this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
78 points (96.4% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

2 readers
2 users here now

General discussion about movies and TV shows.


Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:

::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::

Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!


Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)


Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How much you enjoy this film is going to depend on how much you enjoy 1950s-1960s era "Theater of the Absurd". Think Samuel Beckett or Harold Pinter.

If "Waiting For Godot" or "Happy Days" are too weird for you, you won't enjoy Asteroid City.

Godot - Free on Youtube!

https://youtu.be/izX5dIzI2RE

Happy Days also!

https://youtu.be/L5vhQ4d_KMI

I was down for the weirdness. My kid walked out of it going "What did I just watch? Are all of his movies like that?"

[–] ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Poor Beckett, he didn't deserve to be named for such low effort movie. Anderson's best works are well in the past, time to face it I'd say.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know that you can say anything Anderson does is "low effort", if anything it's too much effort in a hyper controlling way.

The actors here seem bereft of any emotion, such was the style at the time. They are department store mannequins dressed up and playing a role. That takes effort to achieve.

For me, the joy in the film comes from the moments when that façade cracks. The three little witches are hilarious. The one bit where the TV narrator gets confused and ends up in the production of the play. When the actor playing Augie gets frustrated and goes "behind the scenes" of the play to vent.

[–] ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's low effort because he didn't actually put the effort to make it a good film. I'm sure it took time and effort to put it together, but it wasn't working alone and if he was the one making the biggest effort we would had another masterpiece. Which we have not.

I'll tell you this: I loved almost all of his movies, naturally some more and some less, but what I consider the signature of Anderson is that he always managed to make me actually care for his characters. The way he make them so human and vulnerable and fragile.. also in the movies I liked less I always loved the characters.

Now, it is noteworthy that you remember the three little witches, I also loved them and they are one of the few characters I still remember. But tell me this: do you know anything about them? Do they have a background? Do they have specific traits that really make then different persons, and not just little differences that only make the comic roles possible? Did you had hopes or expectations about them during the story? I wish I had, but the total of few minutes they were on the screen wasn't enough for me. The problem is I could ask the same questions about every of the uselessly aboundant number of characters that were in that movie. The were all empty and shallow - and how could they not? They all had minutes, and minutes fragmented in a pointlessly long movie.

The only thing that looked like Anderson is the initial scene with the train, the only very beautiful scenes are those with Scarlett Johansson speaking at the window (that part made me hope it could actually go back to be a real movie.. but nope). The rest is confusion.

The façade, the meta-movie: I would have loved to get those in an Anderson movie. This was not it. The guy had too much budget and too many actors who want be able to say that they worked with Anderson, and he just said yes to everyone. He said so many yes that movie died of it.

And if I sound sour is because I am, an Anderson movie used to be a movie worth watching no matter what. I'm afraid we lost that. Fuck Hollywood.

Sorry if this was a bit to long. 🤷‍♂️

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd argue that the three little witches have the most complete story arc in the film. From the overlapping babbling introduction, to coming to terms with the death of their mom, to saying goodbye. It's a decent arc.

The other characters are little more than cardboard cutouts, and designed that was as it was the stage acting style at the time.

[–] ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah they had probably the most complete arc, that says it all.

I'm not sure what you mean with the next sentence: you mean that cardboard cutouts are fine because this what movies used to be in that age?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He's emulating the very stilted theatrical style of the 1950s and 1960s. It was called "Theater of the Absurd". So I was pretty OK with it, unfortunately only theater nerds are going to get what he was going for there. LOL.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/izX5dIzI2RE

https://piped.video/L5vhQ4d_KMI

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.