On 5/10/2023 11:38 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2023 11:47 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2023 6:38 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Self-absorbed young "influencers" Carl and Yaya drift along the fringes >>>>>>> of the entitled super-rich. The socio-political comedy TRIANGLE OF >>>>>>> SADNESS won the 2022 Cannes prize, a near-guarantee of thoughtful >>>>>>> cinematic energy. (I.e., you'll have to pay attention, and you'll want >>>>>>> to.) But, be warned, its many eccentricities include ending the whole >>>>>>> thing with a sudden (and, for me, undecipherable) cut. Recommended. >>>>>>>
I told you about this one back in February but did you pay attention? No >>>>>> you did not pay attention. You never pay attention. So here it is again. >>>>>> Now pay attention.
It’s an exceptionally dark comedy that metaphorically explores power >>>>>> dynamics in the worlds of the haves and the have nots, the Marxists and the
capitalists, the males and the females, the privileged and their servants.
Carl and Yaya, a fashion model couple who are achieving unequal levels of
success based on their beauty alone, find themselves enjoying a cruise on a
luxury yacht where the other passengers are fabulously wealthy
industrialists. The yacht’s crew is determined to cater to the passengers’
every whim and despite underlying tensions things go beautifully on this >>>>>> luxurious cruise right up until they don’t.
Taken at face value this best picture nominated film is almost a horror >>>>>> story, but in spite of that it is awfully amusing. I won’t forget this one
for a while.
FWIW the actress who played Yaya, Charlbi Dean, died last August at the age
of 32 due to sepsis caused by an old injury. I think she was going places.
And another thing that came to my attention long after I wrote all this. >>>>>> Did you pick up on the idea that because everybody went for a swim the food
was left out and it spoiled? And that is what caused the digestive >>>>>> discomfort? I missed that.
I'm sure I read enough of your post to get ToS into my queue, but, as >>>>> you know, that's as far as I go (to avoid details like the above,
however alone I am in that regard). Yeah, that's a sad note about Dean. >>>>> I'm not sure why you exonerate seasickness for the barfing. It took >>>>> me a couple of days to quasi-justify the abrupt ending (though I had a >>>>> Cannes-y sense there'd be one), and it's that the moment captured in >>>>> amber each character faced with a life decision he'd never truly make. >>>>>
I know we’ve had this semi disagreement before, but I want to ask again. >>>> What is there in what I wrote that could be considered a spoiler? There was
nothing in my original post about food poisoning and barfing. The only >>>> thing that could come close to being a spoiler is my comment that things >>>> went beautifully right up until they didn’t. Is that a spoiler? Really? >>>> C’mon.
Like you I assumed seasickness caused the barfing. And yet more than one >>>> review I read after seeing the movie indicated the culprit was food
poisoning brought on by the privileged passenger’s insistence that the crew
go for a swim. Maybe that does add to the theme that all the suffering was >>>> brought on by rich people being stupid. On the other hand, the food
poisoning sure did attack digestive tracts a little faster than seems
possible. Plus, I think the food would have had to sit out much longer than
it did in order to produce toxins. Still, food poisoning as the cause seems
to be accepted in reviews.
Wiki seems to favor seasickness, but mentions the food. On the way to
it, I happened to see another review that supposedly opined on the
matter, but was so pretentious that I discard unread whatever it said.
No, of course what you wrote isn't a 'spoiler' ...and I may be the only
person (apart from my kids, whom I trained) that would treat it so. But >>> if you want my extreme view, ask yourself what any foreknowledge of the
yacht adds to my enjoyment of the movie. Part of most any fiction
experience is the turning of unexpected corners, even inherently mundane >>> ones. I just want to get to discover the yacht naively, like you did.
(If the writer-director really meant to blame the food, seems he'd have
the barfing begin just *before* the ship started spinning.)
FWIW I just Googled “does motion sickness cause diarrhea?” and learned it
appears not to be a symptom.
Gone with the Wind tells the story of Scarlett O’Hara, a strong-willed
southern belle who fights to preserve as much of her antebellum lifestyle
as she can in the years following the American Civil War.
To me that description just orients me to the story without spoiling any
details. From reading it I know enough about the setting and the theme to
make a decision whether I might like to watch the movie. The same goes for >> learning about the yacht prior to seeing Triangle of Sadness. Knowing about >> the boat before seeing the movie doesn’t affect my enjoyment any more than >> knowing GWTW is set around the Civil War. It’s nice to know ahead of time a
little bit about what I’m getting myself into but not so much that the
story is spoiled.
The Sixth Sense tells the story of a child psychologist whose patient is a >> little boy who is convinced he can see dead people. I am fine with that.
Anybody ought to be fine with that
Also, I am fine with the fill in the blanks ending of “Triangle of
Sadness.“ Maybe you can, but I can’t think of an ending more satisfactory
than what we got. What would you have liked to see happen? A lovely head
crushed by a rock? A lovely head not crushed by a rock? Did you need to see >> the survivors rescued by resort staff? Did you need to see what they did
next? Hadn’t the movie’s themes of class and privilege and worthiness
already been explored well enough?
I don't remember the diarrhea. (Maybe just as well.) If it was first
-- or even prominent -- yeah, that'd bolster the ptomaine contention.
Re "harmless" spoilers, note again that this is an issue of standards,
and that most people's exonerate, e.g., your various examples. So, any subsequent contention here is about *my* rarefied proclivities...
The informal rule-of-thumb for my 'no spoilers' blurbs is to disclose
only details that the director wants out of the way asap. Iirc, GWtW
opens with a (pre-!)title card that states the antebellum setting,
leading immediately to Scarlett's flirting with her beaux. To that,
your description adds her *coming* strong-willed fight for preservation ...and, yeah, I think that's best developed by an unfolding narrative.
Likewise, with 6th SENSE, I'd much rather experience the kid's ghostly encounters as an initial puzzle -- like he did. (I'm going out on a memory-limb here, and assuming that we're shown some unexplained dead
folks before he actually delivers the famous line.)
As for movie-details that might be helpful in selecting a flick, I admit
to some slight personal engagement with those. But I also attest that,
at least 90% of the time, when I'm selecting I'll choose the movie I
think will be *better*, irrespective of content. Again, though, all of
this is just me (along with the imaginary reader I'm writing for).
Meanwhile, TRIANGLE OF SADNESS's ending may have indeed occurred at a "logical" pass, but the small elephant in the room is that its
abruptness nonplusses the audience, an aspect that (afaics) adds nothing (...see, e.g., NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN). For me, that's an affectation.
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2023 11:38 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2023 11:47 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2023 6:38 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Self-absorbed young "influencers" Carl and Yaya drift along the fringes
of the entitled super-rich. The socio-political comedy TRIANGLE OF >>>>>>>> SADNESS won the 2022 Cannes prize, a near-guarantee of thoughtful >>>>>>>> cinematic energy. (I.e., you'll have to pay attention, and you'll want
to.) But, be warned, its many eccentricities include ending the whole >>>>>>>> thing with a sudden (and, for me, undecipherable) cut. Recommended. >>>>>>>>
I told you about this one back in February but did you pay attention? No
you did not pay attention. You never pay attention. So here it is again.
Now pay attention.
It’s an exceptionally dark comedy that metaphorically explores power >>>>>>> dynamics in the worlds of the haves and the have nots, the Marxists and the
capitalists, the males and the females, the privileged and their servants.
Carl and Yaya, a fashion model couple who are achieving unequal levels of
success based on their beauty alone, find themselves enjoying a cruise on a
luxury yacht where the other passengers are fabulously wealthy
industrialists. The yacht’s crew is determined to cater to the passengers’
every whim and despite underlying tensions things go beautifully on this
luxurious cruise right up until they don’t.
Taken at face value this best picture nominated film is almost a horror >>>>>>> story, but in spite of that it is awfully amusing. I won’t forget this one
for a while.
FWIW the actress who played Yaya, Charlbi Dean, died last August at the age
of 32 due to sepsis caused by an old injury. I think she was going places.
And another thing that came to my attention long after I wrote all this.
Did you pick up on the idea that because everybody went for a swim the food
was left out and it spoiled? And that is what caused the digestive >>>>>>> discomfort? I missed that.
I'm sure I read enough of your post to get ToS into my queue, but, as >>>>>> you know, that's as far as I go (to avoid details like the above,
however alone I am in that regard). Yeah, that's a sad note about Dean. >>>>>> I'm not sure why you exonerate seasickness for the barfing. It took >>>>>> me a couple of days to quasi-justify the abrupt ending (though I had a >>>>>> Cannes-y sense there'd be one), and it's that the moment captured in >>>>>> amber each character faced with a life decision he'd never truly make. >>>>>>
I know we’ve had this semi disagreement before, but I want to ask again.
What is there in what I wrote that could be considered a spoiler? There was
nothing in my original post about food poisoning and barfing. The only >>>>> thing that could come close to being a spoiler is my comment that things >>>>> went beautifully right up until they didn’t. Is that a spoiler? Really? >>>>> C’mon.
Like you I assumed seasickness caused the barfing. And yet more than one >>>>> review I read after seeing the movie indicated the culprit was food
poisoning brought on by the privileged passenger’s insistence that the crew
go for a swim. Maybe that does add to the theme that all the suffering was
brought on by rich people being stupid. On the other hand, the food
poisoning sure did attack digestive tracts a little faster than seems >>>>> possible. Plus, I think the food would have had to sit out much longer than
it did in order to produce toxins. Still, food poisoning as the cause seems
to be accepted in reviews.
Wiki seems to favor seasickness, but mentions the food. On the way to >>>> it, I happened to see another review that supposedly opined on the
matter, but was so pretentious that I discard unread whatever it said. >>>>
No, of course what you wrote isn't a 'spoiler' ...and I may be the only >>>> person (apart from my kids, whom I trained) that would treat it so. But >>>> if you want my extreme view, ask yourself what any foreknowledge of the >>>> yacht adds to my enjoyment of the movie. Part of most any fiction
experience is the turning of unexpected corners, even inherently mundane >>>> ones. I just want to get to discover the yacht naively, like you did. >>>>
(If the writer-director really meant to blame the food, seems he'd have >>>> the barfing begin just *before* the ship started spinning.)
FWIW I just Googled “does motion sickness cause diarrhea?” and learned it
appears not to be a symptom.
Gone with the Wind tells the story of Scarlett O’Hara, a strong-willed >>> southern belle who fights to preserve as much of her antebellum lifestyle >>> as she can in the years following the American Civil War.
To me that description just orients me to the story without spoiling any >>> details. From reading it I know enough about the setting and the theme to >>> make a decision whether I might like to watch the movie. The same goes for >>> learning about the yacht prior to seeing Triangle of Sadness. Knowing about >>> the boat before seeing the movie doesn’t affect my enjoyment any more than
knowing GWTW is set around the Civil War. It’s nice to know ahead of time a
little bit about what I’m getting myself into but not so much that the >>> story is spoiled.
The Sixth Sense tells the story of a child psychologist whose patient is a >>> little boy who is convinced he can see dead people. I am fine with that. >>> Anybody ought to be fine with that
Also, I am fine with the fill in the blanks ending of “Triangle of
Sadness.“ Maybe you can, but I can’t think of an ending more satisfactory
than what we got. What would you have liked to see happen? A lovely head >>> crushed by a rock? A lovely head not crushed by a rock? Did you need to see >>> the survivors rescued by resort staff? Did you need to see what they did >>> next? Hadn’t the movie’s themes of class and privilege and worthiness >>> already been explored well enough?
I don't remember the diarrhea. (Maybe just as well.) If it was first
-- or even prominent -- yeah, that'd bolster the ptomaine contention.
Re "harmless" spoilers, note again that this is an issue of standards,
and that most people's exonerate, e.g., your various examples. So, any
subsequent contention here is about *my* rarefied proclivities...
The informal rule-of-thumb for my 'no spoilers' blurbs is to disclose
only details that the director wants out of the way asap. Iirc, GWtW
opens with a (pre-!)title card that states the antebellum setting,
leading immediately to Scarlett's flirting with her beaux. To that,
your description adds her *coming* strong-willed fight for preservation
...and, yeah, I think that's best developed by an unfolding narrative.
Likewise, with 6th SENSE, I'd much rather experience the kid's ghostly
encounters as an initial puzzle -- like he did. (I'm going out on a
memory-limb here, and assuming that we're shown some unexplained dead
folks before he actually delivers the famous line.)
As for movie-details that might be helpful in selecting a flick, I admit
to some slight personal engagement with those. But I also attest that,
at least 90% of the time, when I'm selecting I'll choose the movie I
think will be *better*, irrespective of content. Again, though, all of
this is just me (along with the imaginary reader I'm writing for).
Meanwhile, TRIANGLE OF SADNESS's ending may have indeed occurred at a
"logical" pass, but the small elephant in the room is that its
abruptness nonplusses the audience, an aspect that (afaics) adds nothing
(...see, e.g., NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN). For me, that's an affectation.
Picks up stick and pokes horse…
“You dead yet? Almost? That’ll work.”
Just noticed that you spoiled the ending in your original post. Anyone who hasn’t already seen the movie would learn from what you said that the movie ends in an abrupt cut. Doesn’t revealing that spoil the surprise? Pr “enjoyment, if you could call it that? Isn’t that one of the “unexpected
corners” you would want to turn with no foreknowledge?
My comments gave nothing of significance away. Yours did. Harrumph and so there.
On 5/11/2023 2:15 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2023 11:38 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2023 11:47 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2023 6:38 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Self-absorbed young "influencers" Carl and Yaya drift along the fringes
of the entitled super-rich. The socio-political comedy TRIANGLE OF >>>>>>>>> SADNESS won the 2022 Cannes prize, a near-guarantee of thoughtful >>>>>>>>> cinematic energy. (I.e., you'll have to pay attention, and you'll want
to.) But, be warned, its many eccentricities include ending the whole
thing with a sudden (and, for me, undecipherable) cut. Recommended. >>>>>>>>>
I told you about this one back in February but did you pay attention? No
you did not pay attention. You never pay attention. So here it is again.
Now pay attention.
It’s an exceptionally dark comedy that metaphorically explores power >>>>>>>> dynamics in the worlds of the haves and the have nots, the Marxists and the
capitalists, the males and the females, the privileged and their servants.
Carl and Yaya, a fashion model couple who are achieving unequal levels of
success based on their beauty alone, find themselves enjoying a cruise on a
luxury yacht where the other passengers are fabulously wealthy >>>>>>>> industrialists. The yacht’s crew is determined to cater to the passengers’
every whim and despite underlying tensions things go beautifully on this
luxurious cruise right up until they don’t.
Taken at face value this best picture nominated film is almost a horror
story, but in spite of that it is awfully amusing. I won’t forget this one
for a while.
FWIW the actress who played Yaya, Charlbi Dean, died last August at the age
of 32 due to sepsis caused by an old injury. I think she was going places.
And another thing that came to my attention long after I wrote all this.
Did you pick up on the idea that because everybody went for a swim the food
was left out and it spoiled? And that is what caused the digestive >>>>>>>> discomfort? I missed that.
I'm sure I read enough of your post to get ToS into my queue, but, as >>>>>>> you know, that's as far as I go (to avoid details like the above, >>>>>>> however alone I am in that regard). Yeah, that's a sad note about Dean.
I'm not sure why you exonerate seasickness for the barfing. It took >>>>>>> me a couple of days to quasi-justify the abrupt ending (though I had a >>>>>>> Cannes-y sense there'd be one), and it's that the moment captured in >>>>>>> amber each character faced with a life decision he'd never truly make. >>>>>>>
I know we’ve had this semi disagreement before, but I want to ask again.
What is there in what I wrote that could be considered a spoiler? There was
nothing in my original post about food poisoning and barfing. The only >>>>>> thing that could come close to being a spoiler is my comment that things >>>>>> went beautifully right up until they didn’t. Is that a spoiler? Really?
C’mon.
Like you I assumed seasickness caused the barfing. And yet more than one >>>>>> review I read after seeing the movie indicated the culprit was food >>>>>> poisoning brought on by the privileged passenger’s insistence that the crew
go for a swim. Maybe that does add to the theme that all the suffering was
brought on by rich people being stupid. On the other hand, the food >>>>>> poisoning sure did attack digestive tracts a little faster than seems >>>>>> possible. Plus, I think the food would have had to sit out much longer than
it did in order to produce toxins. Still, food poisoning as the cause seems
to be accepted in reviews.
Wiki seems to favor seasickness, but mentions the food. On the way to >>>>> it, I happened to see another review that supposedly opined on the
matter, but was so pretentious that I discard unread whatever it said. >>>>>
No, of course what you wrote isn't a 'spoiler' ...and I may be the only >>>>> person (apart from my kids, whom I trained) that would treat it so. But >>>>> if you want my extreme view, ask yourself what any foreknowledge of the >>>>> yacht adds to my enjoyment of the movie. Part of most any fiction
experience is the turning of unexpected corners, even inherently mundane >>>>> ones. I just want to get to discover the yacht naively, like you did. >>>>>
(If the writer-director really meant to blame the food, seems he'd have >>>>> the barfing begin just *before* the ship started spinning.)
FWIW I just Googled “does motion sickness cause diarrhea?” and learned it
appears not to be a symptom.
Gone with the Wind tells the story of Scarlett O’Hara, a strong-willed >>>> southern belle who fights to preserve as much of her antebellum lifestyle >>>> as she can in the years following the American Civil War.
To me that description just orients me to the story without spoiling any >>>> details. From reading it I know enough about the setting and the theme to >>>> make a decision whether I might like to watch the movie. The same goes for >>>> learning about the yacht prior to seeing Triangle of Sadness. Knowing about
the boat before seeing the movie doesn’t affect my enjoyment any more than
knowing GWTW is set around the Civil War. It’s nice to know ahead of time a
little bit about what I’m getting myself into but not so much that the >>>> story is spoiled.
The Sixth Sense tells the story of a child psychologist whose patient is a >>>> little boy who is convinced he can see dead people. I am fine with that. >>>> Anybody ought to be fine with that
Also, I am fine with the fill in the blanks ending of “Triangle of
Sadness.“ Maybe you can, but I can’t think of an ending more satisfactory
than what we got. What would you have liked to see happen? A lovely head >>>> crushed by a rock? A lovely head not crushed by a rock? Did you need to see
the survivors rescued by resort staff? Did you need to see what they did >>>> next? Hadn’t the movie’s themes of class and privilege and worthiness >>>> already been explored well enough?
I don't remember the diarrhea. (Maybe just as well.) If it was first
-- or even prominent -- yeah, that'd bolster the ptomaine contention.
Re "harmless" spoilers, note again that this is an issue of standards,
and that most people's exonerate, e.g., your various examples. So, any
subsequent contention here is about *my* rarefied proclivities...
The informal rule-of-thumb for my 'no spoilers' blurbs is to disclose
only details that the director wants out of the way asap. Iirc, GWtW
opens with a (pre-!)title card that states the antebellum setting,
leading immediately to Scarlett's flirting with her beaux. To that,
your description adds her *coming* strong-willed fight for preservation
...and, yeah, I think that's best developed by an unfolding narrative.
Likewise, with 6th SENSE, I'd much rather experience the kid's ghostly
encounters as an initial puzzle -- like he did. (I'm going out on a
memory-limb here, and assuming that we're shown some unexplained dead
folks before he actually delivers the famous line.)
As for movie-details that might be helpful in selecting a flick, I admit >>> to some slight personal engagement with those. But I also attest that,
at least 90% of the time, when I'm selecting I'll choose the movie I
think will be *better*, irrespective of content. Again, though, all of
this is just me (along with the imaginary reader I'm writing for).
Meanwhile, TRIANGLE OF SADNESS's ending may have indeed occurred at a
"logical" pass, but the small elephant in the room is that its
abruptness nonplusses the audience, an aspect that (afaics) adds nothing >>> (...see, e.g., NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN). For me, that's an affectation.
Picks up stick and pokes horse…
“You dead yet? Almost? That’ll work.”
Just noticed that you spoiled the ending in your original post. Anyone who >> hasn’t already seen the movie would learn from what you said that the movie
ends in an abrupt cut. Doesn’t revealing that spoil the surprise? Pr
“enjoyment, if you could call it that? Isn’t that one of the “unexpected
corners” you would want to turn with no foreknowledge?
My comments gave nothing of significance away. Yours did. Harrumph and so
there.
But now we're talking about a public-service warning, such as... "if you (dear reader) are like me and despise unnecessarily sawed-off endings,
be warned that one awaits you here." Add to that, as I mentioned
elsewhere, a striking scene of animal brutality that I perhaps should've similarly flagged. For both of those, *I'd* rather have been braced...
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/11/2023 2:15 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2023 11:38 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2023 11:47 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2023 6:38 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Self-absorbed young "influencers" Carl and Yaya drift along the fringes
of the entitled super-rich. The socio-political comedy TRIANGLE OF >>>>>>>>>> SADNESS won the 2022 Cannes prize, a near-guarantee of thoughtful >>>>>>>>>> cinematic energy. (I.e., you'll have to pay attention, and you'll want
to.) But, be warned, its many eccentricities include ending the whole
thing with a sudden (and, for me, undecipherable) cut. Recommended. >>>>>>>>>>
I told you about this one back in February but did you pay attention? No
you did not pay attention. You never pay attention. So here it is again.
Now pay attention.
It’s an exceptionally dark comedy that metaphorically explores power
dynamics in the worlds of the haves and the have nots, the Marxists and the
capitalists, the males and the females, the privileged and their servants.
Carl and Yaya, a fashion model couple who are achieving unequal levels of
success based on their beauty alone, find themselves enjoying a cruise on a
luxury yacht where the other passengers are fabulously wealthy >>>>>>>>> industrialists. The yacht’s crew is determined to cater to the passengers’
every whim and despite underlying tensions things go beautifully on this
luxurious cruise right up until they don’t.
Taken at face value this best picture nominated film is almost a horror
story, but in spite of that it is awfully amusing. I won’t forget this one
for a while.
FWIW the actress who played Yaya, Charlbi Dean, died last August at the age
of 32 due to sepsis caused by an old injury. I think she was going places.
And another thing that came to my attention long after I wrote all this.
Did you pick up on the idea that because everybody went for a swim the food
was left out and it spoiled? And that is what caused the digestive >>>>>>>>> discomfort? I missed that.
I'm sure I read enough of your post to get ToS into my queue, but, as >>>>>>>> you know, that's as far as I go (to avoid details like the above, >>>>>>>> however alone I am in that regard). Yeah, that's a sad note about Dean.
I'm not sure why you exonerate seasickness for the barfing. It took >>>>>>>> me a couple of days to quasi-justify the abrupt ending (though I had a >>>>>>>> Cannes-y sense there'd be one), and it's that the moment captured in >>>>>>>> amber each character faced with a life decision he'd never truly make. >>>>>>>>
I know we’ve had this semi disagreement before, but I want to ask again.
What is there in what I wrote that could be considered a spoiler? There was
nothing in my original post about food poisoning and barfing. The only >>>>>>> thing that could come close to being a spoiler is my comment that things
went beautifully right up until they didn’t. Is that a spoiler? Really?
C’mon.
Like you I assumed seasickness caused the barfing. And yet more than one
review I read after seeing the movie indicated the culprit was food >>>>>>> poisoning brought on by the privileged passenger’s insistence that the crew
go for a swim. Maybe that does add to the theme that all the suffering was
brought on by rich people being stupid. On the other hand, the food >>>>>>> poisoning sure did attack digestive tracts a little faster than seems >>>>>>> possible. Plus, I think the food would have had to sit out much longer than
it did in order to produce toxins. Still, food poisoning as the cause seems
to be accepted in reviews.
Wiki seems to favor seasickness, but mentions the food. On the way to >>>>>> it, I happened to see another review that supposedly opined on the >>>>>> matter, but was so pretentious that I discard unread whatever it said. >>>>>>
No, of course what you wrote isn't a 'spoiler' ...and I may be the only >>>>>> person (apart from my kids, whom I trained) that would treat it so. But >>>>>> if you want my extreme view, ask yourself what any foreknowledge of the >>>>>> yacht adds to my enjoyment of the movie. Part of most any fiction >>>>>> experience is the turning of unexpected corners, even inherently mundane >>>>>> ones. I just want to get to discover the yacht naively, like you did. >>>>>>
(If the writer-director really meant to blame the food, seems he'd have >>>>>> the barfing begin just *before* the ship started spinning.)
FWIW I just Googled “does motion sickness cause diarrhea?” and learned it
appears not to be a symptom.
Gone with the Wind tells the story of Scarlett O’Hara, a strong-willed >>>>> southern belle who fights to preserve as much of her antebellum lifestyle >>>>> as she can in the years following the American Civil War.
To me that description just orients me to the story without spoiling any >>>>> details. From reading it I know enough about the setting and the theme to >>>>> make a decision whether I might like to watch the movie. The same goes for
learning about the yacht prior to seeing Triangle of Sadness. Knowing about
the boat before seeing the movie doesn’t affect my enjoyment any more than
knowing GWTW is set around the Civil War. It’s nice to know ahead of time a
little bit about what I’m getting myself into but not so much that the >>>>> story is spoiled.
The Sixth Sense tells the story of a child psychologist whose patient is a
little boy who is convinced he can see dead people. I am fine with that. >>>>> Anybody ought to be fine with that
Also, I am fine with the fill in the blanks ending of “Triangle of >>>>> Sadness.“ Maybe you can, but I can’t think of an ending more satisfactory
than what we got. What would you have liked to see happen? A lovely head >>>>> crushed by a rock? A lovely head not crushed by a rock? Did you need to see
the survivors rescued by resort staff? Did you need to see what they did >>>>> next? Hadn’t the movie’s themes of class and privilege and worthiness >>>>> already been explored well enough?
I don't remember the diarrhea. (Maybe just as well.) If it was first >>>> -- or even prominent -- yeah, that'd bolster the ptomaine contention.
Re "harmless" spoilers, note again that this is an issue of standards, >>>> and that most people's exonerate, e.g., your various examples. So, any >>>> subsequent contention here is about *my* rarefied proclivities...
The informal rule-of-thumb for my 'no spoilers' blurbs is to disclose
only details that the director wants out of the way asap. Iirc, GWtW
opens with a (pre-!)title card that states the antebellum setting,
leading immediately to Scarlett's flirting with her beaux. To that,
your description adds her *coming* strong-willed fight for preservation >>>> ...and, yeah, I think that's best developed by an unfolding narrative. >>>>
Likewise, with 6th SENSE, I'd much rather experience the kid's ghostly >>>> encounters as an initial puzzle -- like he did. (I'm going out on a
memory-limb here, and assuming that we're shown some unexplained dead
folks before he actually delivers the famous line.)
As for movie-details that might be helpful in selecting a flick, I admit >>>> to some slight personal engagement with those. But I also attest that, >>>> at least 90% of the time, when I'm selecting I'll choose the movie I
think will be *better*, irrespective of content. Again, though, all of >>>> this is just me (along with the imaginary reader I'm writing for).
Meanwhile, TRIANGLE OF SADNESS's ending may have indeed occurred at a
"logical" pass, but the small elephant in the room is that its
abruptness nonplusses the audience, an aspect that (afaics) adds nothing >>>> (...see, e.g., NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN). For me, that's an affectation. >>>>
Picks up stick and pokes horse…
“You dead yet? Almost? That’ll work.”
Just noticed that you spoiled the ending in your original post. Anyone who >>> hasn’t already seen the movie would learn from what you said that the movie
ends in an abrupt cut. Doesn’t revealing that spoil the surprise? Pr
“enjoyment, if you could call it that? Isn’t that one of the “unexpected
corners” you would want to turn with no foreknowledge?
My comments gave nothing of significance away. Yours did. Harrumph and so >>> there.
But now we're talking about a public-service warning, such as... "if you
(dear reader) are like me and despise unnecessarily sawed-off endings,
be warned that one awaits you here." Add to that, as I mentioned
elsewhere, a striking scene of animal brutality that I perhaps should've
similarly flagged. For both of those, *I'd* rather have been braced...
I insist you tell me nothing about the movie unless it is something I would like you to tell me about.
On 5/12/2023 12:30 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/11/2023 2:15 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/10/2023 11:38 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/9/2023 11:47 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
On 5/8/2023 6:38 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
Self-absorbed young "influencers" Carl and Yaya drift along the fringes
of the entitled super-rich. The socio-political comedy TRIANGLE OF >>>>>>>>>>> SADNESS won the 2022 Cannes prize, a near-guarantee of thoughtful >>>>>>>>>>> cinematic energy. (I.e., you'll have to pay attention, and you'll want
to.) But, be warned, its many eccentricities include ending the whole
thing with a sudden (and, for me, undecipherable) cut. Recommended.
I told you about this one back in February but did you pay attention? No
you did not pay attention. You never pay attention. So here it is again.
Now pay attention.
It’s an exceptionally dark comedy that metaphorically explores power
dynamics in the worlds of the haves and the have nots, the Marxists and the
capitalists, the males and the females, the privileged and their servants.
Carl and Yaya, a fashion model couple who are achieving unequal levels of
success based on their beauty alone, find themselves enjoying a cruise on a
luxury yacht where the other passengers are fabulously wealthy >>>>>>>>>> industrialists. The yacht’s crew is determined to cater to the passengers’
every whim and despite underlying tensions things go beautifully on this
luxurious cruise right up until they don’t.
Taken at face value this best picture nominated film is almost a horror
story, but in spite of that it is awfully amusing. I won’t forget this one
for a while.
FWIW the actress who played Yaya, Charlbi Dean, died last August at the age
of 32 due to sepsis caused by an old injury. I think she was going places.
And another thing that came to my attention long after I wrote all this.
Did you pick up on the idea that because everybody went for a swim the food
was left out and it spoiled? And that is what caused the digestive >>>>>>>>>> discomfort? I missed that.
I'm sure I read enough of your post to get ToS into my queue, but, as >>>>>>>>> you know, that's as far as I go (to avoid details like the above, >>>>>>>>> however alone I am in that regard). Yeah, that's a sad note about Dean.
I'm not sure why you exonerate seasickness for the barfing. It took >>>>>>>>> me a couple of days to quasi-justify the abrupt ending (though I had a
Cannes-y sense there'd be one), and it's that the moment captured in >>>>>>>>> amber each character faced with a life decision he'd never truly make.
I know we’ve had this semi disagreement before, but I want to ask again.
What is there in what I wrote that could be considered a spoiler? There was
nothing in my original post about food poisoning and barfing. The only >>>>>>>> thing that could come close to being a spoiler is my comment that things
went beautifully right up until they didn’t. Is that a spoiler? Really?
C’mon.
Like you I assumed seasickness caused the barfing. And yet more than one
review I read after seeing the movie indicated the culprit was food >>>>>>>> poisoning brought on by the privileged passenger’s insistence that the crew
go for a swim. Maybe that does add to the theme that all the suffering was
brought on by rich people being stupid. On the other hand, the food >>>>>>>> poisoning sure did attack digestive tracts a little faster than seems >>>>>>>> possible. Plus, I think the food would have had to sit out much longer than
it did in order to produce toxins. Still, food poisoning as the cause seems
to be accepted in reviews.
Wiki seems to favor seasickness, but mentions the food. On the way to >>>>>>> it, I happened to see another review that supposedly opined on the >>>>>>> matter, but was so pretentious that I discard unread whatever it said. >>>>>>>
No, of course what you wrote isn't a 'spoiler' ...and I may be the only >>>>>>> person (apart from my kids, whom I trained) that would treat it so. But
if you want my extreme view, ask yourself what any foreknowledge of the >>>>>>> yacht adds to my enjoyment of the movie. Part of most any fiction >>>>>>> experience is the turning of unexpected corners, even inherently mundane
ones. I just want to get to discover the yacht naively, like you did. >>>>>>>
(If the writer-director really meant to blame the food, seems he'd have >>>>>>> the barfing begin just *before* the ship started spinning.)
FWIW I just Googled “does motion sickness cause diarrhea?” and learned it
appears not to be a symptom.
Gone with the Wind tells the story of Scarlett O’Hara, a strong-willed >>>>>> southern belle who fights to preserve as much of her antebellum lifestyle
as she can in the years following the American Civil War.
To me that description just orients me to the story without spoiling any >>>>>> details. From reading it I know enough about the setting and the theme to
make a decision whether I might like to watch the movie. The same goes for
learning about the yacht prior to seeing Triangle of Sadness. Knowing about
the boat before seeing the movie doesn’t affect my enjoyment any more than
knowing GWTW is set around the Civil War. It’s nice to know ahead of time a
little bit about what I’m getting myself into but not so much that the >>>>>> story is spoiled.
The Sixth Sense tells the story of a child psychologist whose patient is a
little boy who is convinced he can see dead people. I am fine with that. >>>>>> Anybody ought to be fine with that
Also, I am fine with the fill in the blanks ending of “Triangle of >>>>>> Sadness.“ Maybe you can, but I can’t think of an ending more satisfactory
than what we got. What would you have liked to see happen? A lovely head >>>>>> crushed by a rock? A lovely head not crushed by a rock? Did you need to see
the survivors rescued by resort staff? Did you need to see what they did >>>>>> next? Hadn’t the movie’s themes of class and privilege and worthiness
already been explored well enough?
I don't remember the diarrhea. (Maybe just as well.) If it was first >>>>> -- or even prominent -- yeah, that'd bolster the ptomaine contention. >>>>>
Re "harmless" spoilers, note again that this is an issue of standards, >>>>> and that most people's exonerate, e.g., your various examples. So, any >>>>> subsequent contention here is about *my* rarefied proclivities...
The informal rule-of-thumb for my 'no spoilers' blurbs is to disclose >>>>> only details that the director wants out of the way asap. Iirc, GWtW >>>>> opens with a (pre-!)title card that states the antebellum setting,
leading immediately to Scarlett's flirting with her beaux. To that, >>>>> your description adds her *coming* strong-willed fight for preservation >>>>> ...and, yeah, I think that's best developed by an unfolding narrative. >>>>>
Likewise, with 6th SENSE, I'd much rather experience the kid's ghostly >>>>> encounters as an initial puzzle -- like he did. (I'm going out on a >>>>> memory-limb here, and assuming that we're shown some unexplained dead >>>>> folks before he actually delivers the famous line.)
As for movie-details that might be helpful in selecting a flick, I admit >>>>> to some slight personal engagement with those. But I also attest that, >>>>> at least 90% of the time, when I'm selecting I'll choose the movie I >>>>> think will be *better*, irrespective of content. Again, though, all of >>>>> this is just me (along with the imaginary reader I'm writing for).
Meanwhile, TRIANGLE OF SADNESS's ending may have indeed occurred at a >>>>> "logical" pass, but the small elephant in the room is that its
abruptness nonplusses the audience, an aspect that (afaics) adds nothing >>>>> (...see, e.g., NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN). For me, that's an affectation. >>>>>
Picks up stick and pokes horse…
“You dead yet? Almost? That’ll work.”
Just noticed that you spoiled the ending in your original post. Anyone who
hasn’t already seen the movie would learn from what you said that the movie
ends in an abrupt cut. Doesn’t revealing that spoil the surprise? Pr >>>> “enjoyment, if you could call it that? Isn’t that one of the “unexpected
corners” you would want to turn with no foreknowledge?
My comments gave nothing of significance away. Yours did. Harrumph and so >>>> there.
But now we're talking about a public-service warning, such as... "if you >>> (dear reader) are like me and despise unnecessarily sawed-off endings,
be warned that one awaits you here." Add to that, as I mentioned
elsewhere, a striking scene of animal brutality that I perhaps should've >>> similarly flagged. For both of those, *I'd* rather have been braced...
I insist you tell me nothing about the movie unless it is something I would >> like you to tell me about.
TRIANGLE OF SADNESS has nothing to do with Euclid. Unless it does.
Self-absorbed young "influencers" Carl and Yaya drift along the fringes
of the entitled super-rich. The socio-political comedy TRIANGLE OF
SADNESS won the 2022 Cannes prize, a near-guarantee of thoughtful
cinematic energy. (I.e., you'll have to pay attention, and you'll want
to.) But, be warned, its many eccentricities include ending the whole
thing with a sudden (and, for me, undecipherable) cut. Recommended.
On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
Self-absorbed young "influencers" Carl and Yaya drift along the fringes
of the entitled super-rich. The socio-political comedy TRIANGLE OF
SADNESS won the 2022 Cannes prize, a near-guarantee of thoughtful
cinematic energy. (I.e., you'll have to pay attention, and you'll want
to.) But, be warned, its many eccentricities include ending the whole
thing with a sudden (and, for me, undecipherable) cut. Recommended.
I gave your review of this movie careful consideration Mr. Pig
and finally decided to wash my car instead.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 123:41:49 |
| Calls: | 6,854 |
| Files: | 12,360 |
| Messages: | 5,417,186 |