DN - Spoiler Thread

[vmaciv]

I think the first time I saw this I believed it was about emotional illness and the toll it take. Audiences have a really rough time with this topic and when the person is a female who is shown as a human being bent on self destruction it is a little tough to take. The real issue I think is that the characters could draw not sympathy from the audience because the movie did not always afford that. Sometimes in order to engage an audience you must provide them with some means of connecting to the characters and this movie in many ways and despite the best attempt of the actors did not engage the audience.

[francesca]

am watching DN tonight but first could someone answer a few questions relating to Sundance .
My new DVD says on it " selected by Sundance"
I know that Sundance is a very prestigious festival but are film makers invited to show as a mark of a quality production( like Cannes or Venice) or do the makers decide to show?
Are there awards and who decides?
Who were the people who walked out. were they judges, invited guests, actors, distributors , press,

[judypatooty]

Just finished watching DN and am totally blown away. Only Rufus could have had me tears for his character at the end. Albert was such a lost soul - trying SO hard to keep everything under control. All the handwashing, and straightening things, and covering everything in plastic. Once Nancy left, he didn't know how to cope.

This is definitely a hard film to watch but very, very worth it. All of the performances were extraordinary. The visual aspect of the film was perfect - everything so bland and banal and washed out and dull. And that hypnotic, barely-there background "music" (in quotes because it wasn't really musical).

Rufus has said he is very proud of the work he did in this film and he should be. His performance was extraordinary.

Now I need to watch some Will Ladislaw to recover, I think.

[francesca]

Just finished watching DN. what a mind blowing film !
Cannot stop thinking about it . why ? what? all the little details keep slipping back .
Am going to leave it for 2-3 days and watch it again and then write about it. Needless to say another extraordinarily fine performance from Rufus He is proud of this ? he has every right to be.

[francesca]

I watched DN last night for the second time .As I said before I wanted to do that before reviewing it. I had a lot of questions after the first viewing but found I had more after the 2nd. Not from confusion but because I wanted to know more , but this film would have been at least twice as long.
I would like to know if it had been cut at all.
First
Nancy was deep suicidal depressive who had been sadistically sexually abused as a child by her mother's brother and rejected and blamed by her mother for it
Louis was a sadistic man refused access to his children for in appropriate behaviour (violence.. sexual?)
Albert was a repressed deeply unhappy man who blocked emotionand hurt out by concentration on golf.
Q... was their marriage just dead or just so distasteful to both? Yes to both
Was he happier away from her or was he just acting for the benefit of his colleagues ( Hotel Function) Probably a bit of both. His friends DID mock her but he cared enough not to leave her and to worry when she was gone... He says thank God when there is a tel.call which he thinks is from her yet does not recognize therapist's name >Does he know about the therapist ?
I think the sex scene as related by Nancy to therapist was the key to their relationship. She pinches his nipple obviously hurting him maybe as as a prelude to sadistic/violent sex which he at first rejects but later is disgusted with himself about it . Basically she wanted sadism and he wanted a normal relationship .Which is why prostitutes were"less messy" meaning emotionally not as in making a mess. 18 years or whatever of this would deaden any relationship.Albert cared but wasn't able to show it or he wouldn't have broken Louis' foot and his home. The rage and the hurt were there
Nancy WANTED to die perhaps for maybe 30 yrs
And Louis was a murdering sadist.
Much has been made of the beige tone of their home and dreariness of their life , Albert's new home was the same monotone. Well ,only in Hollywood is everything light and bright and colourful.
Thoreau says that the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation
Does being a happy film make it a good film ? No, Some " happy" films are dire .Yes this is a good film The acting is quietly brilliant from the 3 leads, Rufus as ever can reduce me to tears, for this poor lost man .
This may be a sweeping statement but I feel that if this had been a European film ( from maybe France or Italy )shown first in Venice or Cannes , there would have been a different reception . In Europe ,we do not have the American Dream of a right to happiness. and we have less censorship which Sundance for all its much vaunted liberalism , exercised .
If everyone walked out on sadism cruelty and murder , what about Shakespeare?.
Finally ,I think that if it had been a stage production ,it would have been sweeping awards right ,left and centre.

[kygal]

I do think this was a well made film and was surprised people did walk out on it. However, as I have said, this is not my type movie. I am one of those people who like "feel-good" type, happy ending movies..I know thats not how real life is all the time..it can be depressing and tragic enough so I usually dont pick this type of movie for entertainment. But Rufus was in this and I had to have it. He and the other actors did a terrific job. I did feel Alberts pain at the end and felt sorry for him, but I was not able to "bond" with any of the characters...not sure it was made to do that. I would have liked some more info on their lives together...wonder if they ever had any "good times". I did get the feeling that not having a child was an issue for Albert...not having the perfect family, but I think they knew that before they got married if I remember correctly. I may try to watch this again to see if anything changes for me.

[bluehorse]

I finally got the DVD, watched it last night and now read through this thread for the first time. You girls have said it so right.
So there is not much to add to what was already said. I can't wait to watch it again, even though it IS really depressing. Albert followed me in my dreams with his sadness.
Also about the fabulous acting of Rufus, everything was already said.
I just would like to add, that I find it very courageous for a handsome guy like Rufus to play this role. This cheesy, grey, almost green face. His lips thin. Strange expressions, even when he smiles it seems odd and somehow twisted. The "sex" scene, also not very attractive with his undies half way down (even though we get at least a GLIMPSE of his wonderful bum! . Not to talk about how "unsexy" he is responding to the wish of his wife.
I don't know if it is because it was Rufus playing this scene, but strange enough I found it very exiting, this desperate and very lonesome "eruption" of him, he seems miles away from his wife. It should be repelling to watch a husband masturbate over his wife, but somehow I found it thrilling. (ok, ok, maybe it is really just because I had the focus on Rufus' bum )

I was really fascinated how he managed to turn his wonderful, handsome, perfect face into something (almost) ugly. Never thought that this was possible for a man like him. But he made it, and still, through all this "ugliness", he let shine through that hidden, inner beauty of this character which Albert is not able to live but still there is somewhere deep inside him. I don't know if "normal people" can see this (probably not???). I don't know if it is just because I am so fond of Rufus that I see this character in that way.
Anyway, I think this was the most amazing role he ever played, because of this contradiction between the repelling, ugly aspect and the subtle, inner aspects of this poor broken man.
Ok, I repeat myself... but all my respect for Rufus that he had the courage to be an ugly, non-heroic, miserable man.

[bluehorse]

um... girls.... do you somehow feel offended by my comment?
I did not mean "ugly" in the proper, normal sense!

Please don't beat me!
Now I just watched it again and it moved me even more.
*sob*
He IS beautiful, even when he is miserable!
Can we agree on that?

[wichiwoman]

You certainly didn't offend me, bluehorse. I agree with you 100%. At first, I watched DN for the Rufus parts only. The plot just didn't appeal to me. But the more I watched Rufus, the more I wanted to see the rest of the movie. It was a very depressing and emotional movie. And it was very well-acted no matter what the critics say.

I feel kind of the same way about Vinyan but to this day I cannot watch all of it. It plays on my worse fears of losing my children. I've watched the Rufus parts but haven't made it past that. I just cannot watch it all.

[kygal]

I agree with what you said Bluehorse. Rufus was wonderful in this role, and I felt great sympathy for Albert, but I know what you mean when you are refering to "ugly". Because it is Rufus and he is so talented at what he does...he has made me "like" him even in his bad boy roles.

[bluehorse]

BTW ... wasn't it rice she threw after him... not mashed potatoes?

[bluehorse]

Ummm... now come on, girls... is it rice or mashed potatoes?

OK, silly question, I know, but I just wonder if there's something wrong with my eyes? Or did she use rice just in my copy?? ;D

No, just joking.

But another thing that keeps my mind occupied is the question: HOW did he DO IT? I mean this weary look, and especially these red rimmed eyes??? It seems he hasn't slept for days!
Is it really possible to create this effect just with make-up? Probably I am naive but if you look at the close-ups of his eyes, I cannot see a trace of make-up!!! Maybe someone of you is an expert in this and knows how these things work?

Another thing that struck me was his comments on the role in the various interviews. Now I find it even MORE courageous what he did in that movie. Not only he dared to play an "ugly" guy, but he even dared to admit that he found parts of himself being a bit like Albert in certain circumstances.
I mean it's easy to keep an image as a "womanizer", someone who always does the right thing, who loves and understands the woman at his side.
But admitting that he knew from his own experience how easy it is to drift apart, that makes him even GREATER in my eyes (if that still is possible???).
As Tipou has said on another thread lately (Woodlanders), he surely is a great actor, but in many of his roles I feel he is not just FAKING it, but he really IS what he plays, at least a part of him.
Probably that's what makes his performances so honest. When he really pulls out those parts which normally no one would like to show of himself.
And at the risk of repeating myself, I think really only a VERY strong man can bear to show the weak, "ugly", miserable sides of himself!

Wish you all a great Sunday!
Bluehorse

[tipou]

May 2, 2010 9:33:06 GMT bluehorse said:

he surely is a great actor, but in many of his roles I feel he is not just FAKING it, but he really IS what he plays, at least a part of him.
Probably that's what makes his performances so honest. When he really pulls out those parts which normally no one would like to show of himself.
And at the risk of repeating myself, I think really only a VERY strong man can bear to show the weak, "ugly", miserable sides of himself!

i read somewhere (cant remember where) that, in his late teens, he became interested in stanislavsky's "actor's method", and i believe that a good part of that "method" requires the actor to draw "from within", to work from what he knows, from his own experience. so he would have to find some relationship, common ground, with the character.

in another article, i read about how rufus literally banged his head against the wall during the filming of "carrington" because he was not able to bring himself to tears as the sequence required or somehting.

actor friends also told me that the "method" can drive you totally crazy if you do not throughly know who you are inside and out, and if you cannot also maintain some distance from the character at any point.

i think it was peach that recounted once an occurrence during the filming of "the marathon man". dustin hoffman - a known "method" actor -had to play a very demanding sequence, both physically and emotionally, and he was litterally bringing himself to that state before the actual filming of the scene began.

laurence olivier was watching him do it, and kept silent for a while. and then he asked someone on the set why exactly hoffman was doing that to himself, which was painful to even behold. the other person said that hoffman was working himself up according to "the method".

so apparently - and this is priceless - laurence olivier asked: but, why doesnt he simply ACT?

i wonder if rufus toned down his own "methodical" behavior a notch. i certainly hope so.

but he does sound like a person who can. he often mentions his basic laziness, so after a while, gaining self-confidence, perhpas actors can let go of these extreme self-inflictions.

[kygal]

Interesting info Tipou. I guess it is hard for some actors to take certain roles...thats why we see the same actors playing the same type characters.

Bluehorse...I thought it was potatoes...but now I will watch again due to your rice theory...ha ha.

[bluehorse]

LOL kygal.... I count on you watch carefully and listen to what he says!

But what do we do if on my copy there is rice and on yours there is mashed potatoes?
;D
Then we need an impartial third opinion!

Well, as I said, this is a minor question and yet, it does not let me in peace.
Let alone the other ones.
Tipou has given a precious statement, thx Tipou!