Posted by Mitch at
February 2, 2005 06:50 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
div>
I am always so glad to run into other people who feel about that movie the way I do. I can't even say WHY I love it so ... there isn't just one reason.
My friend Mitchell said, in regards to the scene at the beginning when Rosie Perez (amazing performance) is dragged away from the plane: "It sets a high water mark for any mother-screaming-for-her-children-during-a-disaster scene in a movie. That's it. It's never done better, and you will have to top HER."
I so agree.
Anyway. I could go on and on and on ... I'll probably write more about it.
What was it about the film that really got to you, Mitch?
Red: What got to me? It's been a few years, and I need to see it again (and I will, now!), but it was a general sense that they got it right; it was one of very few movies that look at life, death, loss, surviving and more life, and *got it right*, illuminating things that I'd sensed but never really thought about. I DO need to see it again!
It came out (or at least, I saw it) about the same time as Kieslawski's "Blue", and I tend to think of the two together; brillint movies about just...plain...coping and living.
I think the truth of those movies is in what ISN'T said. It leaves a lot up to the audience ... so we can keep re-visiting these movies and discovering new things.
I am always so glad to run into other people who feel about that movie the way I do. I can't even say WHY I love it so ... there isn't just one reason.
My friend Mitchell said, in regards to the scene at the beginning when Rosie Perez (amazing performance) is dragged away from the plane: "It sets a high water mark for any mother-screaming-for-her-children-during-a-disaster scene in a movie. That's it. It's never done better, and you will have to top HER."
I so agree.
Anyway. I could go on and on and on ... I'll probably write more about it.
What was it about the film that really got to you, Mitch?
Posted by: red at February 2, 2005 08:51 AMRed: What got to me? It's been a few years, and I need to see it again (and I will, now!), but it was a general sense that they got it right; it was one of very few movies that look at life, death, loss, surviving and more life, and *got it right*, illuminating things that I'd sensed but never really thought about. I DO need to see it again!
It came out (or at least, I saw it) about the same time as Kieslawski's "Blue", and I tend to think of the two together; brillint movies about just...plain...coping and living.
Does that make sense?
Posted by: mitch at February 2, 2005 12:13 PMI love Blue, too. I definitely see what you mean.
I think the truth of those movies is in what ISN'T said. It leaves a lot up to the audience ... so we can keep re-visiting these movies and discovering new things.
Posted by: red at February 2, 2005 02:38 PM