Pitbull, ti-am citit cronica, si cred ca esti prea dur. Si cred ca illo are dreptate, filmul nu e un haos, si nu e neinteligibil. Daca i se poate reprosa e ca pe alocuri e kitchos, si forteaza simboluri, dar toate nedumeririle tale sunt explicate chiar in film, inclusiv faza cu ghindele (care si eu cred ca a fost cam fortata), si faza cu hartiile alea din cabana despre o ginocid de trecut, o vanatoare de vrajitoare parca.
Apoi cum am mai scris, filmul prezinta un caz patologic, foarte interesant, si prin intermediul acestui caz, da, prezinta frica de femeie. Dar nu e o frica spontana, si nu e o blamare si diabolizare totala a femeii, ci, din cate am inteles eu, ideea ar fi cumva ca barbatul face din femeie un monstru. Sunt niste detalii acolo care sustin asta, ea ii reproseaza ca el a ignorat-o total in trecut, ca nu i-a pasat nici de ea, nici de copil, apoi atitudinea surpinzator de docila, acceptand tot ce i se dicta, acceptand un rol arhaic al femeii in raport cu barbatul. Tocmai de asta il gasesc atat de infricosator filmul asta, de asta ma raportez la el, si il simt ca pe ceva veridic, pentru ca prezinta cumva o relatie normala intre un barbat tipic si o femeie tipica, si din niste reactii normale ale celor doi in relatie, din ignoranta lui atat de tipica noua barbatilor, din nevoia ei de atentie specifica femeilor, un eveniment tragic declanseaza un rau monstruos.
Reiau un post mai vechi, cu niste explicatii mai bune gasite pe imdb
Si Windom are niste explicatii si abordari grozave in posturile sale, axandu-se, justificat zic eu, pe simbolistica religioasa din acest film. Cred ca, daca ai timp si inclinatie spre a intelege de ce unii nu gasesc filmul atat de repulsiv, ai putea sa reiei si filmul, si ce s-a mai scris aici inainte.
Originally Posted by marius_em:
Originally Posted by illotempore2002:
|
Poate cineva sa interpreteze ce e cu ghindele acelea care cad intr-una din stejar pe acoperisul cabanei?
|
Se explica in film ce e cu ghindele. Stejarul traieste 100 de ani, si doar una e necesara pentru perpetuare. Restul ghindelor, mii, milioane, sau cate or fi, mor. "Copiii" stejarului mor. Pruncucidere. Motivul asta il intalnim si la cele trei animale.
Filmul e in primul rand psihologic, poate chiar psihiatric. Cred ca aveai dreptate in primele tale posturi cand spuneai ca prezinta un caz de patologie de studiu.
Din ce am citit pe imdb, ar fi simptomele unei boli, numite: "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy". Nu sunt specialist in psihiatrie, astfel incat copiez aic ce-a zis amicul:
Quote:
|
Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is a form of child abuse in which a parent induces real or apparent symptoms of medical affliction in a child. The motivation for this abuse is attention and sympathy.
After the woman allows her child to die, she gets exactly what she wanted: constant attention from her husband. She even explicitly states in the intro that he was not giving her enough attention, when he allowed her to travel to Eden alone.
Her disorder is first revealed when he discloses the autopsy results, that the childs feet had bone deformations, and then realizes this was caused by the woman who was putting his shoes on reversed. Later it is revealed that she allowed her child to die, often the ultimate result of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.
When he comes to her with the photos of the reversed shoes, her greatest fear is realized, that he knows what she is doing, and she cries that he will leave her. To prevent this she goes to extreme measures. When he escapes, she screams in panic.
|
O alta teorie, poate o extensie a celei de mai sus, se referal la cauzele gestului criminal din prolog al mamei:
Quote:
|
I very much agree with your explanation regarding Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy - but I think there is an additional dimension to it. I think she develops the Syndrome as a result of misogyny - she is accustomed to having her identity as a female dictated to her by male discourses and misogynistic undertones, and when she undertook her study of gynocide she simmilarly took those statments about women being evil as truth because it came from an authoritative source.
I think that despite the cannes anti-award, this film is very much about the repurcussions of misogyny and implies the danger of enforcing gender roles - if someone is led to believe they are something, they can become it.
|
Adica si-a ucis fiul (desi poate e mult spus "ucis"), pentru atentie, dar avea nevoie de atentie, pentru ca sotul era distant, cum i-a si reprosat. Poate chiar misogin. Si-n momentele ei de acalmie, parea sa fie foarte docila la toate indicatiile sotului.
Si apropo de "enforcing gender roles", era or replica in film care sustine ideea asta, ceva de genul: If you make the mind believe, the mind will achieve it. A devenit "Antichrist-ul" din studiile sale despre genocidul femeilor din padurea Eden.
Antichrist bineinteles ca nu e inamicul no. 1 al lui Jesus, cred ca a prins toata lumea ideea asta, e vorba doar de simbolul raului, probabil de asta titlul, nu? Sau imi scapa ceva?
LE. Uite inca o interpretare faina:
Quote:
|
And one key "is that they're not a simple couple who is devastated by the death of their child. The child himself is Lucifer, who fell from the sky provoking pain, sorrow and desperation (the three small figures).
From then on,
sex will be only pain and punishment, Eden will be the place of the ancient fears where the 'tremendum and fascinans' mystery of the nature will be revealed.
The battle between man and woman becomes THE war of sense and instinct.
In this vision, woman becomes a totemic and absolut witch and once she's burned to death everything gets clear. The movie starts with a falling and ends with a rising. Eden is full again, nature turns good again. Yuo can't see the uphill but you can understand it's a rising toward a bigger promise."
|
|