martyb-3
Entrou em abr. de 2000
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos6
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações4
Classificação de martyb-3
"The Falls" had the potential to be exploitative and inflammatory, considering its dual subjects: Mormons and homosexuality. Thankfully, it is neither. Credit is due to writer and director Jon Garcia, who deftly navigates a minefield of controversy to create a moving story of one young missionary's personal journey. It is a journey that is admittedly hard to capture in under two hours, so this telling is, of a necessity, elliptical.
Mormons will view this film in a completely different light than non-Mormons, despite the director's care in trying not to offend potential audiences. A touching film about two missionaries is not the same thing as a film about two missionaries touching.
Garcia firmly believes that he has made the former: the story of a personal journey and finding love. A film that is respectful of the religion that makes that love fraught with difficulty. And indeed he has.
Nevertheless, many devout Mormons will see the latter: a profane, sacrilegious exploitation of one of the proudest products of the Church--its missionaries. Garcia, who took great pains to learn about the Church, even so far as taking the missionary lessons and attending services for months (with no pretense), may not fully appreciate one peculiarity about Mormons.
Ever since 1838, when Governor Lilburn W. Boggs of Missouri issued the infamous "Extermination Order" to shoot any Mormon within the state on sight, Latter-Day Saints have lived with a siege mentality: it's us against the world. (This was most recently evident in the campaign of Mitt Romney.) Mormons are suspicious of any outsider who tries to portray their faith. They seek to influence, control, and even orchestrate such portrayals in most cases to assure that they and their faith are not disparaged.
Missionaries are to devout Mormons what servicemen are to patriotic Americans: they are heroes beyond reproach, at least while they are serving. The Mormon discomfort with Garcia's film will stem not so much from the subject of homosexuality, which most Mormons are now aware exists among even their devoutest members, but the fact that a less-than-sacred portrait of the Church's missionaries has been painted for all the world to see.
The Mormons' problem with this film and Garcia's triumph are one and the same: the brutal honesty of the story. Missionaries are not all angels. And they are not all the self-assured messengers of the Gospel that they attempt to be, sometimes with great personal struggle. But Garcia exposes the weaknesses of his characters lovingly. He does not belittle them or shame them or parade them as evidence of Mormonism's failure.
I understand the Mormon discomfort and the belief that, while some missionaries struggle with their sexual feelings, to indulge them WHILE serving a mission is a disgrace, never mind what happens afterward. But I also understand Garcia's message that it takes a brave and self-assured person, missionary or no, to stand up to such a formidable force as one's faith and family combined, and say "I am not ashamed of who I am."
Mormons will view this film in a completely different light than non-Mormons, despite the director's care in trying not to offend potential audiences. A touching film about two missionaries is not the same thing as a film about two missionaries touching.
Garcia firmly believes that he has made the former: the story of a personal journey and finding love. A film that is respectful of the religion that makes that love fraught with difficulty. And indeed he has.
Nevertheless, many devout Mormons will see the latter: a profane, sacrilegious exploitation of one of the proudest products of the Church--its missionaries. Garcia, who took great pains to learn about the Church, even so far as taking the missionary lessons and attending services for months (with no pretense), may not fully appreciate one peculiarity about Mormons.
Ever since 1838, when Governor Lilburn W. Boggs of Missouri issued the infamous "Extermination Order" to shoot any Mormon within the state on sight, Latter-Day Saints have lived with a siege mentality: it's us against the world. (This was most recently evident in the campaign of Mitt Romney.) Mormons are suspicious of any outsider who tries to portray their faith. They seek to influence, control, and even orchestrate such portrayals in most cases to assure that they and their faith are not disparaged.
Missionaries are to devout Mormons what servicemen are to patriotic Americans: they are heroes beyond reproach, at least while they are serving. The Mormon discomfort with Garcia's film will stem not so much from the subject of homosexuality, which most Mormons are now aware exists among even their devoutest members, but the fact that a less-than-sacred portrait of the Church's missionaries has been painted for all the world to see.
The Mormons' problem with this film and Garcia's triumph are one and the same: the brutal honesty of the story. Missionaries are not all angels. And they are not all the self-assured messengers of the Gospel that they attempt to be, sometimes with great personal struggle. But Garcia exposes the weaknesses of his characters lovingly. He does not belittle them or shame them or parade them as evidence of Mormonism's failure.
I understand the Mormon discomfort and the belief that, while some missionaries struggle with their sexual feelings, to indulge them WHILE serving a mission is a disgrace, never mind what happens afterward. But I also understand Garcia's message that it takes a brave and self-assured person, missionary or no, to stand up to such a formidable force as one's faith and family combined, and say "I am not ashamed of who I am."
The production values aren't the best in this film, but one rarely expects better of a film festival entry. Seeing beyond that is what festival fare is all about, in my opinion.
Tha said, I was easily taken in by Paul and his emotional struggle. At first, I was put off by the ambivalent and quirky behavior of Paul and the others, but I began to recognize that this was a representation of the nuances of real life, as opposed to the packaged fare that Hollywood usually dishes out. What another reviewer found confusing to me was an invitation to get inside the heads of characters who, like real people, weren't exactly sure what they wanted or who they were trying to be.
The relationships were complex and yes, frustrating to figure out at times. But the acting was good--complexity is mush harder to convey than the broad-brush emotion that Hollywood paints larger than life. I loved Mecir--superbly acted--his earnestness nearly brought me to tears. I thought the ultimate outcome of Paul's relationship with him (and with Agnes) mirrored real life as well. And just when I thought Arnault was a shallow caricature, the character surprised me with intelligence (if cynical) and depth.
I agree that the third roommate (name?) disappeared mysteriously in the middle of the film; it had seemed he would play a greater role at the outset. The peripheral characters were neither well developed nor exceptionally acted, but are no reason to dis the film.
The film was marred for me by the extremely self-conscious and forced 3-minute conversation near the end about class struggle, corporate greed, etc. I liked these themes in the film, but this Cliff-Notes style summation was so artificial that I--and the audience I was with--laughed out loud at every pontification, each more hysterical than the last. My immediate comment was "it's like a French parody of the French!" Profound thoughts and deep convictions, spewed with piercing emotion--ultimately lasting as long as a cigarette and washed away with a glass of Bordeaux.
Except for that camp exchange, I very much enjoyed the movie and would see it again.
Tha said, I was easily taken in by Paul and his emotional struggle. At first, I was put off by the ambivalent and quirky behavior of Paul and the others, but I began to recognize that this was a representation of the nuances of real life, as opposed to the packaged fare that Hollywood usually dishes out. What another reviewer found confusing to me was an invitation to get inside the heads of characters who, like real people, weren't exactly sure what they wanted or who they were trying to be.
The relationships were complex and yes, frustrating to figure out at times. But the acting was good--complexity is mush harder to convey than the broad-brush emotion that Hollywood paints larger than life. I loved Mecir--superbly acted--his earnestness nearly brought me to tears. I thought the ultimate outcome of Paul's relationship with him (and with Agnes) mirrored real life as well. And just when I thought Arnault was a shallow caricature, the character surprised me with intelligence (if cynical) and depth.
I agree that the third roommate (name?) disappeared mysteriously in the middle of the film; it had seemed he would play a greater role at the outset. The peripheral characters were neither well developed nor exceptionally acted, but are no reason to dis the film.
The film was marred for me by the extremely self-conscious and forced 3-minute conversation near the end about class struggle, corporate greed, etc. I liked these themes in the film, but this Cliff-Notes style summation was so artificial that I--and the audience I was with--laughed out loud at every pontification, each more hysterical than the last. My immediate comment was "it's like a French parody of the French!" Profound thoughts and deep convictions, spewed with piercing emotion--ultimately lasting as long as a cigarette and washed away with a glass of Bordeaux.
Except for that camp exchange, I very much enjoyed the movie and would see it again.
Being one of the five people who missed Grease (the other four were clinically brain-dead), I was enthralled with the performance of this previously unknown (to me) actress, who I had to believe was hearing-impaired. I loved her and wondered where I could see more of her.
Unfortunately, I appeared to be one of only five people to ever see THIS movie, and the other four were also clinically brain-dead, so I couldn't ask anybody who this woman was (as I had failed to remember her name).
When I later saw Stockard Channing in some silly comedic role (and couldn't believe she wasn't actually hearing-impaired), I was disappointed. When I said so, a friend said "But she's always been a comedic actress."
"No!" I protested, "She is a wonderful dramatic actress! Did you ever see this movie about a deaf woman...."
I am glad to see Stockard doing dramatic work frequently now (including West Wing). I wish I could see this movie again, but it appears not to be available.
Unfortunately, I appeared to be one of only five people to ever see THIS movie, and the other four were also clinically brain-dead, so I couldn't ask anybody who this woman was (as I had failed to remember her name).
When I later saw Stockard Channing in some silly comedic role (and couldn't believe she wasn't actually hearing-impaired), I was disappointed. When I said so, a friend said "But she's always been a comedic actress."
"No!" I protested, "She is a wonderful dramatic actress! Did you ever see this movie about a deaf woman...."
I am glad to see Stockard doing dramatic work frequently now (including West Wing). I wish I could see this movie again, but it appears not to be available.