dogtooth: bite on this

yorgos lanthimos' DOGTOOTH. it's messed up in all the right places.

here's the story: two parents keep three kids (now matured young adults) at home, teaching them to fear the world that exists beyond their yard's fence. when they happen to accidentally learn of outside words and ideas, their parents explain them away (for example, they are taught the word "pussy" to mean a large light, and a "zombie" is a yellow flower). one of the three children acts up throughout the film despite physical punishment. because she creates stress for the family, we as audience members have enough of a plot to follow.

lanthimos begs his audience to reflect on how parents raise children, specifically comparing these kids to the domestic pets many families own today. he tells his story through scenes with unnerving action, imposing frightening and bizarre images on the minds of anyone who chooses to see it. (the clip below provides a great idea of the film's tone; trust me, though, it's just the tip of the iceberg.)

this cannot be anyone's cup o' tea, nor can i give it a stellar recommendation, but by golly does it start a discussion.

the super objective of the social network

here's what i admire most about the FINCHER / SORKIN SOCIAL NETWORK: i could not figure out character mark zuckerberg's super objective. i saw it again. i could not figure out character mark zuckerberg's super objective. at least not with definition...

high praise to DAVID FINCHER for crafting a visually intriguing story to the important textual melody of AARON SORKIN, who writes playful words and interesting characters into power battles that drive the electric current of what i consider the best film of 2010.

but what drives EISENBERG's zuckerberg? is it the girl (erica albright aka a perfect ROONEY MARA)? is it to make her feel mistaken for dumping him in the brilliant opening scene of the film? is it the desire to prove that his geek-dom reigns superior to privileged meathead jocks? is it to prove to everyone that despite his nerdiness and humble appearance, he can gain notoriety and be an important, sought-after figure? he's got angst, that's for sure.

i believe the answer to my above italicized question holds the key to understanding this movie, and i'm interested in seeing what other people have to say.

blue valentine: thinkin' 'bout love in the 21st century

as opposed to my earlier post, DEREK CIANFRANCE's BLUE VALENTINE is a fine example of minimalist storytelling. we aren't presented with overwrought structure or unnecessary supporting characters, but simply the future, the past, the actors, and the camera. it leaves one trying to understand love and marriage through looking at the good, the bad, the kindling, and the ending.

in a day when the pre-marriage counseling is hardly taken seriously and love's feeling is more important than sacrifice and commitment, this is the tale of many love stories (though, yes, this is much more indie). here, love is not a spiritual thing.

CIANFRANCE seems to compare love's feeling to love's commitment and the selfless dedication that a marriage asks of both its members. he doesn't point out the important moments to us, though in the film's wake, we are left to study the characters and see what moments explain the disillusionment at hand. cindy (played by a terrific michelle williams) lives for feeling. dean (a well-studied ryan gosling) found his life's one true mate. her fairytale fades, his continues. what happens when a couple first loses that feeling of love? and what if one also loses the desire to keep the flame flickering?

the performances are top-notch, the filmmaking great. one complaint: too many close-up shots in the film's first hour make the audience feel unpoetically / inappropriately claustrophobic. not a good date movie, but a great one to see. oscar bait? i'm not sure, but this one sure lives up to its title.