#film comparison

[goturtongue]

David Cronenberg's Videodrome (1983) vs. Jane Schoenbrun's I Saw the TV Glow (2024)

[burningvelvet]

Quickly and poorly reviewing and ranking adaptations of Jane Eyre (1996, 1997, 2006, 2011) by their pros and cons:

1996 pros:

Best fire scene, easily. It actually gave me that excited feeling that good cinema gives a person. Much of the cinematic art was enjoyable altogether, including the costumes.

This film probably has ond of the best Bertha's in my opinion. She's truly sympathetic, beautiful, and fierce. probably tied for my favorite Bertha actress with 2006. She and Poole are given little time in the story, however.

Most adaptations shit on St. John. Here, that isn't the case. What little time he has is spent in making him much more appealing than I've ever seen him, both physically and characteristically. I like this, because many forget that Jane did love him in her way, and he is supposed to be attractive and nice despite his zealotism.

1996 has the best Adèle, which is amazing for me as a big Adèle fan. There is more focus on her and her relationships with Jane/Rochester. I particularly love the scene where J draws R and Adèle tries to play cupid a little, and when Adèle is offended when the ladies insult Jane.

Best Lowood plot by far. This is the first time I've been able to stand the Young Jane scenes, and little time was devoted to her early life with the Reeds, just enough to let us know she was abused. I like this choice. The young actresses playing Jane and Helen were the best and most rebelious I've seen yet. Their hair cutting scene brought tears to my eyes, which rarely ever happens for me.

Good Blanche plotline. I absolutely love the cinematography/aesthetic & set design.

1996 cons:

the actors are individually endearing in some ways (the scene of Jane and the mirror is particularly touching, as is their reunion). However, The biggest downside to this adaptation is that the chemistry between Jane and Rochester was lacking in my opinion. this is particularly notable in their meeting scene and first proposal scene.

William Hurt is a fantastic actor, and he's likeable, but he's not my favorite Rochester ever. He's alright. On a rewatch I could see myself warming to him more.

I love Charlotte Gainsbourg more for her music than her acting. Granted, she was young here like Jane is supposed to be, so I do not blame her. Visually, aside from her height, I can absolutely see her as Jane. As the film went on I warmed to her acting style; Jane Eyre is a hard role to perform due to her inwardness. I don't think she was horrible, but Anna Paquin (of later True Blood fame) as Young Jane Eyre somewhat outshined Gainsbourg.

I was disappointed in Adèle being sent away to school before the disaster and her not coming back in the end (why couldn't they have had her running with Pilot in the landscape shot!!!).

1997 pros:

Maybe the most accurate Jane and Rochester. I wasn't expecting to like him at all but he blew me away. excellent chemistry between the actors. The dancing scene was very captivating, as was the scene with him jumping from the walkway, their outdoor talks, him chasing her down the stairs — really, I was impressed, because I thought I'd hate this film. Like in the novel and in 96, both actors are a bit conventionally unattractive (well, compared to 11 and to some extent 06) - and like them, the characters grow on you.

BEST ST. JOHN (although 2006 has the best Rivers sisters) - St. John is described as being nice though serious, and looking like a statue of a Greek God with all the coldness AND beauty - and this movie is the only one who relatively understood that assignment (96 came close emphasizing his niceness). Most adaptations adapt his coldness but not his conventional Eurocentric good looks, which not only symbolize his colonizer attribute but also his appeal to Jane and the others. It's also important to have a conventionally handsome actor play St. John just as it's important to have a conventionally less attractive Jane Eyre because one theme of the novel is the critique of Victorian physiognomy & beauty; Jane/Rochester being unconventionally attractive is a contrast to Bertha, St. John, Blanche, Georgiana being attractive, so I think this element is not inconsequential. The difficult part is that beauty is highly subjective, so relying on conventional standards is key, as is the reminder that Victorian standards were a bit different from our own.

good Lowood plotline, good Gateshead plotline, fantastic Adèle with lots of adorableness & miraculous though OOC bonding between her and Rochester, fantastic costuming (though I don't know about accuracy), good Blanche plotline overall. Probably my favorite Bertha plotline for being sufficiently creepy.

1997 cons:

this isn't really a con for me but many people may dislike 97 Rochester for being passionate to the point of coming off crazy, and physical domineering as when he grabs Jane when she tries to leave — however, this does kind of fit for canonical Rochester & I don't mind it since he's supposed to be that way, but this is still arguably a con nevertheless. he does come off as too forward but i get they were trying to capture the whole overpassionate thing. it does come off as a little more toxic than other depictions perhaps!

I have very few complaints overall. I don't think the chemistry is as appealing as 2006, but it is accurate. I wish there was more Adèle, but you can't have everything.

The posters are bad and make the actors look worse than they are which subsequently turns people away. I think 1996 was marketed a bit better but that 2006 also suffers from bad poster syndrome which had an effect on me also. Presentation is important; marketing and advertising are also important in cinema. The aesthetic isn't as good as 1996 although I don't think the visuals are bad overall.

Jane is a little dissociative seeming, which can be off-putting for myself and other viewers I assume, but to be fair she is described as being like a weird little elf creature in the book, and the actress plays this very well, actually looking quite ill when Rochester asks if she is.

2006 pros:

Best chemistry between Jane/Rochester by far and for this reason will always be my favorite because it actually made me fall in love with Rochester in the end though I didn't like his portrayal at all at first (that's power! — and my love for this Rochester should arguably be a con for the sake of my sanity and pride). best Rochester imo and a fantastic Jane. I love love love the way they did the Rochester storytime flashbacks and fleshed out his character as a result.

Best and most enjoyable Blanche Ingram plotline by far (although no one likes the lack of Rochester-in-drag, the party scenes & insertion of the twin flame theory was delightful).

some of the best dialogue, fantastic Adèle plotline, good Bertha plotline, best Pilot, best Rosamond, good costuming, good sets/locations (the fairytale ambience of Jane walking outside before meeting Rochester! Rochester's weird study!), I like the extra focus placed on themes such as nature/genetics/science, religion, travel, sexuality, etc.

2006 cons:

I dislike the way they did the Lowood and Gateshead plots, and although the Rivers sisters were good, I resent their St. John plotline for the most part. I disliked the lack of mystery surrounding Bertha; I think they made it way too obvious & not creepy enough, especially in showing her perspective from the window and giving her lines (one line, calling Jane a whore in Spanish) which no other adaptation does. I was sorely bored before and after Thornfield and only really revived when she got back to Ferndean (although Jane's flashbacks and some of the St. John plotline [the references to love, reminding us of her inner thoughts of Rochester] kept me alive). I suppose there were prices to pay for the excellence of the Jane and Rochester moments. - in comparison these seem like small prices, but still!

2011 pros:

deciding to go with a non-linear structure was a fantastic choice though I was skeptical of it at first, good St. John plotline for the most part & which they put emphasis on, really fantastic Jane with a lot of good fierce moments & lines, maybe the best Gateshead plotline including Mrs. Reed & the Red Room scene (although the lack of red was disappointing, and the lack of explanation for the chimney monster is conflicting – was it all in her head?), good young Jane, one of the best Richard Masons, star-studded cast, good dialogue, maybe the best costuming, Aesthetic™️

2011 cons:

least favorite adele (not insulting the child actress, this is the fault of the writers/directors)

— this is where i call security to protect me from an onslaught of jane eyre 2011 fans here on tumblr. alright, maybe i should watch it again — but i was expecting a lot more. particularly from michael fassbender as mr. rochester. probably my least favorite rochester by far & the least sympathetic. this rochester captures the dark and dangerous part of him but imo not so much the higher feelings that define him. the lack of humour & lack of unrepressed passion/drama/rage is noticeable - rochester isn't supposed to be quiet; as toby stephens (2006) said in an interview, rochester never shuts up in the book, he's really too eccentric to even be adapted accurately; he has to be toned down to be realistic, but here he's muted too far. - i felt like mia was carrying all of their scenes on her back & that the chemistry really rested on her primarily.

Cinematography-wise, there are some gems in the stills (famous hand holding gif), but I dislike the overall muted palette of the film; many will think this suits the tone and in some ways I agree, however, I will always prefer color and dislike the epidemic of desaturation we've seen so often in 21st century cinema. For this reason, 96, 97, 06 all triumph against 2011 aesthetically for me personally, although I still recognize some of the artistry of 2011, it is not my preference.

My overall ranking: 2006 (primarily for Jane/Rochester), 1997 (excellent overall), 1996 (good but flawed), 2011 (I tried but overall did not enjoy it).

[fatecolossal]

TWIN PEAKS (2017) || Part 18 x Part 8. "This would look nice on your wall." Post on this painting above the bed in P18's motel, & how it evokes specific desert imagery from P8…

While the P18 desert painting features v. similar imagery to that of P8, it's not identical, & imagery of an empty desert is arguably generic enough to make any similarities incidental & not worth further comment. So why consider them linked? Well, b/c of further similarities...

Most overtly, the P18 motel sequence features the same song by The Platters, "My Prayer," that is also prominently featured in the 1956 segment of P8...

It's worth noting that the P8 desert scene that features similar desert imagery to the P18 painting is the same one where the Woodsmen materialize out of thin air. Is there, then, some suggestion of a kind of symbolic link being drawn between Cooper in P18 and the Woodsmen?

Notably, Cooper's line here—"turn off the light"—plays with the same "light" concept featured in the primary Woodsman's main line of dialogue (outside of his "poem"), "got a light?"

The connection between Coop & Diane in P18 itself arguably evokes the scenes between the Girl & Boy in P8's 1956 segment. To start, they both meet outside among trees & are framed similarly at times (as here, w the female character viewed over the male character's right shoulder)

In both, the male character asks the female character for a kiss, and again, they're framed similarly. (They arguably also share this with P1's Sam & Tracey sequence—another segment of the show w/ an apparent specific link to the show's mysterious "Judy" figure/concept, fwiw...)

After Coop & Diane sleep together, he wakes sleeping on his left side, framed similarly to the sleeping Girl from P8. Both sleeps are transformative—he wakes in a new space, by "Judy's" diner, & is called a new name, while she is violated by a creature seemingly birthed by Judy.

The remainder of P18 also shares significant elements with P8, exploring similar or the same abstractions & metaphors...

Ofc, the $1m question is what these overlapping concepts & imagery amount to; what, if anything, they might most fruitfully be said to symbolize, & how they fit together. As this all ties in to similar overarching questions about the entire TP saga, it's beyond the scope of this post, alas...

[velvet4510]

Maybe this is an inadequate comparison, but I find these two characters’ situations to be similar enough to warrant mentioning.

Think of the iconic finger-pricking scene from Sleeping Beauty - we all know it. It is quite clear that Maleficent is violating Aurora’s free will. Aurora is not in control of her own mind; Maleficent hypnotizes her. Aurora does not want to prick her finger; Maleficent forces her to do it. And as an ordinary girl with no powers of her own, she has no chance of adequately fighting back against Maleficent’s magic. Yet even in that scene, we see her inner strength. The fairies yell “don’t touch anything!” and not only does Aurora hear them, she actually moves her hand back in obedience. Then Maleficent reiterates “touch the spindle” and overpowers her will once more. And as far as I’ve read and heard, everyone who watches the film understands this. I’ve never heard any blame thrown at Aurora (though I’m sure it’s been done sometime by some ignorant viewers). Everyone understands that this isn’t her fault, that she tried her best to resist but didn’t have a chance. She gains our sympathy, not our contempt or scorn.

So why can’t everybody extend Frodo Baggins the same courtesy? Maleficent’s indomitable power over Aurora is made clear in only one scene, but the Ring’s indomitable power over Frodo is made clear throughout an entire book / three entire movies. And Frodo’s strength is made even clearer … for 6 months straight, while walking thousands of miles on foot, he still resists it and fights it all the way into Mordor, all the way into the one place where the Ring would be in danger. And yet … some people still blame Frodo for being ultimately unable to defeat the Ring’s will in Mt. Doom?! They still say it’s his fault?! They still say he was weak and useless?! One reviewer actually wrote and printed that he “should’ve been executed in Gondor” for not destroying the Ring himself?!

What is WRONG with people?!!! Aurora and Frodo’s situations are pretty much the exact same - the only difference is that Frodo had it EVEN WORSE than Aurora. Wake up and smell the coffee, for heaven’s sake!!

I can’t believe there still exists a need for this point to be made. Yet I once again stumbled across words of Frodo hate and felt I had to put this out there.

[rapturousrot]

Se7en (1995) dir. David Fincher Thanksgiving (2023) dir. Eli Roth

[ittakestwopod]

For our first Pride Month episode of 2024, we have a fun episode comparing Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022) and Muppets From Space (1999) - Two movies about LGBTQ+ characters feeling isolated and searching for meaning, acceptance, and connection from otherworldly sources.

-----

The Movies:

Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022)

Directed by Daniel Kwan & Daniel Scheinert

Written by Daniel Kwan & Daniel Scheinert

iMDb Rating: 7.8

Muppets From Space (1999)

Directed by Tim Hill

Written by Jerry Juhl, Joey Mazzarino & Ken Kaufman

iMDB Rating: 6.2

-----

Find us on:

Discord - https://discord.gg/dxgmcfj552

Tumblr - @ItTakesTwoPod

Instagram - @ItTakesTwo_pod

Facebook - @ItTakesTwoPod

Youtube - @ittakestwonz

Our website - ItTakesTwo.co.nz

-----

Content Warning:

Mentions of misgendering, violence, sexual scenes, nihilism, and death

[livesinyesterday]

David Strathairn Appreciation:

32 Years Apart (1987 - 2019)

[laurapalmerbong]

Parallel thematic imagery in El Laberinto del Fauno (2006) and Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992)

I enjoy drawing comparisons between these two. They’re both some of my absolute favorites and share a similar narrative, yet had starkly different receptions at the time of their release. While El Laberinto del Fauno has received the longest standing ovation in Cannes history (22 minutes), Fire Walk With Me was allegedly booed at the same festival. The former generally receives more artistic praise and renown as a very important film, while the latter is still fairly controversial, widely misunderstood, and often identified as a cult classic.

Both stories follow an adolescent girl navigating the cruelty of her daily life, characterized especially by a domineering father figure. The latter are both mirrored by supernatural figures that the protagonist encounters in their fantasy or dream realms. The Pale Man is a representation of Captain Vidal’s cold, murderous nature, while BOB is the evil that tormented Leland as a child and is now a part of him, leading him to serially abuse Laura.

Ofelia enters the labyrinth and is guided through her trials by the faun, similar to Mrs. Chalfont, who gives Laura the painting that allows her to explore other realms in her dreams. The faun gives Ofelia the chalk which allows her to create the door to the Pale Man’s chamber. Both guides have unclear intentions, but the lessons that both girls learn while in these temporal places gives them the knowledge they need to virtuously complete their journeys. Even dear Dale Cooper isn’t as reliable of a force as he may think himself to be. He and the faun are both with Laura and Ofelia after their lives are brought to an end. These ends both happen in the same way; they are murdered by their father figures.

Nonetheless, the happiest moments for both Ofelia and Laura come after their death, when they see their own versions of ‘heaven’, their respective versions of absolute peace and comfort. They both smile as they realize their pain is over.

“One day, the sadness will end.”

[the-celluloid-correspondent]

Monkey Man Packs a Brutal Punch: A Review

Kid, an anonymous young man who ekes out a meager living in an underground fight club where, night after night, wearing a gorilla mask, he is beaten bloody by more popular fighters for cash. After years of suppressed rage, Kid discovers a way to infiltrate the enclave of the city’s sinister elite. As his childhood trauma boils over the man who took everything from him. 

It's nothing short of a miracle that the Monkey Man has finally emerged from the depths of development purgatory. After years of languishing in the turbulent waters of Netflix's production pipeline, Jordan Peele emerged as the savior, resurrecting the project and ushering it onto the grand stage of the silver screen. However, despite the palpable excitement and joy that accompanied its long-awaited release, I find myself grappling with conflicting emotions.

On one hand, the film's stylistic choices, characterized by the relentless use of shaky cam, uncomfortably close-up cinematography, and disjointed editing, left me feeling perpetually unsettled and, at times, downright nauseated. Throughout the entirety of its runtime, I found myself silently pleading for respite from the visual chaos, yearning for clarity amidst the frenetic flurry of motion that dominated the screen. Yet, alas, my desperate entreaties were met with indifference, as the film stubbornly clung to its chosen aesthetic, heedless of its potential impact on its audience. Moreover, while the premise of the film held promise, offering the tantalizing allure of a revenge thriller, the execution ultimately fell prey to the trappings of the genre. The narrative unfolded along a disappointingly predictable trajectory, with each plot twist and turn telegraphed well in advance, robbing the story of any genuine sense of suspense or intrigue. It became increasingly evident that the film was content to tread familiar ground, relying heavily on tired tropes and clichés rather than daring to chart a more innovative and unexpected course.

However, conversely, one cannot overlook the evident passion that director, co-writer, and lead actor, Dev Patel, has poured into this project. His directorial prowess not only breathed life into the script but also elevated it to new heights through the incorporation of cultural metaphors and meticulous artistic direction. Patel's vision packs a powerful punch, particularly evident in the film's action sequences. Despite some reservations about the framing, these moments are executed with a raw and brutal intensity that hits in all the right ways Featuring unique yet visceral kills and a trio of extended action set pieces, Patel draws inspiration from the John Wick franchise while infusing the genre with his own distinctive flair. Furthermore, the film deftly navigates numerous political and social themes with remarkable finesse, seamlessly integrating them into the fabric of the narrative. Particularly commendable is its handling of trans representation, notably through the portrayal of the Hijra people, which surpasses the treatment typically found in mainstream LGBT+ media.

As anticipated, Dev Patel shines brilliantly as an action star in the first trailer. He exudes a raw, ferocious intensity befitting a formidable action hero while also conveying an emotional vulnerability that encapsulates his character's traumatic past. Sikandar Kher and Makarand Deshpande deliver compelling performances as the antagonists, showcasing their formidable acting chops. However, their characters are somewhat underutilized, particularly Deshpande, who remains mostly in the shadows over 95% of the film. There's a yearning for a deeper exploration of his character beyond merely being a background figure. On a contrasting note, Vipin Sharma's unexpected presence brings a comforting warmth and love to the screen.

In summary, "Monkey Man" packs a powerful punch as Dev Patel establishes himself in the action genre. While the film may have its shaky moments, it brims with passion and creativity. It's evident that Patel is still honing his craft, but this marks a commendable debut for the first-time director.  I can’t wait to see what he comes up with next. 

On another note, how is it possible for a man who works at an underground flight club, to still have one of the most beautiful faces in the world despite being beaten to a pulp every night? Someone teach me this sorcery. 

My Rating: B

[jaybirdscoffee]

forever thinking about D-16’s “I want to kill him.” monologue. that initial line hit so hard. it was a line that made me think There He Is. because, yeah, that’s the megatron we know. that’s the megatron that worked in the mines, and when cybertron’s government turned its back on him, his rage won out. he devoted his life to something for nothing, for a world that didn’t give a damn about him. the story may have changed, but the essence of his origin is still there.

[scurviesdisneyblog]

Belle costume designs ➙ final film

[fatecolossal]

THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY (1961, Ingmar Bergman) x THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS... (1871, John Tenniel for Lewis Carroll). While Bergman's title is very close to Carroll's, it has an independent, Biblical origin—and yet the similarity of these sequences is striking, suggesting clear influence...

PERSONA (1966, Bergman) x THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, & WHAT ALICE FOUND THERE (1871, Tenniel's original illustration for Carroll of Alice facing her reverse image & moving thru the mirror). This iconic image from PERSONA likewise seems to be clearly influenced by Carroll & Tenniel's ALICE works...

It seems fitting Carroll should inspire Bergman; both shared an interest in what lies beneath individual & social veneers, exploring it w/ elliptical, fantastical art. In the case of PERSONA, the exploration includes ALICE-esque touches of mirrors, mushrooms, madness, tea, & more...

Carroll's works have cast a long cultural shadow, & it's common to see their influence in classic films—including, seemingly, in works by Hitchcock, Rivette, Polanski, & more. Below, echoes in Kubrick's THE SHINING (whose source book by King expressly references ALICE, fwiw).

Given that TWIN PEAKS begins with rabbit references & ends with an enigmatic Alice, it's natural to impute to it an influence by Carroll's works. (But a further exploration of that topic will have to wait for another day.)

[sonyaromina]

Portra 400 vs. Portra 800 - Which 35mm Film To Invest In

Discover the differences between Kodak Portra 400 and Portra 800 35mm film in our detailed comparison.

Choosing the right kind of film for your creative pursuits can make a difference in what you capture. The desired results are impacted by your photography skills but also the type of film you decide to go with. Here we’re going to explore two popular Kodak Portra 35 mm films; Portra 400 and Portra 800, comparing their characteristics and helping you decide which one might be a better investment…

[texaschainsawmascara]

Carrie (1976) / The Virgin Suicides (1999)

[ittakestwopod]

This week, we are comparing But I'm a Cheerleader! (1999) and The Miseducation of Cameron Post (2018), two films about teenage girls being sent to conversion camps for LGBTQ+ youth.

-----

The Movies:

But I’m a Cheerleader! (1999)

Directed by Jamie Babbit

Written by Brian Wayne Peterson & Jamie Babbit

iMDb Rating: 6.8

The Miseducation of Cameron Post (2018)

Directed by Desiree Akhavan

Written by Desiree Akhavan & Cecilia Frugiuele

Based on the novel by Emily M. Danforth

iMDB Rating: 6.6

-----

Find us on:

Discord - https://discord.gg/dxgmcfj552

Tumblr - @ItTakesTwoPod

Instagram - @ItTakesTwo_pod

Facebook - @ItTakesTwoPod

Youtube - @ittakestwonz

Our website - ItTakesTwo.co.nz

-----

Content Warning:

Discussions of conversion therapy, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, genital mutilation, suicide, transphobia, queerphobia, homophobia, sexual content

[madisoncounty]

"and then you look at it, and it looks... otherworldly. this is denis. he just creates this shape. it's not perfect. it's timeless. it reminds me of... do you remember arrival? you know those big alien creatures? that's the shape." — rebecca ferguson in an interview with hollywood insider