Red and green

[RossInIllinois]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0474672/ 

 

[Meryl]

Whoa!  That's very cool, Ross.  I'll bet you have a lot of interesting tales to tell.  Thanks for the link! 

[serious crayons]

Ross, thanks for sharing that. I'd love to hear more about your experiences.

As for this particular case, I'll admit I'm not entirely convinced that red and green have really deep significance. But I am rarely a patron in what Front-Ranger calls "cigar is just a cigar" bar. I have dismissed things in the past only to be absolutely convinced, after further conversation, that some seemingly minor detail or image is loaded with hidden meaning.

Most film sets and their directors actually do not want 'hidden' or very abscure things in their films that are hard to find or see. they want the message to hit the mass audiences in a direct or semi direct way. If such things go unnoticed, so is their message, and no director I know would want this.

Sure. Average movies convey their messages in a simple and direct way so that average viewers will quickly understand what's happening. And in most cases nobody expects anything more than that. Nobody is likely to comb over Firehouse Dog or Blades of Glory or Perfect Stranger in search of subtle metaphors. Even with more supposedly arty fare -- Crash comes to mind -- filmmakers usually seem to want to make things easy for their viewers.

Writers of great literature, on the other hand, are more prepared to challenge readers. They thread the text with nuanced layers of meaning that demand close attention to detail. Annie Proulx does that. And Larry McMurtry, Diana Ossana and Ang Lee obviously decided to carry that approach on into the movie. The film is full of subtleties that most viewers miss. Ten minutes on the imdb board will show you often people don't get BBM. Even those who love the movie don't catch most of the subtleties, especially not at first. I loved the movie on first viewing but didn't realize for months and months how deep it goes. Now I've been discussing it for a year and am still discovering new things. Apparently the filmmakers -- like authors of great literature -- decided to sacrifice easy comprehensibility in exchange for creating art on the highest level.

[RossInIllinois]

Ross, thanks for sharing that. I'd love to hear more about your experiences.

As for this particular case, I'll admit I'm not entirely convinced that red and green have really deep significance. But I am rarely a patron in what Front-Ranger calls "cigar is just a cigar" bar. I have dismissed things in the past only to be absolutely convinced, after further conversation, that some seemingly minor detail or image is loaded with hidden meaning.

Sure. Average movies convey their messages in a simple and direct way so that average viewers will quickly understand what's happening. And in most cases nobody expects anything more than that. Nobody is likely to comb over Firehouse Dog or Blades of Glory or Perfect Stranger in search of subtle metaphors. Even with more supposedly arty fare -- Crash comes to mind -- filmmakers usually seem to want to make things easy for their viewers.

Writers of great literature, on the other hand, are more prepared to challenge readers. They thread the text with nuanced layers of meaning that demand close attention to detail. Annie Proulx does that. And Larry McMurtry, Diana Ossana and Ang Lee obviously decided to carry that approach on into the movie. The film is full of subtleties that most viewers miss. Ten minutes on the imdb board will show you often people don't get BBM. Even those who love the movie don't catch most of the subtleties, especially not at first. I loved the movie on first viewing but didn't realize for months and months how deep it goes. Now I've been discussing it for a year and am still discovering new things. Apparently the filmmakers -- like authors of great literature -- decided to sacrifice easy comprehensibility in exchange for creating art on the highest level.

So if the movie viewers don't get it as you say, What does that say about the subtleties you speak of then?    In the Film Making Biz if it goes over the viewers heads on the first view you made a mistake somewhere... OR the viewer is reading more than what was intended into it...   I do think editing flaws and script flaws and a "General Lack of consistency in its period look" kept BBM from winning Best Picture, not its theme as some would suggest.

[serious crayons]

So if the movie viewers don't get it as you say, What does that say about the subtleties you speak of then?    In the Film Making Biz if it goes over the viewers heads on the first view you made a mistake somewhere... OR the viewer is reading more than what was intended into it...

Well, would you say the same about the Literature Biz? If a casual reader, leafing through Shakespeare or Emily Brontë or Flannery O'Connor, doesn't immediately catch every little nuance, then it's not the reader's fault but the author's mistake? There are literature professors and critics who spend whole careers analyzing great novels, picking them apart sentence by sentence, word by word, finding new layers of meaning. Do you honestly feel like they're reading more into them than was intended? And if not, is there any reason why the same approach couldn't apply to a movie?

Ross, I wonder how much time you've spent reading the many threads here in which people analyzed these things. Here are a few good ones, if you're interested. If you like these, I can find you plenty of others. You probably won't agree with everything that's said, or every interpretation --  I don't, either. But I'd be surprised if you'd come away thinking it's all a figment of people's imaginations. Believe me, the symbols and subtleties and complexities and allusions and mirrors and bookends all really do exist, and they're very deliberate.

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,569.0.html

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,3851.0.html

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,1097.0.html

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,795.0.html

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,1266.0.html

[Jeff Wrangler]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0474672/ 

 

Whoa!  That's very cool, Ross.  I'll bet you have a lot of interesting tales to tell.  Thanks for the link! 

Jesus H.! 

[Jeff Wrangler]

I have worked in the Motion Picture business for 25 years now. Yes sets are "Designed" but set dressing never is. Nothing you see as part of a set is a "prop" its set dressing. Props are used by actors. The toaster the bowls etc are all set dressing. The Cherry Cake and coffee however is "the property departments." responsibility and is considered a prop as is all food seen on movies. The placement of furnature and wall hangings are done by the set decorator working from a master plan from the Art Director head of the art Department. The Movie Director seldom gets involved with set decorating or furnature placement unless something looks grossly wrong to him. In most cases the Director will communicate to the Art Director his vision of what he thinks the sets should look like early on in the pre production process. Most Directors give there Art Department full responsibility to decorate the set according to the script and the Art Directors vision of it. The Director is usually way to busy with the talent and keeping the movie on time and on budget to worry about set decorating, props, etc. thats why the Art Director exists. The Director never has total controll of any big budget film he just has "some creative input" contribution to it as does the Studio, the Producers and the Department Heads. Its a much more complex process than it seems, and much more of a group collaboration than you would think. 

I was trying to simpliify the process for everyone; I've also been in the industry for over 35 years never have seen a project with that lack of directorial control. Nonetheless, and perhaps regardless, what was seen on the screen and the placement of background items and the juxtaposition of such was very unlikely to have been intended as mystical or hidden-meaning type stuff.

Gentlemen, it's nice to have your voices here. 

[HerrKaiser]

Well, would you say the same about the Literature Biz? If a casual reader, leafing through Shakespeare or Emily Brontë or Flannery O'Connor, doesn't immediately catch every little nuance, then it's not the reader's fault but the author's mistake? There are literature professors and critics who spend whole careers analyzing great novels, picking them apart sentence by sentence, word by word, finding new layers of meaning. Do you honestly feel like they're reading more into them than was intended? And if not, is there any reason why the same approach couldn't apply to a movie?

Ross, I wonder how much time you've spent reading the many threads here in which people analyzed these things. Here are a few good ones, if you're interested. If you like these, I can find you plenty of others. You probably won't agree with everything that's said, or every interpretation --  I don't, either. But I'd be surprised if you'd come away thinking it's all a figment of people's imaginations. Believe me, the symbols and subtleties and complexities and allusions and mirrors and bookends all really do exist, and they're very deliberate.

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,569.0.html

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,3851.0.html

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,1097.0.html

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,795.0.html

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,1266.0.html

Injest, I know exactly where you are coming from and agree. And Ross is correct too, imo, because films truly are more about 'what you see is what you get' than the great classics in literature where so many more intricasies are in play.

To me, the utter beauty of the subtleties in BBM are that, while they are subtle and sometimes abstract, they are SO vivid for those who truly are looking/viewing the film. When Jack says, "...sometimes I miss you so much I can hardlly stand it...", Ennis' reaction is non verbal. Totally subtle. and many write him off from this scene as being unfeeling, unaware, unmoved. But, the impact of this seen is immense; the light glimmering in his eyes, his expression, the sun shining like a shroud on his face in which he is hiding, the shakey whiskey bottle. Subtleties, yes, but vast indications of Ennis' bursting with emotion and love for Jack. such filmatic wonder put most of us on the edge of the seat, privately praying 'say something!' but without words, he communicated much of the same message he did with 'I swear'.

[serious crayons]

Injest, I know exactly where you are coming from 

Were you talking to me, HerrKaiser? In any case, I agree! 

[HerrKaiser]

yes...it must be Friday, don't even know who is who! thanks!