Nocturnal Animals : Pretentious garbage

Maybe this movie works better if you've read the book. I haven't. God, I was never so bored in my life. All those shots of Amy looking at herself in mirrors, or doing Really Deep Thinking; the violent and ridiculously far-fetched story-within-the-story; the flashbacks to their early life, with both actors (especially Jake) struggling to appear 20 years younger. Awful.

Each to his own, but I think there's a lot of Emperor's New Clothes mixed up in all these "brilliant" and "mesmerising" comments. I really like both the lead actors, but I don't think I want to see either of them again for quite some time after sitting through this fiasco.

I probably wouldn't go so far as to call it a fiasco but I was disappointed after the hype. At best, this film, for me, was disturbing with no upside at all.

Still looking forward to The Arrival though and I'm hoping the hype around that one will be lived up to.

Ironically, I was disappointed with Arrival and it didn't live up to the hype for me. Whilst this film (getting nowhere near as good reviews) blew me out of the water.

Well, I'm more of a sci-fi person. And fantasy. So, maybe that has something to do with it.

But I haven't seen Arrival yet, so please, no spoilers. I don't even watch trailers (haven't watched TV for 25 years so this is easy) and only vaguely know what it is about. Which is exactly the way I like it.

Another I am looking forward to is Passengers with Jennifer Lawrence at the end of this year.

But getting back to this I had heard about this film two days before I saw it. And only skimmed over a synopsis in a newspaper- saw the bit about her reading a story by her ex and knew I had to see it right away.

I write myself- for my own amusement mostly. And I have an over-achieving ex who never thought I was good enough and I could readily relate to this. One of my fantasies has always been writing a bestseller and sending her a postcard from my yacht somewhere, you know? ;-)

Anyway, I found the premise to the story very intriguing. I wish it had focused more on that. But the focus seemed to be more on the way we compromise ourselves in life. How we let ourselves and others down. Essentially, how we fail.

While I can certainly understand why this is a rich lode of a topic to develop a story out of, the characters themselves in this story just didn't do so much for me. I would never stand by while my wife and daughter were dragged off to be raped and murdered. Better to go down fighting- at least then if the outcome is the same, you aren't wracked by guilt about not having done anything.

So, even though I realize the character in the story is a metaphor for something in Edward's life, I still couldn't relate to him (the fictional father/husband) and thus much of the film.

I also would never stand somebody up like he did at the end. I don't care what they did. If I gave my word and said I would be there, I'd be there.

So, yeah, I didn't like the people. Didn't like their choices. Didn't care about the outcome.

Keep in mind, I haven't read the book- so maybe there is something HUGE I have missed.

he killed himself after getting her email suggesting where to meet.

I also would never stand somebody up like he did at the end. I don't care what they did. If I gave my word and said I would be there, I'd be there.

one of the daftest comments ever made.

i'm tired of dancing here all by myself

How is it daft to keep your word?

First of all, I have been completely respectful to everyone on this board. I don't engage in name-calling of flinging insults about. It's non-constructive.

How is it daft to keep your word? And how is that a daft question?

I tell somebody I'll be somewhere (like work, for example) and I'll be there. I would never stay out of work pretending sickness or because I didn't feel like going. Likewise, I would NEVER make a date with someone and not turn up.

Maybe that seems like a stupid way to live life to you but it matters to me.

---

are you Donald Trump ?

---

What kind of question is this? What are you talking about?

I left the USA over half my life ago and have never been back and would not return under any circumstances. Best thing I ever did.

Who they elect for president is their problem.

What's it got to do with this conversation?

where on Earth did you get the idea that he killed himself?

Same, I thought this was miles better than Arrival.

To each his own, but I don't get it, though I understand what people are getting out of it.

Whoosh.

i, like the OP, was horribly bored throughout.

"Bored" says more about the viewer than it does about the film. There seems to be a number of people on here that want to know what they are missing and why others thought very highly of it. If they were too bored to work that out then any explanation given is going to be met with the same ennui.
So again, "whoosh" will have to do.

There's no hope for you.

Watched it and while the performances from all the cast were great the story was utter nonsense it would have worked better as the "book" rather than the nonsense surrounding the main story,

it really was a terrible film, as in, the story-telling was non-existent. super glossy but with absolutely no substance. i quite liked the story about the rape/murder but it never went anywhere; nor did Susan's "story", or lack thereof. can someone please explain what this was MEANT to be about (the book synopsis didn't really give me a clue either)?

a terrible film because
non existent story telling
absolutely no substance
never went anywhere

I don't doubt how you feel but I'm pretty sure you've not backed your statements up.




i'm tired of dancing here all by myself

the film itself backs them up though. the story/stories go nowhere, and are very unsubstantiated because of that. we are introduced to a slew of characters who are only vaguely and superficially connected to each other (Susan/Edward - despite the film according to most being some form of revenge tale, we barely see Susan and Edward together, thus not making it clear that there is any need for revenge of any kind), Susan/Hutton (new husband), Susan/redhead daughter (it is never explained or even hinted at whose daughter this is), and then the in-book-characters who are also just thrown together by chance (Tony and his family/the rednecks/the odd law man with the lung cancer). there are no clear parallels between the characters in the film world and the book world - i find it very odd to suppose that Susan is somehow to be represented by the killers in the film, as there is nothing palpable presented in order to make that connection, other than Susan aborting an unwanted child AFTER her and Edward split up. that does not make her a rapist murderer.

i can sort of see the trajectory of Susan as going from a girl who doesn't want much other than love out of the world to a woman who realizes she wants more for herself than just some hopeless bum who can't even write one decent novel, but wants to give up everything in order to become a writer just because he "believes" that he can, and then throws a tantrum when she is critical of his work ("i just wanted you to like it" is not a great reason for staying up all night writing a story in the first place, and it certainly is no reason to storm off when it gets criticized). she was unhappy then as is unhappy now, but that doesn't mean she can't change (again). these are characters, they're not wooden dolls. Edward could easily just have a new relationship and get on with his life - nothing truly happened between them that warrants any kind of revenge.

the ending of the story is also just inconclusive and unsatisfying. she wants to see him because his work touched her, not to get back together with him (there are NO hints as to this). his not showing up is confusing, but would merely be a minor inconvenience to the character we see on the screen. all of that said, i do strongly feel that there is something missing from the story - not necessarily an "explanation", but a reason for the viewer to actually care, and to WANT to make the tenuous connections that fill this board. as it is, i cannot see any of those parallels hinted at (it is a stretch, to be sure - the fact that he dedicates the novel to her could just be to show that he did finally make it, and that is that. i don't even know why she is so gripped by the story - it's "just" a thriller, it's not even particularly novel/interesting).

there are a lot of other moments in the film i don't understand, but the overarching story is incomprehensible.

Some of the things you are saying are not explained very well or don't make sense (that's me being polite)
for example, a slew of characters only vaguely and superficially connected- I don't agree
for example, you appear to be criticising characters being thrown together by chance-does this never happen ?
for example, there are no clear parallels between the characters in the film world and the book world- I disagree, and I think it was meant for Susan to see those anyway.

You also state many common 'so called' failings that many people find with some of the movies they watch.
it is never explained..
not making it clear..
inconclusive and unsatisfying..

All of which do not necessarily have to be made obvious by the film makers, as I'm sure you know.

Bit like saying it's a bad question, because you don't know the answer, when perhaps the opposite is true.

And the bits you mentioned in BOLD. I think you missed some things here.

AFTER - I didn't interpret (it is open to this) that they'd actually split up at this point, only that cracks were appearing in the marriage and when he saw her in the rain it was a double whammy, aborted my child and shagging another fella. marriage over. we were never shown any aftermath, if there was any.

NO hints at this - only the scene in the mirror where she plays with her hair and removes the lipstick to make herself look like when she was 21 and decided not to wear her wedding ring, not to mention the excitement she was expressing.

WANT - this point you make about not caring is simply up to you, you absolutely don't have to care or to make the connections/parallels that others might've. You will feel what you feel. I think the film doesn't encourage empathy specifically, nor should it need too.

You actually sound like you do have empathy with at least one character, and that's Susan, although you're the version of Susan that's not for turning, just yet. And would probably have emailed Edward, but not to suggest a meeting and praise the book, but to tell him it was average and after all these years he's still a *beep* writer.



i'm tired of dancing here all by myself

i think you're missing my point a little. in any medium with good story-telling, no, characters are not thrown together by chance, and then nothing is made of it. that is exactly that: bad story-telling. sure, it happens in real life all the time; but real life works very differently, and is often very uninteresting. you can't translate real life to film, it'd be immensely boring and confusing.

as for the characters, the relationships are random at best. there is no depth to any of the relationships in the story, other than the one between Tony and his family. everyone else is a cardboard copy of a character, barely touching another. this is what bothers me the most: why make such hollow characters while not being clear about what your point is in doing so? and yes, the filmmaker is responsible for making me care/empathize/hate/feel something about the characters. otherwise again this is bad characterization, which is a sign of bad writing/storytelling.

a filmmaker owes something to his or her audience. again, i am not saying everything should be spelled out - the point of not spelling everything out is precisely to involve the viewer and let him or her come to his or her own conclusions. there is however an enormous difference between being deliberately playful and open, and not giving the viewer any tangible clues whatsoever to what is going on in the story - and the latter is not just my impression, it is an overwhelmingly popular one.

to conclude, i am not saying that this film is "garbage". i am simply saying that it is deeply deeply flawed in all aspects of narrative storytelling. it is also not an art film, so it doesn't have that "excuse" to lean on - it is a narrative picture with an artful focus, perhaps, but it goes astray very very quickly in all the important aspects of what a narrative character-driven story is meant to accomplish. thus it is a badly scripted film, which to me also makes it a bad film.

A majority of filmographers say the opposite.

So? I work with "a lot of videographers" and I wouldn't trust their judgement about movies any more than I'd trust an engineer's judgement about outer space.

Whatever the hell helps you sleep at night. Plus, no one is perfect. Cut the overly judgmental crap cause we have enough of that in the world already.

I know she's only 7 or 8 years older than him but I thought she looked like his mom thru most of it lol


Someone who disagrees with you is NOT a hater

I'm afraid I agree. I loved A Single man which I found simple but emotional, stylish but not shallow. This, though, failed at all of those. It was shallow, unconvincing, unmoving and I just didn't care about anyone. I found the 'rednecks' laughable - yes, they did nasty things, but as characters they were too clean, too young, and just poorly played - the Shannon character a poor substitute for Jeff Bridges in Hell and High Water.

Was the book Edward's catharsis? Not sure how, if so. Was his strength in carrying out at the end what he couldn't do when it mattered a good thing? Don't know, as we never see them together to talk about it.

Accepting the concept - three stories in one - it was poorly executed given Adams spent most of the film in bed reading. She talks about the terrible way she dumped him but unless I missed it we don't see it. Possibly him standing her up was an echo of that but I didn't care by that point.

Thus it seems to be that the film lost out by not reuniting the pair so all this could be addressed.

www.chrismrogers.net, a website for architecture and visual culture

She talks about the terrible way she dumped him but unless I missed it we don't see it


You can't say things like that and expect to be taken seriously.

And the film can't really lose out, it just didn't go how you would like or expect. So I understand why you did't like it much.

The filmmakers clearly wanted to end the film like this because in life, not everything gets resolved to everyone's satisfsaction. Sometimes the damage is done.

i'm tired of dancing here all by myself

I loved A Single Man but this was a massive disappointment, not because it was too vague but because it was brain-bendingly, hilariously obvious, heavy handed and painfully predictable.

I'll support this with a few examples:

1 - Just in case we hadn't noticed this was a 'revenge' story, and revenge for what specifically, Amy Adams character walks past a painting that LITERALLY spells it out and then has a terribly ham-fisted conversation about a baby (LIKE HER ABORTED ONE!)with someone.

2 - Aaron Taylor-Johnson's ridiculous performance as a 'crazy, wild eyed' redneck with no regard for life (who's so 'despicable' his toilet is on his on his porch at the front of his house and we have to watch him wipe his arse and inspect his faeces in front of people) that appeared to be worryingly analogous to Amy adam's character which seemed to imply that 'abortion is murder'.

3 - How spectacularly obvious it was that Michael Shannon's cop was dying of cancer meaning that they would go rogue and kill Aaron's gang followed by Amy Adams 'symbolically' wiping off her lipstick in a statement of rejecting the superficial world she'd foolishly chosen over the emotionally 'real' artist/creator that was Jake Gyllenhal who is absolutely never going to turn up to their date as the final act of his convoluted 'revenge by art' plan.

Critics love this film because of it's ham-fisted subtext that "the moneyed, and privileged world surrounding the creative industries (art, fashion, music, literature etc) is superficial and cold whereas the 'real' creators of art (Jake Gyllenhall as stand-in for the 'creative director' Tom Ford) are tragic outsiders that communicate truth and will have their 'revenge' by means of their work's genius remaining long after the parties are over".

Ultimately it was a series of Ford-era Gucci ads beautifully shot and edited that couldn't escape the gravity of the vacuum at their center.

So your point is that it was sugar coated in obviousness? XD Helluva an argument man. Why should they have to complicate things any further in film only to express their point of view? Seems you were expecting an idea that's half baked or non-existent at all, thus not showing up.

---

Seems you were expecting an idea that's half baked or non-existent at all, thus not showing up.

---

I'm just gonna assume that English ain't your first language and let the mangled grammar pass, but how on earth did you draw the conclusion that I wanted a half-baked or non-existent idea to lie at the centre of the film? I just wanted a film that wasn't unintentionally hilarious whilst taking itself so very, very seriously.

It's alright though, you like your movies clearly signposted and prescriptive (unlike your grammar), whilst I prefer a little bit more subtlety and nuance. Horses for courses buckeroo.

And no, my point was not that it was 'sugar coated in obviousness'. How do you sugar coat something in obviousness? I think you're mixing your metaphors there a little champ.

Surrrrrre. Keep telling yourself that. Also might want to try to be a little more original instead of reverting to grammar Nazism right off the bat. But seeing as you incredulously picked up zilch, I will let it slide, cause people in this neck of the woods could hardly give a *beep* So, not sure whatever the hell style of film you care for then XD Seems you're just sinking under the weight of your own jaded outlook. So if I'm not mistaken everything must be a certain way to fit your needs for one tone over the other? Unless that was the point and you mistook the purposely twisted tone at hand in the film. Guess no one can help you there. Tough luck lad.

ok
I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve here but it definitely isn't a discussion about Nocturnal Animals, so, er, good luck in your semantic endeavours I guess

Just a simple difference of opinion I guess.

It would seem so.

I am curious though, what was it about this film that you connected with, what did you take away from it, what do you think it did well.

I guess, what I'm really asking iswhy did you enjoy it?

From a broader view, it was an almost dreamlike juxtaposition of the fake and privileged world of Susan Morrow and true but unfortunate world of Hastings/Sheffield. I say dreamlike due to the particular visual palette and the, agreed, purposely laughable depiction of the art scene in Susan's world.. The various character facets and POV's were also quite intriguing, so that we don't only get the self contained dilemma between Morrow and Sheffield. The performances could not have been any better in order to serve that purpose.

Interesting.
And I'd agree that that was definitely the intention, but for me it just didn't come off.

I found the performances, bar Shannon, to be varying degrees of overripe. And I know that all concerned can turn in a good performance, so I can only put it down to the direction. Adams had practically nothing to do but read in bed, Taylor-Johnson was way into wild-eyed parody territory and Gyllenhaal took his usual hangdog hurt me way past sustainability.

And I just found it all so sledgehammer heavy and humourless.
It so wanted to be a Lynchian exploration of human folly and recrimination but Ford lacked the depth and just cribbed the style. It's like he was afraid his audience wouldn't 'get it' (and to be fair, it seems a lot of them still don't so)

I think Ford is a good technical filmaker; A Single Man proves this.
And I do think he'll one day make a great film.
But for me this one came back off the rim.

I dunno, horses for course I guess.

I'll tell you what movie fails on almost every level, Midnight Special from the great (yeah, still upcoming) Jeff Nichols. Now there's a film worthy of brutal disappointment when his past achievements soared. Hopefully Loving isn't another letdown. As the sophomoric feature Nocturnal Animals is from Ford, it's very much a leap in its own right compared to most of what's been out this year in both inspiration and quality. Again, my humble opinion.

Where do you rank Bobbie among Shannon's work?

That's a tricky one. He has a particular style on par with actors like Billy Bob Thornton or Chris Walken that is its own force of nature. His performances are all so different.

But if I were to place Robert Andes on a scale you say? I'd say about a 92/100, compared to Take Shelter (99), The Iceman (96), and Boardwalk Empire (96). Another great iconic performance from him is Bug, in which he is downright terrifying yet you can't help but find his loony bin character to be hysterical. That one I'd go with a 97. He is a plain and simple virtuoso of Dramedy.

I haven't got around to seeing Midnight Special yet. I have heard from a couple of people that its reach ultimately exceeds its grasp though. Shame.

So far this year I've enjoyed Hell or High Water, The Greasy Strangler, Green Room, Embrace of the Serpent, Weiner, The Witch, Star Trek, Creative Control, The Survivalist, A Bigger Splash, Hail Caeser, Rams The Lobster and Victoria amongst others

Ah, Hail, Caesar. Another film that could have been so much instead was a little episodic exercise.

It was definitely flawed and felt like a massively missed opportunity but got by on charm for me.

I was saddened by how little the Coens decided to utilize their high wire cast, they were all practically props in an unbearably empty yet charming ode to the Golden Age of cinema. I mean looking at it from afar, there wasn't even a story line to begin with. Not sure what the hell happened there.

Hopefully the Coens get back on their high horse with more meaningful material. Wasn't able to see Bigger Splash yet but it's on the radar. Captain Fantastic with Viggo on the other hand was a treat of a family drama. Interesting little character study too of the relationship between a transcendental father of sorts and his band of Woodstock young.

The film is about the choices we make in life and how others, and society in general help to influence these one way or another.

And how other peoples choices can have a devastating impact on your own life.

It is so often the young who start out with big dreams and try desperately to resist the urge to follow the typical paths in life we are often encouraged to take.

Edward and Susan were both in this place,
They had each other's heart in their hands.

but Susan succumbed to the pressures (family, career, finances, status etc) that surround young people and sadly, during this period of doubt and insecurity she broke first and managed to also inflict a devastating blow to a man who was brave enough to resist the temptations.

You can't be weak and a selfish person and truly love someone.

She was the weak one, she succumbed to temptation and had an affair, she aborted a child she didn't want, she married for money, she did what was expected of her (What would please her mother). All at a cost. The immediate impact was on Edward.

The book was payback, she had sold her soul. Edward's book and her own life helped her to finally see this.

PS.
the obvious scene you have referred to was most likely a dream or in Susan's head. It was out of sync with the rest of the film and I believe was meant to show how paranoid and full of self doubt and remorseful she'd become.

She wanted her soul back.

PPS.
I also believe that the book was written by Edward and dedicated to Susan after so long, as he'd been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The book is also more of a reflection on his own experiences and how he felt helpless at the time at such a horrible and unexpected turn in his life, and how he struggled to react and do anything about it for a long time afterwards. Only after being diagnosed with cancer did he feel inspired to write this book/allegory.

Was he wanting to help her retrieve her soul as a dying gift to the woman he once loved or was he wanting her to feel pain. Or both.



i'm tired of dancing here all by myself

Exactly. Both characters represent two different sides of the social coin. Susan was overprivileged and let that destroy her love for Sheffield while he was the one that stuck it out in the years to come without her so call love.

Whether whatever happened in his story is true or not makes it even more hard hitting. That this event motivated him to write a true and soulfully written account of his awful experience with Ray Marcus and gang and the further inspiration drawn from Andes to man up is definitely a form of "told you so" to Susan when she only presumed and then further doubted his spirits.

His revenge was basically, "look what supposedly happened to me in the unforgiving and nasty Texas landscape and now look how far I've come. What have you been doing but sipping Absinthe like your poodle mother in that little glass box of yours, risk free of all the potential hazards of life because of everything being served to you on a silver platter. You call yourself an artist? I am sorry Susan, but true art is derived from the soul." That's what I garnered from Ford's film.

All the ridiculous ostentatious *beep* was intended to be played for laughs while actual literary motifs for Edward's story were the light through the tunnel.

Yeah, you see I understood all of this, but just found it a little bit banal and conveyed in an overly portentous and overtly obvious manner.I just felt the film wasn't half as subtle or profound as it thought it was.

Also, to address your PS and in order to give the aforementioned clumsy Revenge painting scene the benefit of the doubt I would say that by having Susan supposedly notice the painting for the first time it is supposed to illustrate that the book is getting to her and the 'coincidence' that her colleague just happens to talk about some baby app compounds her feelings of guiltbut it is also meant to communicate to us and it remains an incredibly blunt way of doing so. If you have the guts to 'show, don't tell' then don't 'show' by literally spelling something out for us.

At the end of the day, I'm glad you enjoyed it and that it spoke to you and I think that Ford will make another great movie, but this one just didn't work for me.

PS - What makes you so convinced that Edward has cancer? There is nothing in the film to suggest this at all.

I think I can answer that by saying for some audiences that really can't figure out or interpret things for themselves, Ford recognizes that potential issue by presenting these motifs.

Yeah, I hear ya, and I expect that in more mainstream movies but Nocturnal Animals definitely positioned itself as a 'smart' film. I guess this my ultimate problem with it: it takes itself very seriously and wants us to take it seriously too whilst draping itself in the aesthetics of high-end cinema but at the end of the day it's actually a very pedestrian, faux-intellectual, middle-class morality play for the chattering classes to coo about over dinner in a fancy restaurant. It's what I'd normally call ThickPlus (it looks like its smart and flatters its audience into thinking that they're smart too, but it's actually pretty simplistic. It's what a lot of people mistakenly label pretentious).

I've expelled a lot of words on this now and it's probably time I just filed it away under 'disappointing' and moved on.

Good talking to you Sicario.

It seems like the style and story line in general didn't resonate with you. Because it pretty much serves that purpose that you described, but in my view in a refreshing way that's enjoyable.

The beauty of it was its simplicity I think. I just tend to gravitate towards the more experimental forms in cinema that have a grasp on its material as well. In which I think NC succeeded in on both a mainstream and artistic front, give or take.

But I am sorry to hear if you were expecting something more of it. Good talk.

I just can't accept he would just not turn up.
I also felt that there had to be clues as to who Edward is now and what has become of him, within his book. We are shown nothing of the modern day Edward and we are all expecting him to meet her.

The last scene in the restaurant is exceptional and the foreboding is progressively heavy and Susan is visibly shaken, almost turned to stone. She's can't just be pissed off because he's not shown up, she's realised she'll never see him again and the clues are in the book. She's put 2 and 2 together.

Tony only had the opportunity/courage to avenge/get justice for his wife and daughter's death after learning the detective had cancer. It was the push/trigger required when all else had failed. I can't remember the dialogue between the two (detective and tony in the restaurant/cafe) but from memory it seemed relevant at the time. i.e with hidden meaning for the watcher.

i'm tired of dancing here all by myself