I just finished watching this movie for the first time and I only have one question (well, several really, but just one
-
simpsonment — 9 years ago(May 14, 2016 03:50 PM)
Omg, most hilariously irrelevant out-of-the-blue cringeworthy BB reference/comparison ever made! EVER!
that makes no logical sense [] Thats bad writing, my friend.
I stopped there. Not even funny anymore
I Sympathize with Lars Von Trier. -
curious_chaos — 9 years ago(June 05, 2016 11:40 AM)
All of Zulawski's films are (in my opinion) meant to be viewed multiple times. I understand what you mean by wanting clear, cut/dry answers to what you watch. Many people have difficulty when answers are not laid neatly before them. But there are some movies that are so absurd and cryptic, that they deserve (I would say DEMAND lol) second and third viewings. I, like you, was baffled after seeing it. I knew absolutely nothing of its content, and to say I was troubled by it, is an understatement. But it was so unique, I could not stop thinking about it, and I found myself wanting to watch it again; after I saw it a few more times I was able to really see it as the masterpiece it is.
Possession has all the answers you the questions you listed (except for Adjani's babbling about Sister Faith and Chance, you've got me there) but to think a person could pick up and discern what means what, with only one viewing of it, is hilariously and improbably impossible. It's a very complex movie, and whether you find it good or bad, it really should be seen a few times to be given a chance to pick out the subtleties that help put the pieces together.
Give it another try! Do some research about the story, and the making of, and what others have written about their experience of watching it. Then watch it again and it should make some more sense. Whether you'll like it or not, I'm not sure Possession is not for everyone, and that's just the way things are. But it should make more sense. I promise, the answers are all there, but you have to dig a bit under its surface to find them. Pay attention to body language and positioning, and what it could mean. Watch the changing colors. Imagery is very symbolic. Things are not as they seem. That's Zulawski for you!
Watch it with the director commentary, it's quite interesting and enlightening. -
jossseph — 10 years ago(April 29, 2015 05:02 AM)
It would be boring if every movie made would provide an explanation. Watch Mulholland Drive, Donnie Darko or even Triangle (2009). It's food for thought. Not everything must be spoon fed. Enjoy the mystery, engage in discussion about the films - you might learn and understand them better or come up with your own theory. That's why these movies are great. Think about it.
-
Marjeez — 10 years ago(May 04, 2015 05:49 PM)
Some films don't spoonfeed you. If you like being spoonfed, make a thread on each film before you watch it. "Does this movie spoonfeed the audience?". If yes, watch it. If no, skip it. Problem solved, buddy.
~RANKING 2014 FILMS~
www.imdb.com/list/p5gSdyBFHgI
Last seen: Kingsman (8/10) -
resmat-1 — 10 years ago(May 07, 2015 05:38 AM)
There was a TV series that ended last year called Breaking Bad. When you watch Breaking Bad from beginning to end, you know EVERYTHING. You are left with no questions at all. Every single thing you see on the screen has an explained, logical, easy-to-understand, believable reason, and if you do, by chance, have questions at the end, its because you missed something. All of the answers are in the show. I feel that all tv shows (and movies) should be written this way, because when everything is explained, it makes the story easier to follow, thus, you get more enjoyment out of it.
I hope you're just being hyperbolic because this idea of what is good seems far too limiting to me. Think of the countless classic films that you'd dismiss by adopting this mind-set. Things like ambiguity and impressionistic imagery are powerful elements of cinema. -
Tin_ear — 10 years ago(December 20, 2015 01:17 AM)
It's one of those movies that's worth watching if you don't think too much about it. Think of it as high-brow schlock. Those that don't care too much about plot probably love it and will try and defend it as really profound and poetic; I only came to appreciate it by not taking it seriously. I like the visuals, the Berlin setting, Isabelle Adjani's tits, the weird paranoid energy, the cinematography, the subway freak-out, and the beep crazy tentacle monster. It's a sputtering, pretentious mess, but the parts when isolated are at least amusing to gawk at.
-
WilliePep — 9 years ago(September 29, 2016 01:12 PM)
Tin_ear speaks the truth.
I personally liked it (didn't love it, but liked it) - it was off the wall and really leaves you to draw your own conclusions. Is it about Communism, religion, aliens, the monster inside us all, schizophrenia, etc.? Who knows? You could pick any number of meanings to the film and not be incorrect, unless told directly what was canon by the director / writer. Don't let a self-proclaimed film genius tell you how to interpret a mostly subjective plot because it's not straightforward and as far as I know doesn't intend to be. At the end of the day, like Tin_ear wrote, the movie is best left to not be taken too seriously. Enjoy the cinematography and the sheer bizarreness of it. And Isabelle Adjani's tits. -
-
Tarantinosmind — 9 years ago(October 06, 2016 03:36 PM)
You answered your own question (title) right in the second paragraph: "it makes no sense at all, as far as i can tell". If you didn't understand or didn't EVEN try, don't try to tell the world that you have a point.
Also, a movie's quality isn't only based on the plot, you have books for that.
Cheers.