A victim of its own success
-
jname967 — 9 years ago(June 26, 2016 07:01 PM)
I don't think the film's subsequent decline in cinema history is a result of it being dated.
As others have pointed out on this thread, the film is more universal than some of its content. Come on. It's about a man realizing the most important things in his lifewhich although not groundbreaking, is timeless nonetheless. Also, it's not like the film is a concise commentary on weed or homosexuality. Yes, I see your point on that. We have come a long way, but it can still be argued that those two issues still bear lots of opposition. Closeted gay people still exist today, unbelievably but yes.
I would have to say the film simply didn't age well because some art just doesn't. It's a fine film, but not as well-written as we thought. I re-watched it a year ago and was struck at how it simply felt like a well-made TV drama almost. I think it's more stylistic than content. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 9 years ago(July 04, 2016 12:01 AM)
Closeted gay people still exist today
One thing the movie brings out is that small f feminism KILLED the good old "doin what comes naturally" as shown by Angela in school scene with boys keeping totally clear and girls taking over.
So a large lump of those boys that used to GET sex make the EXCUSE that they are queers and govt has made that path totally respectable - even pronking the "gay" word.
But because having sex with another boy is so so repulsive to them they go for the "poor little gay me" gig - and govt loves it.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
lazarillo — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 09:49 AM)
I don't think it's all that dated. The repressed homosexual plot was stupid back then frankly. And marijuana was taboo in 1999? Not the 1999 I remember. But people still have mid-life crises. I'm sure many middle-age fathers still fantasize about sleeping with their teenage daughters' sexy friends. There is more financial insecurity these days, but the point of this movie is more about lost youth than some socialist statement on materialism. And times aren't ever "simple". That's an illusion.
I don't think people appreciate how "dated" the present day is. Things were very different fifteen years ago, but don't expect them to stay like they are now. I'm old enough to know better than that. . .
"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream" -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 03:53 PM)
more about lost youth
It was Lester's story and from his corner it was NOT about lost youth at all.
Angela [compared to Lolita in 1950's] had lost her youth [ie Wild Oats] but Lester GOT his and moved on.
His bitch was he had to take on the FULL responsibility for the household but only got abuse back.
He resolved to "go single" again BUT was only content if wife and brat were content and at end he repeats "man oh man" while looking at his "achievements" in photo, knowing they WERE HAPPY.
I just wonder how much some people actually WATCH of a movie, or maybe as Lester says "you didn't understand a word I said".
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
jname967 — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 07:43 PM)
And times aren't ever "simple". That's an illusion.
Good point. I hate it when people trivialize and condescend the past like this. People certainly aren't more complex these days, that's for sure. We have more choices and the world seems to get worse and worse, that's all. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 11:20 PM)
yes, the central theme is EVE SYNDROME and that has always existed and history [and film] is littered with instances.
Jean Brodie in 1920s almost made it stick but Sandy STOPPED her - only Germaine Greer in 1970 got it "right" via her books so this movie is about the "before and after" of one MS B, who as Dylan says in the end "brakes just like a little girl"
For convenience the 29 years between 1970 and 1999 is contracted to 19, so Caroline at the PIVOTAL age of 37 in 1999 was 17 in 1969 BG [before Greer] so was a real rager like Lolita, but as the tide shifted to women in charge of the store she too went feral.
Lester was the bunny
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
sage2112 — 9 years ago(July 17, 2016 09:25 PM)
Not true - things aren't that much different now than they were then. And the film doesn't feel dated at all, except for some of the tech gadgets which will always be the case.
Not sure even about the decline in its popularity as you claim. I've heard nothing but good about this movie and I liked it even better the 2nd time around (today). -
evanmang87 — 9 years ago(July 20, 2016 02:20 PM)
I agree and disagree. It's still a great film that resonates but it's definitely a product of the culture of the 1990s. There's no way this film could have or would have been the same if filmed even 5 years later. Video cameras were all the rage and so many 90s films have characters filming and talking to the video camera. The Baby Boomer angst of middle-aged white suburban dads like Lester was also a theme prevalent in many 90s shows and films. And there's definitely some 90s self indulgence with the memorable plastic bag scene which was viewed as a great scene at the time but even a few years later seemed laughable and ostentatiously pretentious.
And whoever said the 90s were a simpler time this film was actually a dark comedy about how the sheen of happiness in the 90s and the American Dream was a disappointing myth even for people who had it very good socio-economically. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 9 years ago(July 20, 2016 05:36 PM)
this film was actually a dark comedy about how the sheen of happiness in the 90s and the American Dream was a disappointing myth
Well I am retired so don't "live on the economy" but remember the HUGE changes of 1970 on which this movie is based.
So has anything happened in American Beauty since 1999 - from where I sit, since 9/11 American have obediently settled [cowered?] into Night's Village.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
Barbed_Wire_Strawberry — 9 years ago(July 20, 2016 08:18 PM)
So gays and women ruined U.S (and further more the world?) more than neo-conservative, war mongering criminal Presidents and Generals? How exactly has feminism contributed the ruining of the economy and society? Do you think Mrs. B's failure with the housing market might have something to do with the fact that it completely collapsed less than ten years later? Was that feminism? Or did the gays do that?
Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride -
Naughty-God — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 10:49 PM)
Times were not simpler in the 90s, maybe they were to teenagers and children who didn't have to work in the real world but for you to say that things like marijuana and homosexuality were taboo says more about your ignorance of the recent past than about your knowledge about the difference between 1999 and 2016.
-
Dreamsville — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 02:13 PM)
I saw this movie when it came out and I thought it was ridiculous
then
, and wildly overrated. IMO it's a bit like Paul Haggis'
Crash
: both films think they're saying something powerful and profound, when they're actually saying nothing at all. -
aidankost — 9 years ago(December 17, 2016 10:52 PM)
I've never understood why universal acclaim makes someone not want to watch a movie. If anything, it should make people want to watch it even more (duh!) just to shut everyone up. For example, Breaking Bad. I was reading a thread the other day and saw that Jo Blo wouldn't watch it bc they were told to watch too often. I mean, it's right in front of you: give it a try!!! It won't hurt you!! This movie is barely outdated (technonlogy, I guess), is still relevant (overall theme and message), and should be enjoyed by all ages for now and years to come. It won five Oscars, as you may know, and some people are turmed off by that. God knows why.
-
Naughty-God — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 08:13 PM)
I've never heard of people being turned off by universal acclaim. People can be annoyed with tacky movie ads that paint the screen with Film Festival Awards and mentions, but I don't think this stops them from watching it for themselves.
Looking back at this movie after seeing again after many years, I can see how people can reflect on how maudlin and melodramatic this movie really was. I was engaged in the movie upon my first viewing, but as life has marched on, many of the issues Lester deals with in this film were similar to my own life experiences, BUT instead of me relating to the character again after another viewing I find Lester to be a simpleton and a bit of a flake. Annette Bening's character is also more of a caricature than I remembered her and his daughter's angst was actually very cliched and predictable, even for 1999's standards.
It's also very telling when the parody producers of Scary Movie fame can inject dozens of references from this movie and have a field day mocking it in "Not Another Teen Movie". Ricky's "The Beautiful Weirdo" took the cake!