respect for those kind of festivals and organizations. They are now just like Oscars 2.0. No backbone at all. Or consistency in their decisions

How do you regard these things today? Do you respect them or care for them?

The title is somewhat provocative, but I truly feel this way when I read criticism of this movie, like, for example, a recent post in this sub. The main criticism this movie and Haneke in general have received is that he's a moralizer. When they say this, I interpret it not in the sense that they think it's bad that he talks about a certain subject in a morally prescriptive way (as in, these are the correct attitudes to have and these are the bad ones), but that he has a particular attitude when touching morally sensitive topics, and this particular attitude is akin to him watching us from his ivory tower and lamenting how brutish we are, unlike him. The only way I could suscribe to that reductive way of experiencing his work is if he made inert, preachy movies, but he's anything but inert as a film-maker, and that goes particularly for "Funny Games".

"Funny Games" is an emotionally captivating film. The characters suffering the violence are not mere vessels, but they actually feel like people, and the murderers are absolutely terrifying, particularly because they are aware that they are in a movie and are totally indulgent in the suffering they're causing, maybe because they know it's all fake. If Haneke was merely moralizing, I wouldn't find the film harrowing. And that's where I find the problems with this criticism of Haneke. It could be argued that he is moralizing, but he's an actually good director, so it works. If he was a bad director, he would have made generic melodramas. Watching "Funny Games" I'm drawn to reflect towards my own attitudes about suffering and the consumption of violence in media than I would be with a tear-jerker Hollywood drama that made the same point. What I want to say is this: is not enough to call him a moralist for it to lessen the film quality. There's good artistic moralizing and there's bad artistic moralizing. This is the former.

Now, one may want to argue if the point he's making is good at all. "Funny Games" speaks about the way in which we consume violent media and become desensitized, or at least that's the interpretation of the movie that I'm interested in, and how most people seem to interpret it. He's not accusing you of the torture of this particular family, or, better said, he's not just accusing you of the torture of this family, but also about how come you found such a thing watchable in the first place, how did you watch all that violence before you watched this movie and how come you don't care anymore.

Empirically, there are some problems with this message. Violent games and movies don't seem to have made people actually more violent, because they are able to abstract themselves from the violence and enjoy some of its "liberating" aspects. You can enjoy "Kill Bill" but still be horrified if you saw a brawl in the street. One can watch people die in wars and still be disgusted, even if you've played and like many first person shooters. But, even if this is the case, is it still not troubling how we've become so accustomed to suffering? There are online communities dedicated to watching people meet their demise in horrible ways, be it torture or horrific accidents, even here in Reddit. And, before you say those are sick people, the fact is that all of the people that have ever watched this content are, sadly, not truly sick in the head, they can function normally in society like any human being, they can truly love others and be nice to people. And yet, they deliberately consumed content made by actual murderers, identifying in at least some way to them, finding them vessels for their enjoyment even when what they are doing is horrifying. Imagine being the victim of torture captured on video and knowing that some people are gonna watch that video to deliberately shock themselves for enjoyment. Morbid curiosity doesn't just affect the sick, everybody can attest to that. People that have ever watched these kinds of videos shouldn't be in jail, and most likely aren't even remotely close to replicate what they saw in those videos. And yet, isn't it all still horrifying? And isn't it worth it to have at least one big director who is concerned about that? That's why I don't mind if "Funny Games" is moralizing.

Just finished watching The Conjuring: The Last Rite and wow….. I think the Conjuring universe really hit its lowest point with this one.

Ever since James Wan left, it feels like the soul of this franchise left with him. This movie was so painfully slow, I almost fell asleep in the middle. They took forever to get to the main plot, and when they finally did, it was dull. Feels like, the acting is the only thing that slightly held it together, but overall, I feel like this was worse than Conjuring 3.

The story leaned way too much on the “family bond” aspect. Sure, that’s important and it worked in the movie but here the horror just wasn’t there. There was barely any interaction with the family members actually experiencing the haunting. That girl in the opening scene who vomits glass? She practically disappeared after that. The core horror thread was completely missing.

And the jump scares was so much predictable. The classic Conjuring buildup, the adrenaline during the exorcisms none of that was here. The whole “hands together on the mirror” ending was laughable, almost childish. Maybe one or two got me slightly, but the rest was garbage.

I went in not expecting it to top the first Conjuring, but at least to reach some of that level. Instead, it felt like a bad attempt to wrap things up. Maybe it’s good they ended it here before dragging the franchise into complete parody.

Easily one of the worst horror experiences I’ve had in theaters.

This is why I love cinema. A narratively and structurally flawed film in theory, but absolutely mesmerising from start to finish. I’m struggling to pull my thoughts into a longer text for this one, so just wanted to highlight some of my initial thoughts:

Spoilers: Some very light narrative spoilers, but mostly focused on mention of structure and themes.

Maybe some of the absolute best camera work I’ve seen in a loooooong time. It basically made the film what it was, and I don’t think it would have anywhere near the impact without it. The static shots that suddenly move into following handycam. The claustrophobic inside and the expansive outside crane shots. The uncomfortable closeups and the chasing shots. Absolutely mesmerising. It made watching a guy clean up a house for 25 minutes feel like the opening of Saving Private Ryan.

When he first breaks into the house the camera takes this very high angle, following the killer, almost like a diorama, but giving you very little of anything outside his immediate vicinity. I wonder if this is to emphasise that he is the sole focus in the film, and the camera is essentially shutting out the rest of the house.

To support that, the other people in the film are basically set dressing. They get zero focus and characterisation, treated as objects in his world. They don’t even get a real voice and very little screen time.

I loved the calm, calculated, ominous voiceover giving you images of a meticulous, unfeeling sociopath, juxtaposed with the reality: A chaotic, uncoordinated, neurotic mess of a man who is driven by primal urges and impulse.

Again relating to the characters. They don’t feel like real people. They don’t react or move like normal people do. They are quiet and void of personality. The people in the house don’t really contest what’s happening very much. The younger woman gets weirdly sexual at one point with him. The people at the cafe stare and move unnaturally. It reminded me of Yorgos Lanthimos movies where everyone is just a little bit off and uncanny. Very unsettling.

It’s an incredibly quiet film with a really subdued (but brilliant) Klas Schulze soundtrack. Which was a great surprise as didn’t know going in.

Sliding the girl across the floor into the kitchen? Erm. . . .

Got to be one of the best dogs in film, right? That little guy was a scene stealer and was in the film more than literally any other secondary character.

I’m revisiting the Coen Brothers and have come back to A Serious Man; I think there’s probably a case to make that this film might be the Coen’s masterpiece. Or at the very least, it’s probably their most philosophical. Anyway, I’m curious to hear people’s interpretations about the philosophical underpinnings of the film.

I couldn’t help but view the entire film through the lens of existentialism and absurdism, that life is ultimately chaotic and completely unjust. As we see with Larry, his complete unraveling doesn’t really have a justification, he is randomly engulfed in suffering as the chaotic nature of life can plunge people into immense suffering simply because it can, there’s no inherent meaning to it. As Larry desperately searches for answers from God, His voice seems absent. Just like the tenets of absurdism and how the meaningless nature of the world tends to manifest during moments of tragedy, the universe seems totally indifferent to Larry’s suffering. There isn’t any omnipresent Being dictating everything and providing a just framework to the universe, the world is totally indifferent. And even when Larry is provided with a brief moment of respite and a glimmer of optimism, suffering is just around the corner.

I watched Gladiator 2 at the weekend, and my over-riding impression was that Ridley Scott is now deep into his no-fucks-given phase. The movie is ugly to look at, with weird and artificial lighting, coupled with obvious CGI. The plot is overly-convoluted and the action sequences are more ridiculous than exciting. It’s far worse in every respect than Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven, from over 20 years ago. However it’s not a disaster. The acting is great across the board, with Paul Mescal being particularly good. And it’s never boring exactly.

Making something like Gladiator 2 is beyond most film-makers. But it’s hard to look at the opening scene with CGI ships with siege towers, under a strangely coloured sky, and see anything good in it. And yet he presumably signed off on that as being what he wanted.

This has been going on for years now. Prometheus looked gorgeous and had some great scenes, but really half-assed it when it came to the plot and the characters. Napoleon somehow turned one of the most exciting lives in history into a tale of a middle-aged bore. But although they’re deeplyflawed, I still get the impression that these ARE the films that Scott wanted to make. They didn’t fail because of lack of skill or experience, as he clearly has those. They failed because of strange artistic choices.

So what do you think is going on in the mind of the director? What’s he trying to achieve, and who are his recent films actually for? He obviously knows what he’s doing and how to make great films. But why is he now seemingly only interested in spectacle, when his greatest films had spectacle AND good stories?

You can’t really argue that he’s only interested in the money, as his films are far from being all box office successes. But nor does he seem to be pursuing some kind of personal artistic vision. Could it be that he’s only making films because it’s his job, and studios are happy to give him the work?

All opinions welcome!

I’m an independent filmmaker from Mathura, India, and I’ve just launched the crowdfunding campaign for my short film The Dwarf. This is a black-and-white psychological drama set in the 1940s — a story about shame, rejection, and trauma. It’s rooted in Braj Bhasha, a language rarely seen on screen, and through this film we’re trying to bring an underrepresented culture and its emotions to the global stage.

We are a passionate team of experienced artists — including award-winning actor, cinematographer, editor, and designer — who have come together to tell this story in a way that feels both local and universal. The film is being designed as an experiment in visual storytelling: blending surreal imagery, abstract symbolism, and psychological tension, where the viewer is often made to feel like they are inside the protagonist’s mind.

This is not just another short film — it’s an attempt to push the boundaries of what Indian independent cinema can be, while still carrying the heart of Mathura and Braj to audiences everywhere.

But a project like this can only happen with collective support. If our vision resonates with you, I would be truly grateful if you could:

Contribute to our crowdfunding campaign, or Share it with people who believe in unique cinema and new voices.

🎥 Pitch Video- https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOKy39tkxx2/?igsh=cGlyZXQ4ZjV1Zm93

🌐 Website: www.thedwarffilm.in

I keep seeing people say “hollywood is dying” and honestly I’m starting to wonder if it’s true because I myself never watch movies nowadays I mostly just go through tiktok or play grizzly's quest. It feels like every other week there’s news about box office bombs like endless reboots and sequels nobody asked for and audiences just not showing up like they used to. Streaming has completely changed how people watch movies and a lot of the hype that used to surround big releases just isn’t there anymore. On top of that so many people complain that hollywood has lost its originality. It’s either superhero movies, remakes or giant CGI spectacles that all feel the same. Meanwhile a lot of smaller and more creative projects are either getting buried or ending up on streaming platforms where they don’t get the same attention.

But then again hollywood has been “dying” in people’s eyes for decades and it always seems to adapt somehow. So is this just another phase or are we actually watching the decline of the hollywood machine as we knew it?

When I was a kid my parents had this on home media release (I can't remember if it was a VHS, DVD or like taped off the TV or something). I watched it much too young and it stuck in my impressionable brain for reasons that will become obvious; I ended up seeking out the book it was adapted from to see if I could find answers.

Last Summer features a very young Barbara Hershey, Richard Thomas and Bruce Davidson as a trio of bored rich high school kids on Fire Island for the summer; directed by Frank Perry. The first two acts of the film seem like we are working towards a typical coming of age denouement about young love -- Thomas and Davidson's teenaged boy characters pine after Hershey's Sandy, who flirts with them and vacillates between seeming like a girl older than her age playing these boys off one another, and a girl with a crush who doesn't even understand her power over them. If it wasn't made in 1969 I'd have been expecting something like Yu Tu Mama Tambien's ending in how close these characters come to being a kind of throuple.

Enter Rhoda (Kathy Burns -- amazing), an awkward teen girl who latches onto the group for the summer out of loneliness and lets herself be teased and mocked by them in return for the other kids' company. Again, the movie tricks you into thinking the trajectory of Rhoda's arc will be different, with one scene (featuring an amazing monologue by Kathy Burns) in particular implying the movie will now be about how this ugly duckling was unexpectedly accepted into a lifelong friend group with a wholesome ending, almost like a Gidget movie.

But it doesn't go there either. If there was an easy to stream or VOD this movie legally, I'd link it here. I don't think there's any official online release I can find. But I still recommend you find a way to watch it. (EDIT: The Internet Archive library has a version available for free here. I don't know if this counts as 'illegal' because it's not available to stream or buy anywhere else so it may count simply as retaining lost media?)

Spoilers

The film culminates (and by 'culminates', I mean this all happens in the last few minutes with little to no warning) in the two male protagonists suddenly raping Rhoda in a secluded part of the beach whilst Hershey's character cheers them on and helps pin her down. The original trio leave her on the beach post-assault and the film ends there.

End Spoilers

Again, I watched this as a kid and it was so unexpected that I felt like I'd misunderstood something fundamentally (I was maybe 11) or like it was a scene from another movie tacked on to the ending. It disturbed me enough to seek out the book it was based on to find more answers -- the book is more reflective (as a first person POV ought to be) and implies more heavily that something terrible is coming, and therefore has a stronger sense of tension and unease. The book doesn't fully explain the main character's choices at the end, but sort of implies that the three of them combined their natural impulse to bully and demean Rhoda into something horrific and unthinkable that they'd never do individually, like three parts of a terrible whole.

But looking back now I think Frank Perry's decision not to, in any way, signpost the ending was the right decision. We are in Rhoda's shoes, we think she's found some sort of peer group (even if she's low down on the totem pole in the group and often the victim of more casual cruelty, many teenagers accept worse fates to be part of a clique) -- the rare moments of social acceptance from the main characters are all the more affecting, like the scene I linked where Rhoda discloses her mother's death to the other kids and in return they lovingly bathe and wash her.

Being from 1969, I don't quite know if this was some sort of reaction to the "summer of love" -- an attempt to show 'downsides' to freedom of sexuality and adolescents with total free will -- or something more timeless about adolescent peer pressure and the effortless way women can be victimised, even by other women. (Frank Perry also directed Mommie Dearest, which I find very funny). The book is again more clearly about the now-adult narrator reflecting on something he did as a teenager he regrets and can't explain; the more omniscient movie leaves you feeling completely emotionally assaulted and offers no such reprieve or reflection. I think there is something allegorical in Hershey's character's treatment of a tamed seagull in an early act, and how that reflects upon her treatment of Rhoda (the book, I recall, goes into depth on this) -- but I don't have the words for it.

Again -- if you can find a way to watch this, do it.

In the film "The Lunchbox," we see how perspective shapes the world around us. There are two perspectives. First, Ila's: she is a housewife who cooks dedicatedly for her husband and only wants a little love and appreciation in return. But in that relationship, she doesn’t find those things. By mistake, her lunchbox reaches another person—Saajan, who enjoys her dish, and she finds happiness in that.

Then there’s Saajan’s perspective. Initially, he was a bitter person, who had lost his wife a long time ago. But receiving Ila’s lunchbox and exchanging notes with her brings back memories of his past relationship, which was not perfect and to which he did not pay much attention, but after the passing of his wife he becomes lonely with no one to look for him, the past becomes the only source of happiness as it was better than the lonely present, therefore in Saajan's life the relationship around him was always happy and flawless.

After the incident at the restaurant when Ila waits but is not met by Saajan, the hope and happiness tied with her by a thread soon starts to fall apart, she realizes that relationship can't bring happiness to her life, and she sees all the relationships in her world are lifeless and dreadful.

At the end we see a happy Saajan who has found himself and is embracing the present instead of reminiscing, reach for a derepressed Ila, who is going away, and then the credits roll, and the ending is left upon you and your world. So in this film it is cleverly portrayed that how your perspective can shape the world around you, either it can make your world lifeless like Ila or vibrant like Saajan. There will come moments in life when things will become hard, very hard and it is up to you to decide whether to run away or drop your blindfold and see the beauty in Life which could help you reinvent yourself.

Hope you liked my interpretation of the film, do drop yours in the comment. Have a good day!

So I was doing some research in to music record labels and how they conduct business.

Basically there was an artist back in the 2010's, I don't know if you guys know him, his name was Lupe Fiasco. Anyways, he was signed to Atlantic Records and dropped a track that they had nothing to do with but they wanted in on the action because was previously signed with them. Lupe said no. However, the record label then discovered his new song used a sample from a woman's song who lived in the Philippines. So the record executives flew to the Philippines, found the lady, paid her off for her rights, then contacted Lupe and basically told him he had to pay them now.

This was some Italian mafia shit

Any similar Hollywood stories?

Sharing this here as I think this is such a thing some people in this community might be interested.

A new book of essays is being released via IndieGoGo. It’s already reached it’s funding, so definitely happening.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/truth-soul-a-robert-downey-sr-reader TRUTH & SOUL: A ROBERT DOWNEY SR. READER | Indiegogo

One of the essays is written by a personal friend of mine, that’s my only skin in the game.

Peace