|
Opinion Summary
|
The Thrill of Infatuation
by metalluk | Jul 14 '05
Pros: Some interesting literary devices from Noël Coward; good noir atmosphere; good psychological study
Cons: Pathetically overblown infatuation masquerading as passionate romance; static camera
Return to opinion
OVERALL RATING
|
|
|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Confusion. (Reply to this comment)
by metalluk
I think, metalluk, you confuse romance with love and sex.
Obviously, you didn't read what I wrote. I state explicitly that love is a complex thing. I go on to say that we should not judge the quality of the relationship based on only the issue of sexual intimacy. I state, "Modern audiences put perhaps too much emphasis on sexuality as a component of romance." I then discuss the relationship from several other vantage points, including emotional depth, intellectual rapport, and shared history. Obviously, you are disinterested in what I actually said and are merely inventing reasons to criticize.
And BRIEF ENCOUNTER is one of the most classical of romances.
I don't review films based on whether the film has standing as a "classic" in the eyes of other critics. My job is to interpret and evaluate a film as I experienced it.
On the practical side, adultery has always been the cardinal British sin, much more so than in the United States. Perhaps that is why you prefer the "wink and a nod" attributed to the Italians and French in this matter.
I said nothing of the kind. You are again trying to put words in my mouth so that you can then criticize what you pretend I have said.
Others, however, may find your attitude toward BRIEF ENCOUNTER's virtues Very, indeed, Most Helpful.
So, you rate reviews based on whether they coincide with your view of the film, not whether the review is well-written, informative, useful to readers in general. That, of course, is not the basis for rating reviews specified by Epinions.
It is obvious to me that you are engaged in a campaign of harassment based on some motivation that has nothing to do with the quality of my reviews or what I actually say in the reviews. I find your comments neither helpful nor unbiased. I again urge you to desist in your small-mindedness.
|
Jul 17 '05
9:21 am PDT
|
|
Re: Confusion. (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray,  in Movies
A very harsh comment. I thought that the 1940s were the height of Freudian influence, indeed, for me "pre-Freudian" ends some time before the First World War, and sex and romance are not easily disentangled.
|
Jul 17 '05
9:08 am PDT
|
|
Re: Confusion. (Reply to this comment)
by metalluk
My guess is that women will still find BRIEF ENCOUNTER more moving than men such as yourself do.
Interestingly enough, men rate this film higher than do women, according to the data at IMDB. Women know better than to view the shallow relationship depicted in this film as genuine love.
|
Jul 15 '05
11:45 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Another (Reply to this comment)
by metalluk
I will be doing both of Lean's Dickens adaptations during the summer but not In Which We Serve.
|
Jul 15 '05
4:54 pm PDT
|
|
Confusion. (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
I think, metalluk, you confuse romance with love and sex. You are quite right, in so far as you go, but it is the very fact that sex is sublimated and that (as you indicate) love, in a true sense, has not had time to develop, which makes BRIEF ENCOUNTER classic romance.
And BRIEF ENCOUNTER is one of the most classical of romances. It's all about feelings, expressed and suppressed.
My guess is that women will still find BRIEF ENCOUNTER more moving than men such as yourself do.
On the practical side, adultery has always been the cardinal British sin, much more so than in the United States. Perhaps that is why you prefer the "wink and a nod" attributed to the Italians and French in this matter.
BRIEF ENCOUNTER was also significant because these are ordinary middleclass people in a society, which at the time, still tended to present romance as something experienced by elevated types. You seem to hint of that in your criticism.
Finally, I would note that, in 1945, and for a couple of decades following, Adultery was the ONLY grounds for divorce in British Law. Therefore, what the protagonists of this brief encounter were contemplating was fraught with possibilities of guilt, shame AND public humiliation.
The fact, metulluk, that you decided in a post-Freudian time not to worry your noodle about such tribulations is immaterial to the movie, and beside the point.
Others, however, may find your attitude toward BRIEF ENCOUNTER's virtues Very, indeed, Most Helpful.
Regards.
[Macresarf1]
|
Jul 15 '05
1:41 pm PDT
|
|
Another (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray, in Movies
"you had to be there," I think, that is in a time of higher repression and suppresion, though the movie was made before I was born.
I'd have never thought of the look as noirish, but despite a lack of threatening shadows, the loneliness/bleakness of an urban setting makes sense of the surprising characterization.
If you're taking requests, I'd be especially interested in your views on "Sound Barrier" while you're in Leansville. (And "Great Expectations," too.)
|
Jul 14 '05
3:59 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.