Such a shame because it has got some good actors in it.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Happiness
JimmyConway2 — 18 years ago(March 27, 2008 04:28 PM)
Such a shame because it has got some good actors in it.
Jon Lovitz
Dylan Baker
Philip Seymour Hoffman
But I must say that this film doesn't just touch on inapproiate, it breaks down the door and makes itself at home.
Why??? Please tell me why??? Does this film try and make us simpithize with a beep beep scum beep paedophile?? That's when this film went from boring to "Give me one reason not to turn this film off and burn the copy I have of it". I didn'tI stuck by itonly to feel myself feeling physically ill when we have to sit through a young boy masterbating over some sunbathersI am starting to think there is something seriously wrong with the film makers who made this film!
If I was forced to point out one good aspect of this film then I would make who ever asked me that question to watch the film again and see if they still wanted to ask me after they had seen it again.
Truely, truely, truely awful, offensive and downright, well, to bring in a english phrase, bollocks.
Thanks for wasting 134 minutes of my life Todd Solondz, thanks to this film, everytime I see you name on any sort of credit I will stay well away from whatever film it is. -
giles1189 — 18 years ago(March 28, 2008 12:23 PM)
I was pretty aware of what I was going to be watching when I picked this one up, but I think that this film shows very effectively that Pedophiles are not all nasty looking drug addicts as most people probably view them. I did not find that this film wanted me to sympathize with him, but showed him for what he was. The scene where he was talking to his son at the end really brought out how wrong what he had been doing was in my opinion.
-
goodbyeenemyairship — 18 years ago(April 04, 2008 07:29 AM)
I hear people saying that it was or wasn't portraying the pedophile in a sympathetic light and I guess that is relative. I hear the arguments about this movie being humorless and I hear the opposite and I suppose that is relative too.
As a character study, I guess you could have a movie about any person and an absence of judgment and allow the audience to decide for themselves who is morally bankrupt or who is worthy of empathy. But with that aside, I still hated this film.
I hated this film for the same reason that I hate the actions of the characters. I don't want to be around or know people like that and I don't want to spend time observing such personalities either.
I suppose there is something there for those who are fascinated by personality disorders or psychology, but for me, it was unpleasant viewing. And I'm one that enjoys intellectual films.
The reason this one was different is because of the emotion. I can't, regardless of my ability to think rationally or logically in most arenas, remove my emotion from the subject of bringing physical as well as permanent emotional and psychological harm to children.
This movie was recommended to me by an ex girlfriend. She loved it. She had us watch it on our 2nd date. I was shocked. And later into our relationship, I was even more shocked to learn that she was a victim of child abuse. She was severely emotionally scarred by it and found laughing at the movie Happiness as a way to displace her trauma.
I have seen Hard Candy and disliked it as well, but never have I been more emotionally bothered by a film like I was when I saw Happiness. -
goodbyeenemyairship — 17 years ago(April 07, 2008 08:32 AM)
But what if I already knew that about myself? Did it still acheive its goal? Was the goal then to reinforce my thoughts and feelings about something?
I see your point and it is a pretty good one. But it is kind of empty because most things will elicit some feeling or another and tell you something about yourself. For example: I walked out of Armageddon when it hit theaters many years ago. What feeling did it elicit? Boredom. What did it tell me about myself? I should avoid blockbuster action films with tacked on one-liners, at the tender age of 17, I no longer liked that sort of thing.
But alas, Armageddon, like all things I experience became a part of my psyche. Does that make Micheal Bay a genius? You will likely say no, because his intention was to simply entertain or give me an adrenaline rush. Whereas, the director of Happiness intended to make me hate his movie.
I don't buy it because of the neutrality of the tone in this film. I don't think the director gave a perspective at all on the characters, he just put the camera on them and lets the audience decide. That shows he had no real intention and any perceived reaction is as valid as any other.
I understand that art, to many, is suppose to affect you in some way, make you feel something. That is maybe a broad definition but I have heard it used in defense of pornography as an art form (By the way, I'm not debating whether or not pornography is an art, nor am I comparing this film to porn).
I don't think that this film should or shouldn't exist (free country, etc. etc.). I still hated watching it. Was the goal for the film to be despized (and therefore not recommended to others, at best - at worst, recommend that it be avoided)? If so, that goal was reached.
My statement never addressed whether or not the director is talented or whether or not this qualifies as an effective means to an end. I just stated that I didn't enjoy it and expressed why, in hopes that others who read my thoughts on the film will save their time and money, better spent elsewhere on more worthwhile or pleasurable ventures. I wished to express why I hated watching this film more than any other film in recent memory I have viewed (and I'm a pretty open minded guy).
Did I acheive my goal? Am I then a genius message board poster? -
goodbyeenemyairship — 17 years ago(April 08, 2008 06:12 AM)
Yes, I did that on the Armageddon board. I mentioned that the film bored me to tears and that I decided at 17 that I didn't really like cheesy action movies anymore (posted this years ago, with no subsequent discourse).
I can tell you love solondz films, it is clear. I neither support or denounce that, I'm indifferent.
I want nothing from you. What do you want from me? I posted my initial thoughts on this thread, you suggested that I missed the point, I responded saying, I don't believe I did - here's why.
The reason I mentioned my otherwise open-mindedness is because I am not open-minded to child molestation or a sympathetic portrayal of a pedophile. It is noteworthy to mention because I am usually pretty open minded about concepts and ideas. It wouldn't be necessary to state I'm otherwise pretty open minded if I were being open minded about the subject of the conversation.
The word genius sure gets thrown around a lot, in most cases I'm sure it isn't applicable. The absurdity was the humor behind my 'genius message board poster' comment. But think whatever you want about me, I don't mind.
I don't think Michael Bay is a genius and I am one of many. We, the many, the proud, believe that his movies are formulaic and uninspired. We don't like that his boring action films are budgeted in 8 digit figures while often talented artist with a unique vision can't even get 'thier foot in the door'. And I felt that way 10 years ago. Sue me.
"if Happiness bored you to tears, fine. if you find no artistic value in it fine. you want to state your opinion as to why you don't like the film fine."
You see, that is what I did initially. Then you replied. You attempted to prove that I was wrong and that the movie 'changed my life'. I explained to you how it actually didn't. Your response here fails to acknowledge my rebuttles.
The simple fact is that I was bored and online. I posted my thoughts on a movie I found horrible (that showed me things I already knew were horrible). It became part of my psyche no more than any other film I have ever seen.
Since you are a Micheal Bay fan, I'll point out another cancer on the current body of filmmaking - Uwe Boll. His movie House of the Dead affected me equally as much as Happiness. I was shocked at how poorly executed the film was. Does that make me 'uppity'? If you think so, whatever. It still counts as one of the worse major motion pictures ever released.
Your post above is a classic 'ad hominem attack'. You fail to provide deductive reasoning in your argument and resort to attacking the person with whom you are debating. And it is telling. -
hbh-2 — 16 years ago(July 06, 2009 03:23 PM)
child molestation is a very little part of this movie, it is not it's main theme. I guess you got stuck with it because it upset you. Besides I never felt the movie portrait child molestation in a positive light, it is truthful, I felt.
-
obezyanka — 17 years ago(August 04, 2008 08:41 AM)
I don't buy it because of the neutrality of the tone in this film. I don't think the director gave a perspective at all on the characters, he just put the camera on them and lets the audience decide. That shows he had no real intention and any perceived reaction is as valid as any other.
Since when is putting the audience in the position to have to analyze the layers of the characters (and their corresponding importance to the movie's themes as a whole), instead of just telling them what they should think, a bad thing? It has always seemed to me that it takes much more talent, and shows a higher opinion of the audience, to do the former. And this film does ask quite a bit of its audience in that regard, often with quite challenging/troubling subject matter.
From your other posts (and I'm inferring here, so I'm sure my opinion is completely wrong), it seems like one of your main issues with this film is, on one hand, probably a very common one, and yet is also quite central to the point of this film. Your statement quoted above, along with a statement in your first post to the effect of "is this film actually trying to make us consider a pedophile as a complex human being?", start to just read as I hated this film and reject it as disgusting because I was not presented with the black & white characterization of a pedophile as irredeemably subhuman, with which I am comfortable.
Is the fact that this character acts on his urges presented sympathetically? Umm, no. His family is humiliated and torn apart, his son has clearly been psychologically effected by it, even HE knows it's wrong and appears sickened by himself in the scene where he's in bed with his wife. You're not expected to be ok with the idea of child molestation, but there is the expectation that maybe you'll sit and think to yourself "Huh, maybe all people with pedophilic urges aren't running around wide-eyed, psychotically grinning, constantly trying to ravage every small child they see, and just might have other facets to their existence that don't center around preying on our children." It's not comfortable to be forced to look at them as actual humans, because that means looking at them the way we, well, look at ourselves.
The characters in this movie have flaws on a much more grand, shall we say, scale than do most people, but they just serve to illustrate the overarching theme. If you look at each character's story line individually, even Bill's when he asks his wife if she still loves him no matter what, it all boils down to the notion that there is no "true" happiness. All the characters begin the movie refusing to really look at themselves, and they, along with everyone with whom they have a relationship, are not happy. Is being left by your spouse in your 60s pretty devastating? How about finding out the husband with whom you have 2 kids has molested children? Feeling miserable because you're constantly comparing your life to those of your sisters that you envy, or being successful but a complete phony, a bit of a downer? Absolutely. And finding out the truth can sting for a long, long time. But, in the end, I'd wager your chances for finding what makes you, personally, happy are much greater once you admit that, regardless of what you thought was supposed to make you happy, you were wrong.
Everyone has flaws. Everyone wants to feel loved and find their own happiness. MAYBE the director's intent, and reason for not putting any perspective on the characters, was to get the audience to realize that, no matter how differently it seems to manifest in any given person, we're all basically searching for the same thing.
p.s. Give it a rest with the "I know child molestation is bad, so why is there any value in considering those that do it just to reaffirm that I know it's bad." stuff. I'm not a particularly big proponent of gassing Jewish people by the thousands, but I have read Mein Kampf on multiple occasions and would even argue it to be a necessary part of every person's education. The best way to find a solution is prooobably to spend a bit of time trying to understand the problem, which strikes me as hard to do if pedophiles are evil, disgusting spawns of Satan and we shouldn't even look at them. Might be harder to spot potential future ones, too, that haven't acted on their urges yet, but I'm not very good at seeing things without looking at them.
That'll do donkey, that'll do. -
berrrzerkerrr — 17 years ago(April 11, 2008 02:25 AM)
easy, man. to my mind, you're clearly unaquainted with any contenmporary controversial artists. try more Solondz, read P. Roth and R.M Wilson, maybe some Ellis. you'll get used to more disturbing creation and open up for something different. and then you'll stop perceiving art in such a biased way.
nobody's sympathising with a peadophile here, just picturing him as a human being. nobody's glorifying what he did, just picturing it as something disgusting - undeniably a great tragedy for the family. but in all the dramas of the film, there is an incredible, optimistic undertone. "i came!" - i loved it! -
goodbyeenemyairship — 17 years ago(April 11, 2008 11:32 AM)
This from a fan who saw Solondz speak (read on thread http://www.imdb.com/board/10362004/board/nest/100259623?d=102294355#102294355
"Often portrayed as a misanthope by critics, Solondz noted that one of the reasons he's touched on pedophilia in several films is because he wants the audience to form a (somewhat sympathetic, or at least not entirely negative) attachment to people whom society views as beyond reproach."
Settled?
Why would someone want to expose themselves to more 'disturbing' material if they didn't like what he or she had already viewed? Is it not okay to dislike a certain flavor of kool aid?
I wouldn't suggest that anyone desensitize themselves to disturbing creations in order to appreciate them more.
If one is expressing a fondness for this type of material, how are they any more or less biased than someone expressing a lack of fondness? -
mjohnson3760 — 17 years ago(April 14, 2008 05:36 PM)
I also find that people miss the whole movie. Some people get so disturbed by the individual events that they miss what the movie is actually about.
In my opinion the whole measage comes out in the very last scene. When most of the characters are sitting around the table laughing and joking having a good time even after all the trauma they have been through. Happiness is just a moment here and there. Very few if anybody at all is happy all the time. We all have out inadequecies that cause problems and pain in our lives, but if we deal with them the best we can we will still have the moments of happiness that come now and again.
I am sure this is what happened with Goodbyeenemyairship because he's so stuck on the pediphile in the story. Yes it is a very disturbing subject and portrayed in a way it has probobaly never been portrayed before in a movie, very human and I found humurous as well. But every angle of the story is pretty disturbing. The obscene phone calls, the hacked up and frozen rapist. Often times an artist needs to exagerate what most of us feel to get us to feel the emotion the artist is striving for.
One more thing that I saw in the movie is the old saying of "you cant have light without dark" or good without evil. We will never get that ocasional moment of happiness without all the other ranges of emotion as well. The movie invoked the whole sphere of emotions for me. Laughter, pain, empathy, digust and everything in between, except for maybe fear but I think thats still implied due to how human these disturbing characters were portrayed. The "Happiness" in the last scene is made so much more alive and reassuring after we go through the disturbing and intense emotions before hand.
Anyways. thats my 2 cents. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong because this movie is definatly not for everyone. its a LOVE ir or HATE it movie, but its in my top 5 for sure.
BUT saying its the worse film ever made is just a ridicious statement. Maybe its the movie the OP hates the most but the movie itself is VERY well thought out, acted and directed. The movie achieves what very few movies have, and does it perfectly.