makes you REALLY want to know what was intended. Many symbolic films are so twisted that they became pointless to anyone not still trying to earn that "A" in Filmology 101. Not this. Eventhe fact that none of the characters are likable isn't a turn-off, because they are so obviously just symbols. Nobody is supposed to feel sorry for any of them or see themselves or their neighbors in them.
so, what was intended? I CERTAINLY don't know. The film is too well done for that. Here are guesses from other people; The George Dubya view of Brunel: The "War between the sexes" is not just a game. It is just as much a war as the "War on terrorism", and to come out ahead on either requires waging full-scale war. Sitting back trying to pretend either can be played with kid's gloves leads to annihilation. Hard to believe that is the point, but that fits as well, or better, with the film than some of these other views.
The Andrea Dworkin view of Brunel: Given that Brunel dwells on chastity and sexual morality ... Is sex rape? Is stealing virginity, stealing? Interesting how horrible news is recited while the torn, bloody nightgowns are being exhibited, but just as the women begins to mend the holes, the radio switches to pleasant music. Are we to take it that man's dominance of women, even the act of sex, equates with terrorism? Again, hard to believe that is the point, but that fits as well, or better, with the film than some of these other views.
The bigjack2 view of Brunel: bigjack2's comment on IMDb is the best review and the most plausible view. Read it. Vote for it. Get it to the top. It isn't far removed from the Bush view, in that focus on the analogy between terrorism/anarchy and the war between the sexes. I didn't know Brunel, but if big jack2 is right that Brunel held Trotskyesque views, this is probably the best analysis.
Speaking of views at the top; how did people find the one form the film buff from Ohio or wherever helpful? He calls this "one of the most bizarre films"? Are you kidding me? I don't watch that many films. OK, I do watch a high ratio of obscure or artsy films, but this film doesn't even make it into my top 30 for most bizarre films I've seen. Mr. Film-buff says "Bombings and deaths are at an all time high, yet he (Mathieu) doesn't really seem to notice this. He is oblivious to his surroundings." Are you kidding me? Mathieu is shown reacting to these events with disgust innumerable times. What? He doesn't leave his career and move form Paris to Timbuktu? Is that what makes him oblivious? Mathieu went on with his life in the face of terrorism, just as people do today. Mr. Film-buff says "I would go so far as to say that we are also oblivious to the surroundings ... we sometimes forget or miss the actions surrounding this film." Well, I think it is obvious you were oblivious, since you didn't seem to notice the innumerable times he is shown reacting to these events, but please learn to speak for yourself.
The film has so many great scenes. Why has nobody mentioned the scene where Mom asks Mathieu "So, you want to marry her"? and at that very moment, a mouse gets his neck snapped in a mouse trap in the corner of the room. Great stuff. Along that line, what was the point of the fly in Mathieu's drink? And why did the owner of the club refuse to serve Conchita just after she quit, but then the next time, he practically prostrated himself for her. What change was supposed to have occurred? Was it the point that she was now known to be living with a rich man, so she had to be respected?
The other under-discussed method is the makeup of the strangers on the train. A dwarf, a judge, a mother, and her YOUNG daughter. Firstly, why does Mathieu tell this story in front of the young girl? Before she is shooed out of the cabin, Mathieu has already dived deep into the war-of-the-sexes aspect. And why a dwarf? A dwarf playing a psychology professor who "gives private lessons"? Huh? This has to be a slur on psychology professors, because this professor interrupts repeatedly to make blatantly obvious points, and acting smug while doing so. Is the point that most professors are mental midgets? I don't know. And why is the judge the least judgmental of the bunch?
Another question; what is "obscure"? Certainly not Mathieu's desire to pound some poontang or steal some snatch. Does "obscure" refer to virginity? to something Conchita or the terrorist's want? I'd bet on the virginity angle, but who knows? I wish I had the time to watch this film about 10x. I'm sure I'd see something new each time.
so, what was intended? I CERTAINLY don't know. The film is too well done for that. Here are guesses from other people; The George Dubya view of Brunel: The "War between the sexes" is not just a game. It is just as much a war as the "War on terrorism", and to come out ahead on either requires waging full-scale war. Sitting back trying to pretend either can be played with kid's gloves leads to annihilation. Hard to believe that is the point, but that fits as well, or better, with the film than some of these other views.
The Andrea Dworkin view of Brunel: Given that Brunel dwells on chastity and sexual morality ... Is sex rape? Is stealing virginity, stealing? Interesting how horrible news is recited while the torn, bloody nightgowns are being exhibited, but just as the women begins to mend the holes, the radio switches to pleasant music. Are we to take it that man's dominance of women, even the act of sex, equates with terrorism? Again, hard to believe that is the point, but that fits as well, or better, with the film than some of these other views.
The bigjack2 view of Brunel: bigjack2's comment on IMDb is the best review and the most plausible view. Read it. Vote for it. Get it to the top. It isn't far removed from the Bush view, in that focus on the analogy between terrorism/anarchy and the war between the sexes. I didn't know Brunel, but if big jack2 is right that Brunel held Trotskyesque views, this is probably the best analysis.
Speaking of views at the top; how did people find the one form the film buff from Ohio or wherever helpful? He calls this "one of the most bizarre films"? Are you kidding me? I don't watch that many films. OK, I do watch a high ratio of obscure or artsy films, but this film doesn't even make it into my top 30 for most bizarre films I've seen. Mr. Film-buff says "Bombings and deaths are at an all time high, yet he (Mathieu) doesn't really seem to notice this. He is oblivious to his surroundings." Are you kidding me? Mathieu is shown reacting to these events with disgust innumerable times. What? He doesn't leave his career and move form Paris to Timbuktu? Is that what makes him oblivious? Mathieu went on with his life in the face of terrorism, just as people do today. Mr. Film-buff says "I would go so far as to say that we are also oblivious to the surroundings ... we sometimes forget or miss the actions surrounding this film." Well, I think it is obvious you were oblivious, since you didn't seem to notice the innumerable times he is shown reacting to these events, but please learn to speak for yourself.
The film has so many great scenes. Why has nobody mentioned the scene where Mom asks Mathieu "So, you want to marry her"? and at that very moment, a mouse gets his neck snapped in a mouse trap in the corner of the room. Great stuff. Along that line, what was the point of the fly in Mathieu's drink? And why did the owner of the club refuse to serve Conchita just after she quit, but then the next time, he practically prostrated himself for her. What change was supposed to have occurred? Was it the point that she was now known to be living with a rich man, so she had to be respected?
The other under-discussed method is the makeup of the strangers on the train. A dwarf, a judge, a mother, and her YOUNG daughter. Firstly, why does Mathieu tell this story in front of the young girl? Before she is shooed out of the cabin, Mathieu has already dived deep into the war-of-the-sexes aspect. And why a dwarf? A dwarf playing a psychology professor who "gives private lessons"? Huh? This has to be a slur on psychology professors, because this professor interrupts repeatedly to make blatantly obvious points, and acting smug while doing so. Is the point that most professors are mental midgets? I don't know. And why is the judge the least judgmental of the bunch?
Another question; what is "obscure"? Certainly not Mathieu's desire to pound some poontang or steal some snatch. Does "obscure" refer to virginity? to something Conchita or the terrorist's want? I'd bet on the virginity angle, but who knows? I wish I had the time to watch this film about 10x. I'm sure I'd see something new each time.