When I saw this movie for the first time I really enjoyed it (apart from the tacked-on ending that appears to belong to
-
palindromicevilolive — 20 years ago(February 18, 2006 01:30 PM)
Seriously-The symbolism in the movie was rather heavy-handed, I'll grant you that. If that interfered with the enjoyment of the movie, I guess that's understandable. Then again, maybe this has blinded you to the movie's numerous winning points. To name a few:
-The complex and well-drawn characters of Devon, and especially, Trent
-The cultivation of an atmosphere which complements the mythological basis for the movie(slavic folklore, baba yaga et al)
-The beautiful and evocative scenery captured in well-planned shots
-The tragic story of Devon and Trent's ill-fated friendship
-The articulation of class issues
-The humor(especially Devon's slightly misanthropic interactions with her fellow suburbanites, the lampshade-stealing cowboy/general kid, etc)
-The way the Baba Yaga story was "recast" throughout the movie, giving different perspectives on who the characters are and what they represented
-The top-notch performances by Barton and Rockwell
-The poignant and beautiful ending -
Keylimepie — 19 years ago(June 11, 2006 07:26 PM)
I don't think that tigerlily told you you didn't enjoy the film, I think tigerlily's point is that this movie is not all that great, and it's clearly not "brilliant." It has its moments, but it is trying very hard to appear to be something it's not, i.e., an indy art film. A film needn't be
brilliant
in order for someone to enjoy it, but this movie wants so much to be edgy and different yet it indulges in myriad cliches. The cardboard characters in Camelot Gardens? no nuances at all, just two-dimensional conveniences for our wannabe "outsider" couple to be superior to. And when they are superior to the superficial people, well then, we are too, right? We get to share in their superiority.
There is nothing in this film that hasn't been done hundreds of times in hundreds of better films. You need to see a lot more movies so you can get some perspective here. Thinking this movie is brilliant signals to me that you are very young and impressionable. I don't mean that you are dumb, only under-educated in film. Join Netflix and then watch as many independent films as you can for about two years. Then you will see what tigerlily, I, and several others on this thread are trying to explain. You need to raise your standards a bit, that's all. Your taste in film will mature as you mature. No offense, I'm just suggesting you learn more about film. You will never again call this "brilliant" once you have something
truly
brilliant to compare it to. I am sure that tigerlily, I, or some others here could offer you a short list of films to check out if you were interested. -
crayolaheart — 20 years ago(February 27, 2006 05:12 PM)
I could sense an undercurrent of pedophilic tension between Devon and Trent, but the film doesn't glorfy it. The film makers try to make that tension realitively unimportant with the incident with Devon and the mother's teenage lover. Even the way the movie was packaged diverts the viewer. Kathleen Quinlen looking seductive on the front cover overwhelms the image of Devon and Trent bonding. I think the sexual tension between Trent and Sean was more bewildering and interesting that the one between Devon and Trent.
All kinds of taboo tensions happen in real life. There will always be an undercurrent of perversion, and we can assign perversion where there is none. I don't think filth is the issue here with this movie.
Overall, the movie has it's moments despite indie movie cliches, other criticisms that have been said before, etc. -
Paul_Kersey_Jr — 20 years ago(March 08, 2006 02:46 AM)
"All kinds of taboo tensions happen in real life. There will always be an undercurrent of perversion, and we can assign perversion where there is none. I don't think filth is the issue here with this movie."
I dont consider this movie filth. But tell me, why do they show her urinating on the car windshield? Is that really something a little girl would do? Why show her suck on the bullet? Why naked on the roof? Is it neccessary she be naked? And near the end, when they decide to show their tummies to each other or something,and Trent seems like he thinks it could be inappropriate. And then she says something like -im not going to show "my TITS" What little girl calls her chest 'tits'?
Theres some other things like this, but its been a while since i saw it, and its not the most memorable movie.
Another thing, is if you are open to symbolism, what do you think Trents chainsaw represents? Notice how when shes visiting he seems kinda nervous,and wants to make sure she leaves and doesnt spend the night? And while he talks to her,he's pouring oil on his 'chainsaw',and rubbin-err i mean wiping it with a cloth.
If you think there isnt anything quasi-pedophilic about this movie, youre blind. -
DMERCER8 — 20 years ago(March 08, 2006 07:13 PM)
Dear rromanetti II,
This writer is 38 yrs. old and I own this film.Lawn Dogs deserves all the praise that it receives;the scenes you speak of are misrepresented in your views because the film presents a very wholesome relationship between Devon and Trent.
When she spends the night in his housetrailer,she sleeps at one end of the trailer while he sleeps way at the other endand both are dressed.
As far as Devon referring to her "tits",twenty years ago(when I was in school and even when I was in gradeschool I heard that term comeup with girls referring to breasts as "tits" didn't just come about in this film or a short time before.
As far as pouring oil on a chainsaw,well a person can read whatever they want to in this film.however to call this film trash is to be so prudish that you deny yourself the beauty that this film has throughout it.It's not a child's movie,but it's not filth or trash.There's alot of symbolism in this film that has been misread by people opposing this film.The filthy relationships in this film are the affair that Devon's Mom(Kathleen Quilan) is having with a young man while she's supposed to be happily married!Also let's not forget how certain members of the gated community treat the poor Trent by harassing him and ultimately hunting him down(including the security guard who helps in hunting Trent down) and beating him mercilessly.
This is an Excellent film that film buffs should give a chance because it's message says to give everyone a chance in life and not just the rich.
To Better Days,
BRAD -
ragreen259 — 20 years ago(March 10, 2006 04:49 AM)
what kind of jackass says "discuss," offers nothing in an opening statement, and never contributes to the discussion?
Offhand, I'd say anyone who describes this movie as "utter filth" needs to unclench their ass just a bit, maybe go out on a limb and skip church this Sunday, and broaden the scope of the movies that they seebecause clearly they've never seen "utter filth." -
Whitetd12000 — 20 years ago(March 13, 2006 12:04 PM)
Ahem!
First of all I have a very busy life. Second of all who are you to judge me? I merely started this discussion to see what it would turn into because I'm aware that some people will find this movie enjoyable and some will find it digusting. I'm glad this sirred up a very livevy discussion. Now, not that you deserve them, but here are my thoughts on the film. I thought it was brilliant. It may be extreme but the characters and fairytale-lesquw imagry weave the story together very well. I think there was a bit attraction but it was of the nonsequal type and I thought it very unwise to compare the film to Lolita or even suggest there was anything sexual between the Devon and Trent character. She liked the kind of person he was and the feeling was mutual. That is all there is to it.
I loved the film though it is extremely bizarre and would recommend it to anyone who likes a thought-provoking artsy type of film.
There now -
mpulse — 20 years ago(March 26, 2006 09:35 PM)
Why can't people let a film be what it (or its makers) want it to be?
It is so shallow for people to try to sum up and categorize films: Brilliant!, bizarre, a rip-off, filthy, a '7' out of 10, etc.
Brilliant or utter filth? If 1 hour and 41 minutes boils down to one word, I think the viewer has walled up himself/herself to where nothing gets through. It is why filmmakers have to frequently resort to practically "hammering" there points through to the audience. (A point someone earlier made.)
Hasn't it occurred to so many that maybe the filmmaker was toying with your own uneasiness with the suggestion of pedophilia? Maybe presenting it in this way was simply a way to expose those who can only see the perversion in relationships rather than the beauty without perversion. (And vice versa.)
Someone listed all sorts of metaphorical scenes. You could probably invent a perversion in everything if you try. People - and film critics - have been lauding filmmakers for years for lofty things they never intended.
Did having Sam Rockwell strip down and dive off a bridge do it for you? It did for some of the bystanders. The uneasy sexual tension in every character of this film was clearly provoking questions of the viewer.
But if the term "filth" was directed toward this sexual tension, I don't understand it. A "filthy" film is a broad adjective to use without qualification. It might be a word someone would use when they are disgusted at what they see. And when people are disgusted, they tend to ignore everything else and define it under that alone.
I think some of the best films are those that can be perceived in many ways by many people. Like music, some of the best melodies can be remade in entirely different genres and still be wonderful.
Spare us the foolish attempts at wrapping it all up in a nice little package so you can box it up in your whatever category. None of us are brilliant enough to judge how another perceives a film.
Vive le difference!
(And I really enjoyed the film too.) -
Jellybrother — 19 years ago(April 06, 2006 04:29 PM)
Very sweet movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
One thing it definitely reminded me of was how the adult world tends to sexualize about everything. rromanetti's comment about the chainsaw painfully testifies that. -
Paul_Kersey_Jr — 19 years ago(May 05, 2006 06:02 PM)
One thing it definitely reminded me of was how the adult world tends to sexualize about everything. rromanetti's comment about the chainsaw painfully testifies that.
You do have a point,but i do think this movie had quasi-pedo content.
Another thing to consider, is when he was oiling his chainsaw,he was pouring oil all over it, on the sides and everything.
I thought that people usually only oil the actual chain area.
Could it have been intentionally symbolic? -
Jellybrother — 19 years ago(May 06, 2006 06:28 AM)
"You do have a point,but i do think this movie had quasi-pedo content.
Another thing to consider, is when he was oiling his chainsaw,he was pouring oil all over it, on the sides and everything.
I thought that people usually only oil the actual chain area."
I didn't know that. My knowledge about chainsaws is marginal. Probably the people involved in the scene didn't knew either. This might sound unlikely, but there've been greater mistakes than this.
"Could it have been intentionally symbolic?"
IF this was the case, the only reason I could imagine would be to provocate (don't know if that's the right word) those people who like to dissect each and every scene for symbolism. In order to underline this message. -
ob12345 — 19 years ago(July 28, 2006 07:13 PM)
People like you make me sick you know that! You and people like you are the reason why honest people feel ashamed to even look sideways at a child under the age of 16. If I was to see a young girl fall off her bike I'd have to think twice about going over to help her up because of people like you making every male action one of a sexual nature.
This film is way ahead of its time in my opinion in trying to expose the farce that has swept the nation that every male is a potential child molester. It really is sad that we live in a society where a friendship between a young girl and a young man can be seen as nothing more than perverse and is looked upon as improper.
What a sad, sad world this has become. -
Paperback-Writer — 19 years ago(August 08, 2006 01:14 PM)
ok hold on, because society DOES have a point in having negative views toward those relationships.
- it is unusual, in general, for an adult to have a relationship with a child that has no relation to them. why? because the maturity of a developing child is less thana 30 year old man. therefore, the child would seem very boring. so there must be an alterior motive for that person to continue to stay around.
- "a women can befriend kids.."? i have never seen that. a teacher may be interested in the child if, let's say, he-she has a problem in her class, but it is rarely seen of a woman and a child that is not hers to be close friends.
- people are less afraid of women being child molesters because, its less common, and women pychologically are less sexually driven than men. women commit less crimes, do drugs, and become alcholics.
so before you get all emotional about things not being "fair", "fair" has been a option for women for thousands of years. so i think you should stop and think before you rant about something you never thought through.
-
edwawee — 19 years ago(August 08, 2006 11:13 PM)
lifesucksdontit, you are clearly a simple minded person. two people can love each other despite their ages. i see nazism is alive and well in the minds of some people. matbe the "alterior motive" for a 30 year old to stay around someone younger is that the 30 year old is attracted to the person who is younger. LOVE IS NEVER WRONG!