|
|
Post by numbat on Jun 23, 2009 11:59:56 GMT
OK girls - i think a few of us have seen Downloading Nancy now (thanks Famke for the link), so we can start discussing properly. Please don't read here though if you haven't seen it or don't want to know what happens. To start with, this definitely isn't a red wine & chocolate type of movie. This was a straight scotch for sure - and it took me four to get through it. Having said that though, it wasn't overly violent, or explicit, it was just a hard, hard, subject matter and characters who were suffering through their life. Why anyone who had gone to see this at Sundance (a film festival for goodness sake!!!) would walk out though, is beyond me. I was gripped from start to finish - the stucture of the film switching between past and present worked well here because until the end, you never really knew what happened. Lewis (forgive me if that wasn't the other man's name but it's what is in my head) didn't say that he'd "released" her til quite near the end and up until then you could see their relationship building, so it was never clear what exactly had happened until you actually saw it. I think it may have been Rufus who said that none of the characters were sympathetic and whilst that may be true, i think they did evoke some level of sympathy because they were all damaged. Poor Albert never really had a clue - although his wife's decline was happening in front of his eyes (and he says at the end that he tried to ignore it), i think he had his own issues and (like many men, i fear) was not equipped to deal with that kind of emotion. He appeared to have some kind of OCD (washing hands, taking off shoes, the plastic on the couch) and dealing with his wife's emotional breakdown would have been more than he could cope with. Nancy was already badly, badly damaged long before they were married and i think she had been on this path of self destruction for a long time. She probably married Albert because he was the complete opposite of her, but whoever she married would have had a hard time helping her. It appeared that even her therapist (does Amy Brennerman play anything other than a therapist?) could not cope with her illness, and only some serious medication and high level therapy could have helped her. Lewis (sorry again if that wasn't his name) had issues of his own (like all the others), but his growing affection for Nancy and his desire NOT to go through with their arrangement showed his human side. I think in the end, he did kill her (even though we thought he might not) because it became evident that if he didn't do it that she would just take her own life and probably in a more painful and distressing way than if he helped her. I'm not making a comment as to the right or wrong of what he did, but i think that HE felt it was the right thing to do in the end. And then to make the decision to go and see Albert and eventually tell him was the right thing to do. I'm not sure exactly why he prolonged the process for so long, although maybe it was that he wanted to get to know Albert a little to try and understand why Nancy came to the decision she did. I think though, that all he found was a man trying to do the best he could in the circumstances. The end was really quite sad because it showed, a year later, the broken man that was Albert. He HAD loved her and he DIDN'T understand what had happened, and he DID miss her. He wasn't the best husband he could have been, but at the same time she wasn't the best wife. He appeared at the end to be a little less OCD (not washing his hands after having a leak when previously he had washed his hands all the time, plus the state of the house), just a symptom i think, of his despair. Rufus was fantastic in this, showing us with his beautifully expressive face, all the facets of the man that Albert was. I was glad that he didn't use the razor blade at the end because i don't think i could have coped with that. All the actors were great, the script seemed just about right and the grey & beige sets, clothes & cinematography were perfect for the film. For this movie to simply disappear without the accolades that it deserves would be a crying shame. Oh, and Albert, the sex really wasn't that good now was it my sweet. I think you could have tried just a little bit harder there  What does everyone else think?? |
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jun 23, 2009 14:22:19 GMT
OK NOW I WANT TO SEE IT.
|
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Jun 23, 2009 18:14:58 GMT
I agree that this movie was not nearly as violent as most of the R rated movies out there. Ever see a Tarantino film? (I lasted about 20 seconds into one of those.) The violence in DN was very disturbing because it was so personal (and horrifying--cigarette burns--yeesh!) but I did not think it was particularly graphic or gratuitous. Although the reaction at Sundance is puzzling (since a festival audience might expect difficult themes), the general critical response is sort of understandable to me. Normally, the most graphic violence toward women in films comes in horror-shlock movies, and the majority of critics usually seem to condemn it as misogynistic and hateful, and rightfully so. But I don't think they know how to turn off their feminist (and I mean this word in a positive way) concerns about women as victims even when the woman in question is exploring her own desires. I think it would take a brave critic to say, "Even though Nancy is clearly disturbed, taking her pain to extreme ends, the movie is not wrong to watch her explore her wants and needs. Women like her exist. Who knows--some women like Nancy may not actually be disturbed. But even if they are, how will we ever find out, if we can't even explore the issues?" The acting was magnificent. I think Famke was the one who mentioned in the other thread that Rufus is alone so much of the time. Yet he conveys not just a personality type but actual thought. You can tell what Albert is thinking and even what he is feeling, which is all the more amazing because he's such a shut-down character. It's just amazing to me that Rufus is the same man who so successfully portrayed Petruchio, who has no filter between brain and mouth, and Albert, who is nothing but filter. I know it's his job, but there are not many who can pull it off so brilliantly. Both Maria Bello and Jason Patric were also incredible. Maria shows Nancy's pain in such subtle ways. The fleeting, hopeful expression on her face as she tosses the mashed potatoes, and then the flickering disappointment as he chooses to ignore her are just one tiny example. And Louis is not just a stock internet villain but someone battling his own demons and losing (or winning, depending on your perspective). I did find the movie to be bleak and depressing, but in that I guess the film makers have accomplished their goal. The washed out colors really added to the oppressive atmosphere. Normally I'm not necessarily fond of time jumps made just for the sake of "artistry" but in this case I agree with numbat that it prolonged the suspense of the outcome and also left me with things to think about, as later revelations helped to explain events that has been shown earlier in the film. So I can't say it's a movie I "enjoyed", but it was a movie that made me think and feel, and that is important too. Definitely not worth watching just for that, my friend. Besides being emotionally unsatisfying, it seemed physically impossible, judging from the distance between them, no matter what jokes people may be tempted to make about that. Probably no more than that should be said, so I don't get us all banned from posting. Strangely enough, it's really the only place I was actually taken out of the film, because I thought it looked so unrealistic. Weird, huh, how I would be so focused on such a scene. |
|
|
|
Post by wichiwoman on Jun 23, 2009 23:11:12 GMT
I just finished watching it. I definitely have to agree with numbat's and rueful's opinions. It's a terribly depressing show to watch. The acting was very, very good. I wanted to reach in and shake Albert a few times. Nancy tried to be romantic at the dance and playful in throwing the mashed potatoes at him, which you mentioned, rueful. Albert was having none of that. He was definitely as disturbed as she was.
My son is thinking about majoring in psychology. I may ask him to watch this. I'm sure there are people in real life who live life like this.
OK, Rufus, my love. You've had 2 depressing movies in a row. You've got POTE coming up, which parts of it will be depressing. We need a comedy from you now.
I'm off to youtube to watch TOTS again. I need to laugh!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinkerdog on Jun 24, 2009 0:49:32 GMT
I believe all the characters are touched to some level of dysfunction (some much more than others). Regarding Albert and Louis....
I believe that Albert was just following some internal agenda of things to do as he reached success. Marrying Nancy was just one of the items on the list. I think he had some inkling as to her emotional problems but not to what extent. Providing a home, computer, security was well enough as far as the duties owed to her as his wife. I believe she must have expressed a desire for a more physical and/or violent sexual relationship early on or made him quasi-tuned in to her personal self mutilation acts and that might be what turned him off emotionally which evolved into an unconscious way of existing. That could be a reason children were not a topic of discussion or why he goes to prostitutes - just pay them and its over (he said something like that).
The mashed potato incident seemed to be orchestrated to get an angry response from him - she was taunting him. Were her antics on the dance floor another antagonistal way of getting a rise out of him (so to speak)? He eventually just looked through her - she might as well have been invisible. He had to have some level of knowledge because there was no shock when he listened to the voicemail from the psychologist. He probably just didn't understand the layers and depths of her emotional problems and self destruction.
There was no bad or good just severe dysfunction. Both make mention of not getting a divorce yet they stay in a dead, silent existence. They both are responsible for the world they built and allowed to disintigrate.
Louis - was rather twisted himself and enjoyed his sadistic role in the relationship. How many others did he do this with? How many hundreds of emails had he wrote her communicating her self infliction acts?
I believe he fell in love or developed very strong feelings for Nancy and did not want to complete his contract. I have no doubt that he took her life but I do not know if I hold him responsible - he kept offering her an out to the deal but knew her only happiness and freedom would be to follow through.
With regards to Albert, I think Louis was rather cruel about the way he approached him. I think because Louis could not have Nancy and had to suffer he made sure to punish Albert since he did not love and appreciate her - Louis would be sure that Albert would suffer as well. There was no need to show him the letters and antagonize him to the point of Albert losing control. Louis enjoyed the pain and breaking the man. Louis was manipulating the situation all along. He made sure, once he tested the waters and found that Albert did have a conscious and feelings to make him blame or question himself and the role he played in her death.
The acting from all was incredible and believable. The movie was obviously a very close and personal subject matter to the production team (writer, whoever). Even the closeups, choppy scene change and time element change worked directly with the characters. I thought it was very well put together.
It was about time to see him in a role with substance, depth, meaning - we waited a long time for both Vinyan and Downloading Nancy. I was not disappointed in either film.
|
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jun 24, 2009 2:22:38 GMT
HEEEEELLLLPPP
i downloaded the whole frog vuze thingie, and i still cannot find DN
|
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Jun 24, 2009 15:25:22 GMT
I PMd you, Tip.
|
|
|
|
Post by maz on Jun 24, 2009 22:03:26 GMT
HEEEEELLLLPPP i downloaded the whole frog vuze thingie, and i still cannot find DN Hi, if you wanna pm me i can help |
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jun 25, 2009 3:37:56 GMT
welll now i saw the movie, and like you guys i dont know what the whole hoopla was about, with people running out of the theaters and all.
its like the vinyan mystery all over again. there is no gore there! even the part when nancy gets downloaded (!), even the cut scenes are affecting us on an emotional level, without a hint of complacency or bad taste.
or, people probably were baffled by a complex and deeply human scenario, apparently written by someone with a brain and some knowledge of reality and the human psyche.
yes, acting is top notch. wonderful triangle of actors there. each one perfect for the role.
AND mr. michael niqvist, which i cannot wait to see in the screen adaptation of millenium.
there is even a nice performance from amy brenneman's hair.
okay perhaps the music is ... a bit ... well, to me the music fits with nancy & albert's bleak and empty interior. more like morphed elevator music. which in the end means that it was in fact perfect. the perfect score for quiet and ordinary desperation, as cold as the snow.
i even liked the fanciful editing. with a linear narration, this could have been a very bad hollywood drama.
this is the kind of movie i want to see. a good story about interesting, if deeply damaged, people with real problems. some suspense, but not to the expense of actual believability.
lack of communicability, lack of connection with one,s emotions... nancy and albert are alike in a way. they are not able to feel anything anymore. louis knows how to make them feel. he is all about "feeling". and he knows that what will come out of them is not necessarily pretty, since it takes so much pain to have someone shut from themselves like that.
in fact, louis is more than just a catalyst. he is their conscience, let loose. the way he tries to get nancy to change her mind, the way he asks albert why he did not call the police, taunting him even in front of his business partners - in a way that is not really explained.
its like louis were in fact an imaginary character, the symbol of a desintegrating marriage and botched lives. he is every pain hid under the shag carpets and the plastic furniture covers. he is every untold secret, and every ounce of despair.
about rufus, since this board is about him: once again, he morphed. pale as death, cheesy and bland, dressed in the absolutely worst colours ever, he becomes this zombie who once in a while attempts to mimic human emotions. the less human being of the trio, in fact. and we dont even have any background info on this weird character like we have for the others, as if he was just born this way, dead inside. they even made his face look green. certainly one of his greatest performances. but... has he had many bad ones?
--- i need to point out that the government of canada (i.e. catdishy and i) have in part contributed to the financing of this rufus vehicle. this being said just in case anyone would like to offer thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jun 25, 2009 3:41:03 GMT
HEEEEELLLLPPP i downloaded the whole frog vuze thingie, and i still cannot find DN Hi, if you wanna pm me i can help thank you maz! you are sweet to offer. |
|
|
|
Post by spice on Jun 25, 2009 5:25:08 GMT
LADIES,
I am so pleased that most of you were surprised by the fact that the viewers at Sundance walked out of the showing as Rufus mentioned in the interview(s) he gave regarding DN. After my sister and I saw DN that was one of the first items we discussed. The Sundance Film Festival is known to cater to a very liberal group of film makers, producers, directors, etc. Perhaps if there had been a line in DN bashing former President Bush, the movie may have been hailed as one of the year's best of the best !!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by numbat on Jun 25, 2009 6:55:46 GMT
Yeah tipou - i must admit that i'm absolutely fascinated by Albert. I don't know if we are just biased (what, us, no, never, surely not), but Rufus's performance was enthralling. I too keep wondering about Albert's backstory - was he always like this, did his behaviour in their marriage drive Nancy over the edge or did her behaviour drive him away? Again, i don't know if it is our bias & inability to accept any character that Rufus has played to actually be bad (see the discussion on Agamemnon!!!!), but i believe that when they got married, he was probably a perfectly nice (if a little beige), niave young man who thought that he could help nancy through whatever issues she was having. As time went on and her behaviour became more outrageous & her issues more painful, he drew away from her and sought solace in his work whilst she found her solace in the cyber "reality" that she had created. I think if he was truly dead & emotionless he wouldn't still be grieving her loss, to the exclusion of all else in his life, a year later. I found it physically painful watching his grief & when he sat rereading those emails that Nancy had sent to another man blaming him for her problems, i ached for him. I know he was painted as bland and emotionless but i don't feel that Rufus played him that way - he was just a broken, broken man. And for me, that's what is so fascinating about Rufus - his ability to elicit emotion from the audience when perhaps none is even justified. It mystifies me a little, but my main feeling towards Albert at the end was that i wanted him to find someone else who could love him properly and paint his walls and buy him some decent clothes and make him laugh and who he'd WANT to have sex with on the table when she flicked mashed potato in his face.
Rueful, i think the sex scene portrayed was the one Nancy referred to when she was talking to the psychiatrist (ie, the last time they had sex, he.........). I guess that's why there was distance between them.
|
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jun 25, 2009 7:33:19 GMT
i wondered if he was to use the blade at the end: instead, he chose to go over the emails, over, and over and over again. no, i doubt he will find his wall-painting, armani-shopping bride. this guy is a prisonner of his pain forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by numbat on Jun 25, 2009 10:35:13 GMT
If that's true then i guess she has exacted her revenge for their marriage. She has been "released" (her words, not mine) and he is left behind carrying the guilt & the pain.
That's sad & hopeless though. I don't like sad & hopeless. I think that a normally functioning human (& i think he WAS a normal person in a very very bad situation that he quite obviously didn't know how to handle) would eventually rise above the pain. She was the one with the mental illness who wanted to die, & he didn't use the blade when he so easily could have, because normally functioning people just don't. I guess i just believe in the resilience of the human spirit in the end (even for Albert).
|
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Jun 25, 2009 11:19:39 GMT
hmm. albert does have a serious problem, if not many. clearly has some degree of OCD. he is totally disengaged from his emotions. even his admission of some degree of guilt at the end, in off voice, seems totally phony and superficial.
in fact, i thik that he is a severely repressed closet gay.
|
|
