tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post4793689853918262339..comments2024-03-12T12:38:23.542-04:00Comments on The Kind of Face You Hate: It Doesn't Thinkbill r.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-48882291359304470952015-04-22T00:30:34.731-04:002015-04-22T00:30:34.731-04:00Woe to the sad men who think that "experiment...<i>Woe to the sad men who think that "experimental" and "daring" is THE RING with boners.</i><br /><br />That sounds pretty experimental to me. But then I generally take "experimental" in reference to art to mean a bad joke being played on the suckers in the audience.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05364322006357208797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-3121273335759664362015-04-21T23:30:14.237-04:002015-04-21T23:30:14.237-04:00This presumes that any of what we learn from Hugh ...<i>This presumes that any of what we learn from Hugh in that scene was a good idea to begin with, of which I'm not at all convinced, but let's say that it is. My argument isn't that it never make it into the film but that a better way of getting it into the film is used. Literally the first thing we learn about the supernatural menace in the film, and that includes the fact that it exists at all, Hugh is explaining what it's going to do and how it should be dealt with. That's a bad way to go about building atmosphere and mystery.</i><br /><br />Sure, I don't disagree entirely with this. Maybe it's not the best way to get it into A film with this premise, but I'm not sure there are many better ways to get it into THIS film. If we're talking about changing the film and Hugh's character to a fairly drastic degree, then sure. All I'm saying is that Hugh might not give the best advice, but he does have to give some sort of similar advice just so that the whole courting process wasn't a complete waste and the girl doesn't die the second she gets home.<br /><br />Since we're on the topic of things that could've been changed, it really irks me that Hugh decided to take her to a movie theater because, holy shit, if you had this thing following you would you EVER actually be able to go to a movie theater? That seems like the absolute WORST place to go. The thing could just walk right up behind you during the movie and get it over with. And it appears as if, until the thing shows up during their game, he actually intended to just enjoy the movie. Sure...Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-62940812149985075822015-04-21T18:34:06.533-04:002015-04-21T18:34:06.533-04:00Anonymous - Experimental!? Goodness gracious! Woe ...Anonymous - Experimental!? Goodness gracious! Woe to the sad men who think that "experimental" and "daring" is THE RING with boners.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-64854254227214210792015-04-21T18:33:02.860-04:002015-04-21T18:33:02.860-04:00Steve - I mean, you could do it this way, but one ...Steve - <em>I mean, you could do it this way, but one would have to assume that Hugh DID have the parking lot exposition dump we see in the film with Jay, or something like it, and that would have to be explained at some point.</em><br /><br />This presumes that any of what we learn from Hugh in that scene was a good idea to begin with, of which I'm not at all convinced, but let's say that it is. My argument isn't that it never make it into the film but that a better way of getting it into the film is used. Literally the first thing we learn about the supernatural menace in the film, and that includes the fact that it exists at all, Hugh is explaining what it's going to do and how it should be dealt with. That's a bad way to go about building atmosphere and mystery.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-2375284983363634612015-04-21T18:29:58.823-04:002015-04-21T18:29:58.823-04:00John - If we don't get the sex scene, then wha...John - If we don't get the sex scene, then what happened between Jay and Hugh becomes even more mysterious.<br /><br />bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-69682766804794496802015-04-21T15:15:46.788-04:002015-04-21T15:15:46.788-04:00You're totally right, movies should never be f...You're totally right, movies should never be fun or inventive or experimental or attempt new conventions or suggest more than the weary boundaries of genres invented out of economic desperation forty years prior. Woe to the sad men that dump on daring cinema.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-20779363859023973162015-04-21T11:57:27.352-04:002015-04-21T11:57:27.352-04:00But anyway, so listen: what about if David Robert ...<i>But anyway, so listen: what about if David Robert Mitchell had cut all of Hugh's explanation, had cut even the sex scene, such as it currently exists, and simply left in some indication that either Jay or Hugh was going put the moves on the other, and then we cut to the car pulling up, the strange helping of Jay from the car, Hugh's now enigmatic "Don't let it touch you" (which in the film is not enigmatic at all), the car pulling away, and Jay's crumpled body.</i><br /><br />This wouldn't make a lick of sense, given the nature of the creature and Hugh's predicament. I mean, you could do it this way, but one would have to assume that Hugh DID have the parking lot exposition dump we see in the film with Jay, or something like it, and that would have to be explained at some point. It's important because Hugh must prepare Jay for the creature to cover his own ass, so the dialogue simply must happen. In your version, our identification is shifted from Jay to Jay's friends, because Jay would clearly know what Hugh told her, but now we wouldn't. She would likely pretty quickly have to tell her friends (and us) about the nature of the creature. Or she could keep it a secret, but first, why?, and second, suddenly the character of Jay is mysterious because she seems to be withholding some information from her friends. Why would this be better than showing it like it currently is and keeping Jay our subjective partner?<br /><br />Of course, one could argue that the idea of it coming back to the person who passed it along after the current stalkee dies is a bit convoluted to begin with.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-20317786770625159312015-04-20T18:14:25.621-04:002015-04-20T18:14:25.621-04:00My argument is that yes, that first thing is more ...<i>My argument is that yes, that first thing is more effective.</i><br /><br />It could be. Though I think going with the full sex scene and cutting from shortly after that to the car pulling up in front of the house would work better.<br /><br />On the other hand, it's also possible that an <i>attempt</i> at explanation could have worked just as well, one that didn't banish the mystery or render it trite but instead hinted ominously at what was to come. But spelling out in boringly literal terms every idea you have regarding the nature of your invoked menace, as might be the case here, is exactly the wrong way to go about this.<br /><br /><i>And I don't agree with those detractors who accuse It Follows of Puritanism because sex can lead to all sorts of negative consequences, some of them terrifyingly negative;</i><br /><br />I don't fully agree, but the accusations of puritanism seem to miss the point, or more accurately, try to infer a point where none exists. And I say that as one with pretty much zero tolerance for any form of puritanism.<br /><br /><i> In any case, remember that Hugh said this thing would take the form of anything that would help it get close to Jay...</i><br /><br />Isn't it possible, though, that this example serves to punch holes in Hugh's explanation, and suggest either he doesn't know as much as he let on, or that he was deliberately deceiving Jay for some reason?<br /><br />Or am I giving this movie too much credit?<br /><br /><i>...that premise, the sex monster business, is the one thing that Mitchell seems to have expended any effort on at all, but if he'd put enough thought into it, or the right kind of effort, he'd have ended up telling us far less about it.</i><br /><br />Yeah, that sounds about right.<br /><br />No, I haven't seen It Follows yet, and I still hope to, eventally, but this kind of honest expression of disappointment is something of a breath of fresh air after the hyperbolic effusions of enthusiasm for it I've come across elsewhere.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05364322006357208797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-45406971035311079832015-04-18T19:56:39.225-04:002015-04-18T19:56:39.225-04:00Also, why doesn't the demon appear as somethin...Also, why doesn't the demon appear as something appealing, like a kitten, or Kate Upton? I'm not really scared of a demon that doesn't take his job seriously! C'mon demon!Paddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01775153135216105004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-70875109530617738852015-04-18T19:50:59.981-04:002015-04-18T19:50:59.981-04:00They never really say. I don't think fluids ha...They never really say. I don't think fluids have anything to do with it, but "illicit" doesn't seem to matter either. At least they don't say. Conceivably, a happily married couple could just toss this thing back and forth for years.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-41908606129896425382015-04-18T19:38:37.336-04:002015-04-18T19:38:37.336-04:00So, is this malady transmitted by bodily fluids, o...So, is this malady transmitted by bodily fluids, or is it just illicit sexual activity? If the latter, you could just SKYPE want with someone and the demon would have to blog it to Kuala Lumpur!Paddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01775153135216105004noreply@blogger.com