The director has an extremely strange response to all the questions about women in the film, and the male gaze. I’m not sure if he was told not to open ip about the message or if he wants to be purposefully silent on the issue for a mysterious reason.
I think he did answer the question : the film is surreal and women and men in it are not supposed to be taken as realistic people but rather spectral representations of notions. I think it is in a way like in a Fellini or Bunuel film, and for me it is clear the main male character is obviously NOT an exemplary character and NOT a model and he is FAR from being perfect in his behaviour towards children, dogs, men, women, authorities, etc. and the acts of violence he is capable of. By the way in the press conference he answers at 11.20 to the same kind of question about women representation and male gaze : the film is from the point of view of Sam and the male fantasies in his psyche.
Read somewhere some are comparing this movie to Kelly's Southland in terms of a hot director following a great movie with self indulgent tosh.I think it looks personally and am looking forward to it .
Silver Lake is actually very atmospheric, has a story that evolves throughout the movie. At first glance it might seem a bit "strange", but nothing seems to be put into movie for weirdness sake. Silver Lake is going to be talked about and analyzed a lot. Too bad that it got pushed back in US
I really enjoyed the movie. It's funny that I see a lot the of people critizing it talking about Andrew Garfield's character being unlikable and the movie being a sexist hipster nightmare. I saw the movie and for me was obvious that it was making fun of that kind of stuff.
for me it was quite liberating as an audience member to be made to think, wonder and guess so much through out the film, the little subliminal clues and visions makes the film incredibly exciting. Plus some scenes will make you feel frightened - and then make you laugh out loud - within seconds.. which is quite hard to pull off in any genre. I saw it last week and im still thinking about it every day.
people seem to not realise that movie rating isn't objective. although for normal movies we can give a rating that is more or less accepted by most people, when it comes to movies like UTSL some people will enjoy it and some won't, you can't rate it in the usual way because you can't use "most people" as a frame of reference
This was a really great movie that skillfully presents narrative and atmosphere on many levels. I really enjoyed Southland at the time and although it may not be palatable to a lot of viewers, it is an interesting and unpredictable movie. It's fun, fairly original and complex. I will highly praise any movie that is engaging and offers a sense of indirect narrative almost every time. I'd rather keep guessing then to predict and have my observations served up on a platter, or in some cases shoved down my throat.
There seems to be a weird amount of tension about the sexuality and characterizations of women in the film. I wouldn't expect the Cannes crowd to be so afraid of the use of tension and exploitation in art, especially in a meta-narrative critiquing Hollywood culture.
In order to critique the objectification of females in film, the director shows us lots of women being objectified in this film, so I guess that makes it OK, right?
@@zaq55 Is that supposed to be a facetious statement? Reflective of culture, the history of the humanity as both object and subject in art is a canon of misappropriation. Even a lot of the modern wave of what would be classified as feminist film and television relies on the same imbalance which is prima facie framed didactically, but underneath the pseudo-moralized temperament, it is simply saying what a movie like this is implying (assuming you have the moral ability to not read all media as positively objectifying its fictive elements). I don't think a cogent argument exists where you can say depictions of turpitude are definitively endorsements of it in good art.
@@GenteelCretin Do you believe it’s possible to critique and exploit at the same time? I do, and I believe Mitchell has done just that. I felt it needed to be pointed out.
he answers also at 11:20 to the same question : it is obvious the film is entirely from the point of view of the main male character and the fantasies in his male psyche (like in a Fellini film for instance). The main character is by the way obviously NOT an exemplary character or a model person : his behaviour towards men, women, children, animals, is far from being shown as perfect (it is so obvious : the violence he uses in several scenes for instance !)...
@@thephilosophersjourney2595 At film festivals, yeah, and in Europe, France etc. America, not yet; this month. UK, it was out March 15th, select cinemas. I had to travel for it but oh it was worth it. D'you enjoy?
@@thephilosophersjourney2595 Ha ha, no. Did you? That was symbolic of the whole mystery. It starts and ends with the parrot - before anything else. Some things we just have to accept we may never understand and that's frustrating and that's beautiful - wonder, curiosities! :D
A farcical, millennial take. I'd compare it more to Sorry to Bother You. It's inventive and full of commentary through bizarre humor. If you didn't laugh a lot, maybe give it another watch.
This is one of the greatest movies of the past decade.
Absolutely !!! It is so underrated !!! I saw it again tonite (in Blu ray, but I saw it in a theater in 2018) :)
Several release hurdles and a semi-abandoned promotional campaign later and the film is a cult classic
Excellent artists. Excellent execution. Great work!
The director has an extremely strange response to all the questions about women in the film, and the male gaze. I’m not sure if he was told not to open ip about the message or if he wants to be purposefully silent on the issue for a mysterious reason.
I haven't watched this in film but the introductions by the host were AMAZING she did so well!
Holy shit. David Mitchell completely skated around the question that was asked at 6:20. He did not answer the question.
I think he did answer the question : the film is surreal and women and men in it are not supposed to be taken as realistic people but rather spectral representations of notions. I think it is in a way like in a Fellini or Bunuel film, and for me it is clear the main male character is obviously NOT an exemplary character and NOT a model and he is FAR from being perfect in his behaviour towards children, dogs, men, women, authorities, etc. and the acts of violence he is capable of. By the way in the press conference he answers at 11.20 to the same kind of question about women representation and male gaze : the film is from the point of view of Sam and the male fantasies in his psyche.
Read somewhere some are comparing this movie to Kelly's Southland in terms of a hot director following a great movie with self indulgent tosh.I think it looks personally and am looking forward to it .
Silver Lake is actually very atmospheric, has a story that evolves throughout the movie. At first glance it might seem a bit "strange", but nothing seems to be put into movie for weirdness sake. Silver Lake is going to be talked about and analyzed a lot. Too bad that it got pushed back in US
I really enjoyed the movie. It's funny that I see a lot the of people critizing it talking about Andrew Garfield's character being unlikable and the movie being a sexist hipster nightmare. I saw the movie and for me was obvious that it was making fun of that kind of stuff.
for me it was quite liberating as an audience member to be made to think, wonder and guess so much through out the film, the little subliminal clues and visions makes the film incredibly exciting. Plus some scenes will make you feel frightened - and then make you laugh out loud - within seconds.. which is quite hard to pull off in any genre. I saw it last week and im still thinking about it every day.
people seem to not realise that movie rating isn't objective. although for normal movies we can give a rating that is more or less accepted by most people, when it comes to movies like UTSL some people will enjoy it and some won't, you can't rate it in the usual way because you can't use "most people" as a frame of reference
This was a really great movie that skillfully presents narrative and atmosphere on many levels. I really enjoyed Southland at the time and although it may not be palatable to a lot of viewers, it is an interesting and unpredictable movie. It's fun, fairly original and complex. I will highly praise any movie that is engaging and offers a sense of indirect narrative almost every time. I'd rather keep guessing then to predict and have my observations served up on a platter, or in some cases shoved down my throat.
There seems to be a weird amount of tension about the sexuality and characterizations of women in the film. I wouldn't expect the Cannes crowd to be so afraid of the use of tension and exploitation in art, especially in a meta-narrative critiquing Hollywood culture.
The Cannes people get upset when just women are sexualized and not the men. If they were showing dongs with the tits they wouldn't car
@@Kryptiq333 well that’s simply because women’s bodies are disproportionally much more exploited in film than men’s, obviously
In order to critique the objectification of females in film, the director shows us lots of women being objectified in this film, so I guess that makes it OK, right?
@@zaq55 Is that supposed to be a facetious statement? Reflective of culture, the history of the humanity as both object and subject in art is a canon of misappropriation.
Even a lot of the modern wave of what would be classified as feminist film and television relies on the same imbalance which is prima facie framed didactically, but underneath the pseudo-moralized temperament, it is simply saying what a movie like this is implying (assuming you have the moral ability to not read all media as positively objectifying its fictive elements).
I don't think a cogent argument exists where you can say depictions of turpitude are definitively endorsements of it in good art.
@@GenteelCretin Do you believe it’s possible to critique and exploit at the same time? I do, and I believe Mitchell has done just that. I felt it needed to be pointed out.
What's up with not answering straight the question about ho women are represented?
Watch the film.
he answers also at 11:20 to the same question : it is obvious the film is entirely from the point of view of the main male character and the fantasies in his male psyche (like in a Fellini film for instance). The main character is by the way obviously NOT an exemplary character or a model person : his behaviour towards men, women, children, animals, is far from being shown as perfect (it is so obvious : the violence he uses in several scenes for instance !)...
Anticipatedly waiting to see this!
Dude, it came out last year.
@@thephilosophersjourney2595 At film festivals, yeah, and in Europe, France etc. America, not yet; this month. UK, it was out March 15th, select cinemas. I had to travel for it but oh it was worth it. D'you enjoy?
@@DarlingPhenylethylamine yh, it was a very chill movie. Did you understand whatthe parrot said?
@@thephilosophersjourney2595 Ha ha, no. Did you? That was symbolic of the whole mystery. It starts and ends with the parrot - before anything else. Some things we just have to accept we may never understand and that's frustrating and that's beautiful - wonder, curiosities! :D
21:00
A farcical, millennial take. I'd compare it more to Sorry to Bother You. It's inventive and full of commentary through bizarre humor. If you didn't laugh a lot, maybe give it another watch.
sorry to bother you fucking sucked. this is the modern day china town
Another watch? Sorry, I don't have another 2:20 to waste
Exactly ! 👌
Jesus Saves
17:27
nice conference!!
What's with the sunglasses???
I've now watched Under the Silver Lake, and I must say he's earned those sunglasses.
@@highwayexit nah man he's playing a part
very bright lights shining on the interview panel.. i would be wearing double shades in this sort of situation it HURTS the eyes!
#donaldmarshallrevolution
?
many similarities between story of the movie & Donald Marshall (cloning centers)
@@cankhovich1796
Ah, okay.