Could someone clarify a bit?
-
sara-34 — 19 years ago(September 10, 2006 02:17 PM)
I agree. I would add though, to your list of things the film lack: NO point. Everything that happened seemed to be random and unconnected. None of the characters were realistic (with the possible exception of Mortenson's), nor even comprehensible. I came to this board hoping someone could tell me what the point of this dribble was, but everyone seems to just describe it as "beautifully horrible." I once heard of hemerhoid fetsh porn; perhaps if the fans of this film saw that they'd deem it a masterpiece, too.
-
djsmokingjam — 19 years ago(September 11, 2006 01:34 AM)
I'm sorry you feel that way Sara. The film has always polarised people, you either love it or hate it. Yes, everything in The Reflecting Skin seems random and unconnected, and the characters are all larger than life and grotesque, but I assure you there is a point, even if it seems very vague at first glance.
Ridley is trying to show us a film from a child's point of view (hence why everything is built up larger than life, from the music to the performances to the scenery) where Seth is bombarded with so much disturbing information and no-one to guide him through it (as they are all too busy trying to escape their own inner hell).
The film is a metaphor for, among many other things, what Freud called "the violence of childhood" - or "the nightmare of childhood" as Dolphin puts it here - i.e. how a child is literally assaulted with information everyday its poor mind can't handle, and so they put up defences to try to cope with it. In The Reflecting Skin, the most obvious example is Seth's believing Dolphin to be a vampire; she isn't really, but it's the only way he can process the very alienness about her, her femininity for starters.
And I'm sure someone can follow this up with a completely different point, and therein lies the appeal to the film. Its refusal to offer a pat explanation for everything offers an infinite realm of possibilties for us fans to discuss the film and numerous ideas connected to it. I just wrote my university dissertation (for Americans: college thesis) on the film, and I know for a fact I'm by far not the first to do so.
Sorry for the long post, but I genuinely hope this helps you see the film in a new light. It's a hard film, and I don't blame you for being confused by it. But please try to understand we don't simply like it because it's "hemerhoid fetish porn", hehe! -
bpach86 — 19 years ago(February 11, 2007 05:00 AM)
Wow! I liked reading your postand to think you wrote your dissertation on this movie. For some reason this film popped into my head this morning. I saw it way before Google, etc. So I decided to find out what I could about the movie and your post was the most helpful. I remember at times during the movie there were these women dressed in religious garb walking I think with doves. And what I could make of this was that this was symbolic for something, but that is as far as I got. And could you tell me more about the angel. I remember Seth and his buddy taking care of it in the barn and hiding it in the hay. Was this also a symbol for something? I guess those are the 2 things that stood out most. Also the very last scene when Seth is on his knees in the field and screaming as he grasps at the ground and throws his hands in the air from the utter destruction of his life.I thought this was a very powerful scene and captured the moment.
-
animal062 — 18 years ago(June 09, 2007 10:47 PM)
just saw this film first time tonight. buddy (whom i have a movie affinity with) has long claimed it as one of his favorites. aside from the obvious 'loss of innocence'/'child abuse'/'nightmare of childhood' themes it also occurred to me that there seemed to be a strong thread of the loss of american innocence (e.g., atom bomb, decay of values, etc.) don't know if i was reading more into it than i should be, but i think it is a film i will revisit many times because i sense that each time you watch it some other interpretations will make themselves evident. might also highly depend on your mood when watching as to how you will interpret it at a given moment. all the characters scared the crap out of me
-
djsmokingjam — 18 years ago(June 10, 2007 07:48 AM)
Animal, I definitely agree with you about it about the film referencing the "loss of American innocence". Remember the United States is to this very day the only country that has used the atomic bomb, and that happened around the time the film is set. (Though the timeframe is left ambiguous, but it's roughly intended to be the early-1950s.)
-
save_alf — 15 years ago(April 23, 2010 03:46 AM)
the usa isn't the only one to use an 'atomic' bomb. the french, the russians, the english(?) have all tested nuclear weapons.
i would agree that it is about the loss of american innocence too, interesting scene with seth when he meets his brother, he is running through the field with the american flag. next time we see it is when kim is getting kidnapped (and later his corpse wrapped in the flag, which is very vietnam). maybe a bit obvious but still very effective.
Cameron's illness is also a good metaphor for the loss of american innocence.
i read a post i these forums from someone saying that the director didn't want to show any blood on the bodies, it got me thinking of scenes which did have blood in them, (cameron's hands, the frog) and was wondering if there is any significance to these particular moments given the director was so selective about showing blood. thoughts? -
tucoify — 11 years ago(August 28, 2014 04:51 AM)
"the usa isn't the only one to use an 'atomic' bomb. the french, the russians, the english(?) have all tested nuclear weapons."
Of course only the usa
used
it. "Using" here clearly referred to the genuine purpose it was made for, being dropped at a city full of people.
Use of A-Bombs lies not in detonating in vacant deserts.
The nations testing and developing this weapon, aiming at the
ABILITY
to
use
it, if necessary.
Hard to understand it wasnt self-explaining what was ment here. -
ablack90 — 11 years ago(December 14, 2014 02:38 PM)
NO point. Everything that happened seemed to be random and unconnected. None of the characters were realistic (with the possible exception of Mortenson's), nor even comprehensible. I came to this board hoping someone could tell me what the point of this dribble was, but everyone seems to just describe it as "beautifully horrible."
I stopped watching after 30 minutes. After watching the mother torture her own child, the kids discovering Dolphin masturbating, and the two extremely weird broads in black making weird noises while they marched by that was enough for me to know this film is absolutely not my cup of tea. I could not relate to one single character and didn't feel like depressing the h*ll out of myself for this poor child's experience. -
StefL — 20 years ago(August 19, 2005 01:30 PM)
Good point, although I guess we might never get an answer to whether it was deliberate or coincidental.
Hm, it's been a while now since I saw the film (I just got an email you'd answered in the thread) so I really should try and get hold of it so I can see it again. Any idea as to whether there's any DVD release? -
Borowczyk76 — 19 years ago(March 14, 2007 01:04 AM)
http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/dvd/B0007TIQ64/250-5676471-7599436
Here you go This is the copy I ordered. It's widescreen and all.