Why is the film called Lantanaanyone?
-
-
kamikaze_camel — 23 years ago(October 15, 2002 09:24 PM)
idiot.
Anyways, as previous stated. Lantana is a Australian plant with think undergrowth but green tops and fragrant flowers. It's a weed that has gotten out of control in the outer-suburbs.
It is seen at the very start of the movie as the camera pans over and then we go under to see the body. -
MAX-78 — 23 years ago(October 15, 2002 11:20 PM)
work out how the whole thread thing goes. I don't need to know why it was called Lantana, and you don't need to be a rude arse hole, just because you like this mainstream TV crap.
IT'S VERY MUCH LIKE MAKING LOVE TO A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - SWISS TONI -
George_Formby — 23 years ago(October 17, 2002 09:26 AM)
"I don't need to know why it was called Lantana"
So don't post on a board for people that do, especially not with misplaced references to "Magnolia" - a film with almost no connection to "Lantana". I've never even heard anyone suggest before that Australian films copy American films.
And what does "mainstream TV" have to do with it? You're the one who needs lessons on the thread thing, and you're the r.a.h. -
MAX-78 — 23 years ago(October 17, 2002 04:29 PM)
Well now, this is nothing to do with message boards, this is about understanding film language.
Magnolia, Short Cuts and Lantana are all multi-thread character films which feature a murder, a cop, infidelity and plots which are entrenched in the past, rather than the present. Just like many TV soaps these days. Unlike the other two, Lantana also features a cast heavy in TV stars.
Perhaps you should try reading some Adrian Martin, rather than getting your film education from Bridget Duclose.
IT'S VERY MUCH LIKE MAKING LOVE TO A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - SWISS TONI -
1906 — 23 years ago(October 21, 2002 07:48 AM)
hey there max,
couldn't help but notice the 'discussion' you were having with some other users on the boards. Being very new to this gig, you'll excuse if i mess it up, but here goes.
I think the reason that both kamikaze camel and swothin? had issues with your statements wasn't that they (and myself here) disagree on the basis of films such as Magnolia and Lantana having OSTENSIVE similarities such as being multi-thread character films (I think ALOT of films could enter into this catagory - Australian, American, Iranian or whatever), but tended to think that the statement of the Australian Film Industry wishing to copy the American model so much is possibly off target..
I will give you The Crocodile Hunterand Paperback Hero, but surely films such as Lantana have their roots in a Kieslowski-esque world? At the very least European inspired?? If we wanted to copy the Americans so much, nay "..had to copy", then how do you explain wonderful Australian gems like the bushranger genre of the 1900's/1910's?? or the very Australian New wave of the 1970's early 1980's?? or even modern Australian inspired masterpieces such as Dominik's Chopper?? et al..
Mainstream TV crap huh, whoa. I reserve that type of classification to films such as Serving in Silence: The Margarethe Cammermeyer Story (if you ever get the chance, I highly recommend avoiding this film!!). Even films as appaling as Magnolia do not fit into this catagory, and I think that by placing a good film such as Lantana into that catagory, that you are deliberatly baiting.
and by the way, who is Bridget Duclose?, obviously after giving the world a film-school lesson, you attend one of the film courses in this grand country - does she lecture you? - the closest I could find was a Bridget Duclos (Brad Johnson's girlfriend), and I think Adrian Martin would have had a much better argument for the Aus/Yank film industry comment than your baiting one-linerjust a thoughtOH, and yes, I consider myself hooked, line and sinker!! -
MAX-78 — 23 years ago(October 21, 2002 09:42 AM)
Other than it's not baiting. I DO think this film is a piece of crap. I don't attend film school. Get your head out of your arse for five minutes and think for yourself.
I'm glad you consider yourself hooked, line and sinker, because you bloody well are by this pile of steaming dog's turd which every pretentious arse hole in this country finds 'meaningful' despite the fact that it has no theme and wanders all over the place for no reason with no real meaning at all. Goeff Rush is ashamed of it. So should the rest of us be.
IT'S VERY MUCH LIKE MAKING LOVE TO A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - SWISS TONI -
penboo — 23 years ago(December 01, 2002 03:54 AM)
Max, you have issues. The film is both enjoyable and intelligent. Get over yourself. And if you hate it with such passion, why do you insist on visiting its message board so much?
By the way, Geoffrey Rush is a tool. This is common knowledge in Australia. -
MAX-78 — 23 years ago(December 01, 2002 06:17 AM)
I visit it because my e-mail tells me when phuckwits have replied to my post - invariably singing the praises of this pile of crap. That's how message boards work.
Geoffrey is a tool, whereas Peter Phelps is what?????
We blow up space shuttles for breakfast - George Kaplan -
alicatAP — 22 years ago(October 26, 2003 12:04 AM)
You can tell by Max-78's other posts on other films' boards that he is a flamer; the very nature of his first post on this board is an attempt to incite a reaction. Don't let him pull you into that game.
He enjoys the attenion, so do exactly what he doesn't want you to do "ignore user" this pretentious film connoisseur.
I wondered myself the origins of this film's title; it really sheds some light on the film knowing the behaviours of this plant. -
MAX-78 — 23 years ago(December 11, 2002 05:22 PM)
Because the film was held up as some art-house masterpiece in Australia and in fact it played out like any b-grade TV cop show.
It also played in every multi-plex as well as every art-house cinema.
I wasn't talking about box-office, I was talking about style and sensibility.