u/Razor_Emmanuel

This is a film I have had on my radar for quite a bit now, I knew nothing about it, all I knew was that it was good, and I wanted to know as little as possible going in, and it was such a lovely film.

Everything about the film was just so sincere, it was impossible to not have a smile on your face at the end.
I really liked MacIntyre's arc, he starts the film practically calling himself a fake Scotsman who travels down to the village to get convince the locals to replace it with an oil refinery, but you can feel how the village grows on him, and how Mac starts connecting with the village and the people. He enters the village looking like a regular American businessman but as the film progresses he grows some facial hair, his clothes become a lot more casual, and by the end, he looks like he blends in right with the locals of the village. Danny's arc was also very endearing, he was so lovably awkward but also well intentioned, and I just found out his actor 30 years later would play the Twelfth Doctor in Dr. Who.

Happer and Ben were also really interesting, Happer was surprisingly sympathetic, unrealistically even for an oil company CEO, but the arc of Happer and Ben really reminded me of a fable I once heard. I am of Eastern European background, in my youth I heard a fable:
There was once a Czar of Russia, and he was depressed, so depressed he was contemplating suicide, his government tried to do everything to cheer him up but could not, but then found the solution, if they find a man who is truly happy, and give the Czar his shirt to wear, and it will cure him. The Czar's circle looked through the entire country looking for a man who is truly happy, and found nobles and aristocrats who own so much, but each and every single one of them had an issue that prevented them from being truly happy. When they were about to give up, they did it, they found a man who against all odds was truly happy, but it turned out he was so poor he could not even afford a shirt.
The moral of the fable was that there was the Czar of Russia, an emperor of a massive country who had everything he could dream of, and he was depressed, and a poor man who could not even afford a shirt was the happiest man in the entire country, possessing something the Czar could not.
I think this fable fits the themes of Happer and Ben like a glove, Happer was a rich CEO of an oil company and yet was depressed and longed for meaning, while Ben lived in a small shack on the coast, and he had everything he wanted in it, he was a truly happy man.

If I am to give one gripe about the film it is that a plot about an oil company buying up a small town in Scotland and (most of) the villagers complying feels a tad jarring in our current climate. Although a counterpoint is that as above, it does not necessarily portray wealth and immediate compliance as necessarily good, and at the end Happer has a change of heart and choses not to replace it with a refinery.

The filmmaking and cinematography were also really well done. Bill Forsyth and Chris Menges did an amazing job capturing the beautiful nature of the Scottish coast, as well as the score by Mark Knopfler, all culminating in such a cozy and whymsical atmosphere.
Overall, Local Hero was such a good-feeling film, it is a great film to watch to have a good time.

Hello!

This is my second time posting in this forum, but I have come across a bit of an issue in my journey with Judaism. I am located in a city in Australia far away from literally everywhere, and a near-nonexistant Jewish community. I am 18M still living with a parent, and not in a position where moving out is an option yet. I have applied to study in a university in Melbourne, which has a much larger Jewish community and am hoping that I get accepted and move there to study, then I can connect with a proper Jewish community.

But in my current position, I don't know what to do, there are only three synagogues (one reform, one orthodox and one chabad house) in my city but they are very far away from where I live, and I HAVE reached out to one of them (the reform one) and spoken to a Rabbi. But I seriously do not know what to do with myself, and I put "conversion" in quotes because I have not even started it yet, 90% of all my connection to Judaism has been through the internet.

Is there something I can do besides wait for now and hope I get into Melbourne?

PS. I am a bit uncertain about what branch of Judaism I would follow, I think I might be more liberal, although I am a bit curious about the Orthodox movement, but am a bit scared of reaching out or that it might be too conservative for me.

Edit: pardon if the above sounded needlessly complicating, I think I might have a bit of internalised sectarianism as an ex-christian.

https://preview.redd.it/3gjugqm29qgh1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=768289499714f47c9c278a5e49438dc3e39a201d

I've mainly had my eyes on the criterion collection (despite living in a country where they are really hard to get), and I improvised whenever I wasn't able to get a film I really wanted to, and actually found prints better than criterion ones! Such as Eureka's Shoah print and the Second Run Wajda's War Trilogy.

I just finished the full series plus the film and...

What happened to Finn Shelby, he was present in all six seasons until Duke just decided he was no longer welcome, he is not present in the scene where all the Shelbys are back at the caravans again, does not appear, and is not even MENTIONED in the film.

So... that's it???

He was present the entire series, and I'd say it was time he was finally given some spotlight, we see how he matured over the series, but then this guy who only shows up in the last two episodes, tells Finn he's disowned, Duke does not even have the authority of Tommy then, and he just disappears, and is not even in the film, not even like an antagonist?

I'm gonna be real, Duke has not even been a compelling character who has not even had the same amount of screentime or development as Finn, and HE get's to be the centre of attention instead?

Has Finn really been done THAT dirty?

Edit: I just realised I misspelt my post title, it is missing a "the" -_-

Just recently, I have finished a show about a wealthy family who lost everything, and the one son who had no choice but to keep them all together. It's Arrested Development.

Ever since I had finished Community (2009-2015) a while back part of me has been yearning for another show to fill it's space, so I decided to check out Arrested Development and I am so glad I did. I absolutely adored seasons 1-3, I thought the writing was incredible. I loved the humour and how running gags were used, "There's always money in the banana stand" is one of the best executed jokes I have ever seen. Overall, I loved the series, or at least the first three seasons.

I have mixed feelings about Season 4, I found out in retrospect I watched the "Fateful Consequences" cut which was inferior to the original version, but I found myself actually enjoying early Season 4, but it began to drag on a bit in the second half. I still thought it was okay for the most part, but then Season 5...

From the start something did not feel right, but the longer it went on the worse it got, and at the end it felt like a chore to watch. On a different note, at the same time as I was watching Arrested Development, I was also watching the espionage thriller series Homeland. Homeland is one of those series that has 50 minute episodes, and it may be a stretch to compare the two, but somehow an average episode of Homeland season 6 felt faster than an episode of Arrested Development Season 5.

The jokes stopped being funny, so many of the characters got badly treated and Flanderised that it almost felt like character assassination, George Sr. went from being the manipulative patriarch of the family to a complete joke, Tobias always was a tad dumb, but he became unbearable in this season, G.O.B. became a two dimensional joke as well, and Maeby was just turned into a sociopath. I also dislike how Oscar and Lindsay were treated and seemingly written out.
I get that part of Arrested Development was all the characters trying to go behind each other's backs, but this season it happened so much it stopped being funny, when it gets to the point that the plot of the entire season would be solved if they just told the truth, it got ridiculous. The entire Fakeblock arc was SO drawn out and could have been solved if the characters just communicated.

Overall, I did not like Season 5, but I still loved Arrested Development, and if I am to recommend this show to anyone, I will recommend they stop watching after Season 3, which was actually a pretty good conclusion and honestly should have been.

PS. If I had a nickel for every time I watched a series where Jason Bateman plays a straight man main character who is a businessman who works for an illegal organisation, and the series falls off the deep end at the end and is also made by Netflix, I would have two nickels, which isn't a lot but it's strange that it happened twice.

This is partially a follow up to the post I made four days ago.

2001: A Space Odyssey is the one film I put off for the longest of any other so far. I had it in my collection on both DVD and blu-ray ever since I got into and started collecting film four years ago. I tried to watch it then when I was young, but stopped after 30 minutes. Years later, I learned about Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita and how Stanley Kubrick adapted the disturbing novel into a dark comedy, my sources of information made it seem as if because of Kubrick's film people missed the entire point of the novel, because of that I chose not to watch any of Kubrick's films as a sort of condemnation . I found out in the past four days through discussing this topic that I was actually misinformed, and my entire crux against Kubrick was made from a false pretence. (I even realised my own hypocrisy of condemning Kubrick for his Lolita adaptation, and at the same time being fine with Alejandro Jodorowsky, who has a much more sound argument against him for "immorality")
So I finally decided to give Stanley Kubrick an honest shot by watching 2001 and... wow.

I cannot believe I put off this film for as long as I did, it was incredible. 2001 feels like one of those films where it gets better after you watch it and sit with it in your head, and also an abstract film, one that can be interpreted in many ways with different themes which you can pick and choose.
My personal interpretation is that the film is about the advancement of man as well as technology. The obsidian slab (I found out writing this is called "the Monolith") represents the unknow and also advancement, and each time it appears eerie music plays. It first appears to the apes in prehistoric times, the apes are at first terrified of the slab but gradually calm down and inspect it wanting to figure out what it is, which continues to the scene where, to Strauss' I. Sunrise: Also, March Zarathustra, a puzzled ape realises it could use a bone as a weapon, representing the first ever blip of what would become human intelligence. The slab then appears again at the moon, discovered by the humans, which prompts the expedition into Jupiter, and appearing when David reaches Jupiter, finally when David becomes the infant, which advanced to such a level, we do not even understand as the viewers. HAL-9000 feels a lot more revenant today with the existence of chatbots and generative AI. My interpretation of HAL's action is of a computer that got too smart and started acting like a human. I believe that HAL was not intending on being malevolent, but was programmed too well, that it got rid of the other crew members because it saw them as a threat to itself, and by extension the mission, the downside of prioritising productivity over all else, like AI is programmed to. Probably my coldest take though, I did really like HAL's character. I really liked about 2001 was that, it did not necessarily have a "main character", that each segment of the film is almost something else, humanity's evolution from the apes, the technology and world humanity built, they voyage to jupiter and it's surreal arrival, all felt distinct.

The filmmaking itself is also really impressive to the point it holds up really well, especially for the standards of 1968! The film makes very good use of music, specifically classical music, the aforementioned I. Sunrise: Also, March Zarathustra by Richard Strauss has a a lot of leadup to a very impactful drop (I do not know my exact music terminology) plays when the ape realises it could use a bone as a weapon, the first major human advancement, and at the very end when David becomes the infant, and seemingly transcends humanity. I initially thought there were a lot of shots and scenes at the beginning, before the voyage to jupiter, that feel detached, but in the grand scheme came along incredibly and were not wasted, I realised it was like an abstract painting, where it's about about how it makes you feel.
The surreal visuals, like the scene where David reaches jupiter, the altered gravity scenes, and visual effects as a whole were also really good and impressively accomplished, once again especially for 1968, when digital effects did not even exist yet. The cinematography and editing were also very well done, with hard colours and the distinct symmetrical imagery that is a key part of Kubrick's style.

Overall, Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was a wonderful film which I am so glad I have finally seen, and I am glad that I was convinced to finally give Kubrick a shot.

What do you think of the film, and even Kubrick as a director?

A question I have been asking myself for a bit.

I am someone who really loves film, and knows a LOT about film... but I don't actually watch that many films.
My most recent films I have watched are The Only Son (1936) and Late Spring (1949) both by Yasujiro Ozu. They are the only two films I have seen by Ozu, and I think they were incredibly, to the point I might have a new favourite director as of now. I intend to watch more films by Ozu, I think I have enough of a grasp to speak what I think about his style, but I got thinking.

I was recently part of a discussion on this forum about Stanley Kubrick's Lolita, this film has impaired my want to watch any films by Kubrick, for I was aware of the novel it was adapting, to my chagrin I have not read it either, and how the film effected the perception of the novel in a way that went against the novel's entire message. But it made me realise, besides Spartacus, I have not seen a single Kubrick film, me, someone who claims to love cinema, has not seen a single Kubrick film.
Also, as of writing this post, Krzysztof Kieślowski is my flair, and yet as of now I only have seen Dekalog 1-7 and pieced it with A Short Film About Killing.

This got me thinking, am I a film fraud? I have read more about films than actually watched films, I try to get into directors like Ozu and Alejandro Jodorowsky, and yet I neglect directors like Kubrick, and several other influential directors who I can't name off the top of my head.
I also haven't seen certain films for ethical reasons, I do not separate art and artist, Kubrick is not AS bad, but in comparison I hate Roman Polanski for that reason.
I also watch films infrequently, I find I often need to be in a good headspace to help me process the film, which I need to prepare myself for.

I feel like a fraud, what can I do to make myself a more legitimate film buff?

Edit: I get I sound like a paranoiac who cares too much about how they are perceived, but the reason I care so much is because I want to be as knowledgable on film as I can be, I know a lot about it but I am concerned I can't back myself up. I want to hear what others have to say on this.

I have been meaning to get into the work of Yasujiro Ozu for quite some time now, I have frequently seen Tokyo Story (1953) at the top of many "best films of all time" lists, and I wanted to watch more Japanese films that were made by directors other than Akira Kurosawa.
I wanted to watch one of Ozu's previous films before watching the film many consider his "best" so I could get an understanding of his style so I could appreciate his other films more. I was initially going to watch Late Spring (1949), but the blu-ray I ordered of it came with The Only Son (1936) which I would go on to find out is Ozu's first sound film, so I decided to watch it first, and I must say, I am really impressed.

The Only Son (1936) is a film about a mother from a rural Japanese province who decided to do whatever she could to get her son, Ryosuke into secondary education, and visits him years later when he moved, and finds him as a teacher living in poverty.
The film is a unique and successful attempt at capturing the difficulty of lower class life in and the financial hardship of it. At the beginning of the film, the mother is dismissive of higher education, because she is a widow and had insufficient money to send young Ryosuke to secondary education, but went through with it, in the hopes of helping her son have a better life. When the mother visits Ryosuke years later, he does what he can to make sure his mother has the best experience she can in Tokyo, and pulls as many strings as he can to financially afford it. The people around Ryosuke and his family are also struggling in their own ways, as one of Ryosuke's neighbours can barely afford to buy toys for their children.

My favourite part of the film is the underlying theme of anti-fatalism in the face of hopelessness and hardship. Ryosuke's mother put herself through financial hardship so her son could live better than what he was born with, later in the film after the time jump it is revealed her financial situation is even worse than at the beginning, but she refuses to give up in order to be there for her son. Ryosuke gave up hope in trying to move up, demoralised by his social standing as a teacher, and that his teacher who motivated him to purse education ended up in poverty as well cooking porkchops for a living. Despite this, Ryosuke does everything he can to do his best for his mother, and helps his neighbours when they have a medical crisis. Ryosuke throughout the film is very self-depricating believing he will never be more, but at the end of the film when shown of his potential and how life is not over just yet, he decides to not give up and study even further when his mother helped him regain hope.

In terms of filmmaking, Ozu's minimalistic style and approach to cinematography helped emphasise the emotion of the characters and I believe successfully made the film, and it's themes connect more with the audience. (Pardon if I do not have as much to say about the cinematography of this film as in my previous post here, this film struck me as one that puts more emphasis on the story and themes than cinematography (it is not bad at all, but the main draw I believe is in the story))
I really enjoyed my first Ozu film and am looking forward to watching more of his work, what do you think of Ozu's first sound film?

Greetings, this is the first time I have ever posted anything on this subreddit, or any religious forum.

I am a young man of Eastern European background in an English speaking country (not the states) who wants to convert to Judaism, I was raised secular and have never formally converted to any faith, but was always a spiritual person, when I was young I thought I was going to be Christian, but left after I realised my theological views did not align, and general disillusionment. When I finally researched Judaism, it just clicked with me, more than any other religion I have ever researched.

I want to convert to Judaism, but I am very unsure what to do, or what denomination I even would be. I live in a very isolated city where the Jewish community is almost nonexistant (I do not think I have ever met a religious jew in my life). I have actually managed to successfully reach out to a reform synagogue and am preparing to visit it, but I have began experiencing doubts to do with denominations.
For, there are parts of myself that I do not want to compromise for a religion, I would say I am an artist, and there are some topics and ideas I want to depict in my art that are quite mature, this is why I did not convert to islam, it would compromise that. This is why I have gravitated towards Reform, however the more I thought about it, I am concerned it could be disputed, not to detract any credibility from Reform Judaism, but I feel that if I want to convert to Judaism, I would want my conversion to be indisputable. (or at least as indisputible as it can be)
So I have begun to consider Orthodox Judaism, however feeling unsure about that as well due to the more strict nature of it. I am curious about Conservative/Masorti Judaism, but my city does not even have a Conservative/Masorti community.

I am also concerned that I could relapse into my former Christian beliefs, also, some members of my family have not been supportive of me pursuing Judaism. I still really want to convert to Judaism, but am unsure what to do, should I stick with the very little I have established with Reform, or should I reach out to an Orthodox group potentially at the cost of my personal integrity? The best way I can describe it is that it feels almost paralyzing. I mainly just want to become Jewish while still getting to be myself.

PS. I really do not mean to be offensive or generalise the denominations, I am sorry if I come off that way, I just feel completely lost with this. I have had a very lengthy spiritual journey and this is where I ended up.
I have been meaning to make this post for a while, I was trying to find a way to put my mind to words, and pardon again if some of the stuff I have said came off iffy.

It has truly been a while since I watched a film that was able to get to me as much as Matewan (1987). It is John Sayles' most well known work, about a union organiser who is sent to a small mining town in West Virginia in 1920, and has to help its workers against an exploitive company and the private detectives hired to break them, based on the real life Matewan massacre of 1920.
Matewan is a very emotional film, not in the sense that it will leave you in tears, but in that it is very good at setting off strong emotions within the viewer. A major theme of the film is unfairness, Sayles makes the audience watch as the workers and townspeople of Matewan are taken advantage of, how they are mistreated and even wrongfully antagonised. It was maddening to watch.

In contrast, major reoccurring point in the film is the relations between the three different groups that make of the workers: the native townspeople, the Italian immigrants, and the recently arrived African-Americans. The film starts off with a lot of racial tensions between the three, the latter two start off being treated as unwelcome foreigners and scabs by the townspeople, as they were brought in by the mining company to work instead of the local union. As the film progresses the three all begin to connect, they all realise they are not so different, and they all have a common goal. This is primarily depicted through the relationship between Mrs. Elkins and Rosaria, as they start off distrustful of each other, not accepting the other's cooking, to at the end helping each other cook to feed their children. At the end, they were all people who just wanted to be allowed to live.

The detectives are some of the most vile antagonists I have seen in a film for a long time, their actors do a great job at making them so cruel and malign. What stuck out to me the most is how they were depicted with such open immorality, the detectives had no sense of honour or dignity for others, they mock faith, and use tactics of fear and force to keep the people repressed. The detectives represent the evil that keeps people down when they are too scared to stand up, they thrive on good people doing nothing, but become less powerful when good people like the sheriff, and the protagonist stand up to them. >!This all culminates in one of the most emotionally cathartic villain defeats I have seen in a long time.!<

Up until now in the post, I have mainly been discussing the story and writing of the film, one of the strongest aspects of Matewan is the cinematography. Sayles makes good use of lighting and consistent usage of visual darkness to give the various scenes feelings of warmth and others cold, or dangerous. Something that struck out to me was the usage of colours, and how in each scene they just go together in such a harmonic way.

But to go back to the point of emotion, I think one of the reasons this film is so competent at bringing out emotion, is that the mistreatment and hardship that the workers and townspeople endure in the film still exists in the modern world. The way their are repressed and treated by tools by companies who think they are unstoppable still persists, and as much as I would like to say that companies no longer hire private detectives, practically mercenaries, to break people who stand up, there are less fortunate parts of the world where that is still the case.

Overall, I am really impressed by how good and emotional of a film Matewan was, and I look forward to watching more films by John Sayles after this.
What do you think of the film?