2017 movie
Rating: 17/20
Plot: In the shadow of Cinderella's Castle (or is Snow White's Castle in Disney World?), the hidden homeless spend a summer in a magical motel.
Baker didn't shoot this movie on an iphone (not all of it anyway), so it's got a different look from Tangerine. And that look is stunningly beautiful. Baker shot this in a gaudy, cheapo tourist area with Magic Castle and Future Land motels painted garishly. There's this artificial magic all around, and it's sharply contrasted with the situations these characters are in. The constant taking-off and landing of a sightseeing helicopter, touristy gift shops, Mickey Mouse's fireworks splashed across the sky at one point, snack places in the shape of giant oranges. They're all visual reminders that we're dealing with the have-nots in an area that the haves like to come and spend their money.
And it would all be pretty depressing if it wasn't for a couple of things. First is Baker's eye and his use of color in this movie. So many shots in this are just gorgeous, all that capitalistic vulgarity and luridness. Pictures in this movie are worth thousands of words as the backdrops represent so many unspoken ideas. Shots of the kids walking past that aforementioned building shaped like a giant orange. A magical shot of Dafoe lighting a cigarette at dusk as the lights of the motel suddenly flicker on. A rainbow arcing over the lavender (Note: I don't know if this is the right color word or not, and my wife will not help me.) motel. It's possible that rainbow was CGI, but I'm going to die knowing that it was a happy accident instead. I just loved the look of this movie, and if you take away the stories and the characters' situations and those characters' interactions, the visuals Baker gives us might have been capable of creating emotions in me all by themselves. There's an impossible amount of everyday magic in each shot.
What this really has in common with Tangerine is that it shows the director's ability to empathize and really connect with the movie's human subjects, people who are kind of on the fringes of society. I didn't always like what these characters were doing. With the kids, it was general mischief making--spitting on cars, trespassing, light arson. Sharing the questionable decision-making of the adults would get into spoiler territory. But despite not liking what the characters do or how they treat each other in this movie, I found it impossible to dislike them. In fact--and I'm aware that this is going to sound cheesy even before I type it--I really fell in love with these characters and kind of miss them. At the very least, I really want to know what happened to them after the movie and know whether they're all OK or not. I know they're characters in a movie and not real people in a documentary because I'm not a child, but Baker does this remarkable thing where he has created a group of characters who will, for me at least, exist outside of the movie. They're as real as movie people can get, and there are certain joys and certain sadnesses that come from that. Baker's not really even making a statement about the "hidden homeless" here; he's just giving these people who a lot of Americans either don't know about or don't want to think about a voice.
I've got to say that I'm stunned by the acting in this movie. I had concerns because I knew going in that the majority of the movie would focus on these children, and if they were typical child actors, that could make the whole thing almost unwatchable. The kids in this were delightful as these resilient little human beings. I was touched by their performances, and I have no idea how Baker did it. I assume tons of footage was shot of these kids just playing in these different locations with the best bits edited together. But there was just something so soothing and refreshing about watching these kids--Brooklyn Pierce, just so perfectly a little kid; Valeria Cotto; Aiden Malik; Christopher Rivera--transforming what could be portrayed as the most dismal situation in the world as something magical and joyous. These kids, like Dafoe's character's loving paint job, are capable of bringing color into this bleak world. The kids in this recall the performances in Beasts of the Southern Wild or Little Fugitive in how they manage to be like real kids and not kids trying very hard to be real kids in a feature film.
Baker, by the way, says he was influenced by The Little Rascals. I'm guessing that's the television show and not the movie that was made that has a Donald Trump cameo.
The adults are more hit and miss. I don't think all of them are professional actors and actresses. The one big Hollywood name is Dafoe, and he's great. He is probably more fun when he's playing a character who isn't very human, but here, he gives this perfectly subdued and nuanced performance as a guy who is limited in his heroism and tortured by his role as a patriarch. You don't get much backstory with Dafoe's Bobby, but you know a backstory is there.
There's one moment in this that suddenly has music, and that's when it occurred to me that the rest of this movie doesn't have music. It was startling to discover that, and I thought about it later. The music of the movie really is provided by the naturalistic dialogue with these kids and the colors of the film. It's musical without any music at all, and I think it's a better movie for it.
I teared up throughout the movie as I thought about the futures of these kids and how they lived so well in the present. And by the end of the movie, I was bawling, just a complete mess. However, I thought it was one of the most beautiful movies I've seen in a long time and inserted it into my top-five for 2017, a very strong year for movies. I wish it had been nominated for Best Picture.
Oh and that line about the tree? The topless woman by the pool? The heroic expelling of a creepy pedophile? God, I feel like I could watch this again and write about it all day. I loved this movie so much!
19 comments:
Let me start this by saying how just about every emotional response you had to this movie -- I had the exact opposite emotion. I think I know why, and I can try to explain that later.
Let me start with the good parts of this movie. Still, even saying that there were good parts to this movie is a struggle for me because of the strongly negative and bitter emotions I held throughout the entire film. Seriously, the narrative and characters created to make this happen completely put me off, and I had to objectively step away from of the personal opinions it energized and look at it from a mechanical stand-point.
THE GOOD:
The camera movement – This director definitely knows how to shoot a movie. There’s so much variety from slow, panning shots to shaky, first-person. If I wasn’t fuming about the characters’ decisions, I was distracted by good technical work.
The cinematography – Again, Baker shows that he knows how to make a movie look (he even did the editing himself). As a matter of fact, I wish I would have just watched this movie with the sound off; it would have been a thousand times more captivating. Those panoramic shots mixed with small, intimate shots were good. And, yes, those colors. I think he stole that Florida color scheme from The Birdcage movie, though. Those pastels and saturated greens/blues/purples/yellows aren’t original. The sweltering Florida atmosphere and the vibrant Florida landscape have been put to film before.
The acting – Willem Dafoe’s Bobby obviously stands out as the one you root for the most. He’s pretty much all benevolence… except for the fact that he’s an enabler. The moms were all so authentic. The actress who played Moonee’s mom was incredible. I can’t remember hating a character that much (maybe Capt Hadley from Shawshank Redemption). I had a venomous hate toward that character, and I think it was a combination of writing and acting to bring that sour emotion out of me. Hell, even the extras were realistic. I bet some of them were being filmed unaware (being sold perfume…). The topless lady at the pool, the pedophile, the staff and residence all felt as if I were watching a documentary at times. The kids did a great job. I think you’re right; It seems like the director told them to go play and he let the adults take care of the rest. Still, I could tell that there were many instances where the director had clearly given them a direction throughout a scene, and the kids were very one note. I liked them best when there were obliviously distracted. And, of course, that ending where Moonee breaks down. It was the conformation I needed to thoroughly hate this movie, yet a poignant moment that I couldn’t deny as good film-making.
Ok, all of that being said, I thought this movie was wrong on many levels. Even if Baker meant to dig deep for vitriolic emotions in his audience, I would say that would make it even more wrong. I say that because I think this movie romanticizes poverty and welfare in the worst ways. Moonee’s mom is the poster child (and I certainly mean “child” as she avoids all of the most important adulthood responsibilities)…the poster child of entitlement. I don’t feel sorry for her because she doesn’t practice any good virtues. And no, loving your daughter is not a virtue when you don’t parent her. I was able to get past the avoidance of the lack of upward mobility, but the lack of ANY representations of ANY virtues by Moonee and her mother was just inexcusable. I don’t care how poor you are – respect, class, decency, and work ethic are free. You know where I learned that? In my own life.
And, thus, brings us to the WHY I think I hated this movie so much. It hits awfully close to home. I mean that literally. I grew up somewhat similarly, and to this day, I have family who live just like Moonee’s mom. They are selfish and too lazy to even keep up on the paper work for Medicaid. They live off handouts, theft, drug dealing, and lying. They are family, and they are irredeemable as they are because they have CHILDREN. I don’t judge peoples’ life choices, but I do judge when those life choices negatively affect children.
Moonee breaking down at the end of this movie as happened at our family Christmases, reunions, birthday parties, I’ve heard that they’ve cried at school because of their home life, and I’m sure they break down at their own homes. I don’t care how colorful their worlds are, it’s not beautiful. I don’t care how much “mischief” they kick up (because they have no stability or awareness of consequences), it’s not fun or comical. It stirred up something personal where I’ve seen children having to deal with adult situations.
The synopsis for this thing pisses me right off: “Set over one summer, the film follows precocious six-year-old Moonee as she courts mischief and adventure with her ragtag playmates and bonds with her rebellious but caring mother, all while living in the shadows of Walt Disney World.”
She not “precocious,” she’s unparented – she’s feral.
And she’s not “courting” it because she’s allowed to run wild the busy streets of a major Florida city full of stragers and PEDOPHILES. She could have been kidnapped, hurt, taken advantage of, or traumatized. She sets a fucking building on fire, and I feel like we were supposed to snicker or shake our heads with a chuckle saying “kids will be kids.” That’s not “adventure”…it’s fucking arson, and she deserved to be punished for it.
Her mother is not “rebellious or caring,” she’s selfish – she’s entitled.
And she didn’t “bond” with her, she was just a kid being raised by a childish person who teachers nothing of responsibility, ownership, consequence, maturity, respect, work ethic, accountability, delayed gratification, or any other virtue that helps to prevent the emotional collapse witnessed at the end of this movie. Loving a daughter is not honorable. Love is sacrifice, and I don’t see how that mother sacrificed for her daughter. She expected others to do it for her.
This movie was tragic. And what’s even more tragic is that I personally know people who would be holding up Moonee’s mom as an example – cheering her on even as the villainous State took her child away. This movie validates their life style…and it tragically allows another child to cry herself to sleep because of her parent’s choices.
It's a 3/20 solely because I was able to lose myself a few brief moments in the technicality of it. It's irredeemable otherwise, just like that mother.
I've never felt so Republican watching a movie before...I kind of hate myself a little now, too.
Ok, ok...after some time to cool off and reflect, I think I'll bump up my rating. But before I do, let me explain myself. I still don't agree that he should have put a character on screen like that and not making it obvious that she is an antagonist -- a person with which you should not root for, admire, or encourage. I understand that clear lines don't always define characters, and that they easily drift from right to wrong like we all do. Still, I feel like the mother is irredeemable, and it is irresponsible to do what he did which I feel is throw a spot light of "understanding" and "sympathy". Is his next movie going to be about the pedophile who stalks them? Because what that mother did was use her child and subject her to adult problems at such a young age (not to mention the creepy guy walking in on her in the bath tub and hearing whatever noises followed...oh, and drug use, theft, rage, violence...I could go on).
Anyhoo, what I came back to say was that I have reflected and have more to say on the value of the film as a whole. That movie is beautifully shot. No movie with that technical achievement could go below a 5. So, now we're at a 5/20. Then there's the acting. Willem Dafoe and the actress who played the mom and the kids and the extras all came together to really show life in its natural state. The acting was authentic and engaging. I've gotta bump it up again to a 10/20.
Unfortunately, I have to leave it there because of the message I feel it sends to the audience. I would almost say that this movie is dangerous in that sense. Remember that movie "Little Children" where the director wanted us to sympathize for the Jackie Earl Haley's child molesting charater?? He got a fucking Oscar nomination for that role! It was real, it was gritty, it was hard to watch, but was I supposed to feel sorry for him? Same goes for this mother.
I want to like this movie so much, but I have a conscience. 10/20
Well, arguing about any emotional reactions a person has while watching a movie would be a losing battle, so I'm not about to do that. Our backgrounds and childhood experiences are different, and regardless of how good a movie might be, it's impossible to not bring personal experiences into the experience of watching something. Your emotional reactions to watching The Florida Project aren't things that crossed my mind at all.
I don't think our life experiences would be the main difference in how we see this movie though. I think it has more to do with our perceptions on the director's intent. I've had a few days to think about this (right in the vicinity of Magic Castle actually) since I read your comments but didn't have access to a computer and didn't feel like typing out my thoughts on my phone. The movie's still fresh on the mind, and although I probably can't recall every single moment in this movie, it's much closer than it is with most movies that I watch.
And I just can't find any evidence that this glamorizes poverty or makes the mother seem like a heroic character. The mom's almost a villain although I'd argue that the real villain is something more abstract and a little deeper than something like "poverty." I'm not sure anybody would watch this, see ANY action of the mother (letting her kid run around unsupervised, prostituting herself while her daughter takes baths, defrauding or even robbing people and then wasting the money on junk rather than using it to get out of the situation they're in) and think that she's a good person. She's got no business being a mother, and I doubt a lot of people would disagree with that. Why do you think this GLAMORIZES their situation?
I'm guessing it's the attempt to make the experience of the children appear...I don't know. Idyllic? The situation of the kids in this isn't something that is understood. She sort of spends the summer imagining her way out of it and just lives what she assumes is a normal life. That's probably the most tragic thing about the whole thing since we, as adults watching these kids' playtime as some sort of escape from the poverty and the despair, know better. We can see that this is a cycle that will likely continue because the daughter isn't getting any "education" from the experience and has a mother who has no interest in helping her daughter learn from her mistakes.
But isn't that how this works? Isn't that a VERY realistic portrayal of poverty? You've broken that cycle because somewhere along the way you were taught the importance of hard work, perseverance, problem solving, controlling your impulses, etc. But let's face it--that's not what happens with every child in America. So I just saw this as a realistic portrait of impoverished, homeless families. You don't really have to LIKE them (though I'd argue those kids are impossible not to like), but doesn't Baker almost force the viewer to EMPATHIZE with them, almost in a way that one could argue is manipulative.
I think that's an argument that I'd understand more. If somebody watched this and said, "The filmmaker is manipulating the audience," I could get that. But glamorizing poverty? I just don't see that, my friend.
Let's look at it this way--is the ending a happy ending? It shattered me, of course, but wasn't the daughter going to end up in a potentially better situation? Is that what the Disney castle represents at the end? Or is it more to do with the power of friendship? Another futile effort at escapism? I wasn't sure how I wanted to interpret that ending. If you don't see it as a happy ending (with the girl being taken from a terrible situation and terrible mother and having the chance at a much better life where she can be taught how to break this cycle and not fall into the same traps as her mother), then seeing it as an unhappy one would definitely not be glamorizing their situation, right?
You mentioned how we were supposed to laugh at the kid setting a building on fire? Are we? Although I think a lot of the shenanigans of the children are humorous, there was a lot going on here that terrified me as a parent. Or just as a human who cares about children and would rather bad things not happen to them. The arson scene was pretty terrifying. The pedophile scene? Equally terrifying. I saw some scenes as reminders, at least for us adults watching the movie, that while it might seem like these kids are resilient or immune to their situations, there are consequences out there that would have profound impacts on the rest of their lives. So I'd disagree with you on what Baker's intent was with some of those scenes. I do think a lot of it was supposed to be funny, and I think a lot of it was an attempt to create this magical world, something like the kids are experiencing that contrasts sharply with the reality we see as adults. But I don't think ALL of the scenes were meant to be snickered at.
And I'll remind you that there was a very real consequence with Moonee and the fire. She lost a friend because of that. It was one of the few moments (only moment?) where she felt any kind of lasting consequence (other than things like being hungry or having a creepy dude walk in on her while she's bathing) because of the actions of her or her mother.
As much as I think the mother is easy to hate in this movie, I would argue with you saying she's not caring. She's stupid and misguided and she is really terrible at making decisions. And yes, she's selfish. I do think she cares about her daughter. Unfortunately, she's just never been taught the right way to actually care about another human being, and she finds the easy way out. You're right in calling the mom "childish" here. She thinks like a child, and like all children, she can only see happiness in the context of instant gratification. She doesn't get life and doesn't know how to give her daughter gifts that will actually matter (life lessons, etc.), so she gives her daughter what she thinks is something--candy, trinkets, lots of breakfast food, the freedom to run around and do whatever she wants. Again, we're adults and know the lasting effect this will have on Moonee's life. The mother, operating with the intellectual prowess of a typical infant, doesn't get it. She cares, but she cares like a child would. You've got a child old enough to temporarily hate you and his mother because he's not getting something he wants, right? She reminds me of that, and it's hard for me to think of her as the real villain here because I'm just not sure she's capable of thinking differently. Her childhood was probably a lot like Moonee's with a few poor decisions as an adolescent thrown in, and she's just never been taught how to be an adult and really raise and care for a child. So she buys candy.
So I agree with you on all the good things you had to say about it, and I agree with you that it's tragic. But irredeemable? That's something I just don't get. Maybe that's the part of your comments where you were trying to antagonize me. But to me, this is very realistic. It's a realistic look at homelessness and poverty. It's a realistic look at childish escapism. But why would showing characters who you have identified as being realistic or reminding you of people you've known (me too, by the way...remember, I worked at a hotel that had monthly rates and teach in a school with some homeless students) not be a worthy endeavor? Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who would watch this movie and have no idea that these kinds of people exist.
One more question: Are we supposed to sympathize with the mother? I really don't think that was what Baker was asking us to do here.
Thanks for the comments. As antagonizing as they were, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this movie that you've got completely wrong.
I think you'll see that part as a joke, but I felt the need to say it was a joke anyway.
You're right about the irredeemable part. That was me speaking emotionally. Now I just think the movie is irresponsible. I whole-heartedly think that some of my family (and Audrey's family) would root for that mother since she lives the same life-style as them -- since she thinks like them. Look at the ending where the Child Protective Service people are there to take Moonee. I'd be willing to bet those same people I mentioned (and many more in this country) would see those state workers as the bad guys. I know that because we've called CPS on those family members, and they get defensive (who wouldn't).
You're right to say that this movie shines a light on how the homeless and severely poor live. But I don't think you're right to say that we are to empathize with some of those characters. Juxtapose Moonee's mom with the other couple of moms highlighted in the movie. They seemed to be making good life decisions even though they were in the same "place" as Moonee's mom. So why are we left seeing this life through the eyes of Moonee and her mother? Doesn't that make them the protagonists? I teach my students that a protagonist doesn't HAVE to be the "good guy". So why are we left to view this life through the eyes of someone doing everything wrong? And then, like you say, EMPATHIZE with that person? All I could do was JUDGE that person. Again, if the director's intention was to simply show me "a day in the life" of impoverished and homeless, then why give us those protagonists?
Let me cut back to my argument of responsibility. If I have to read deeply into the director's intention, and figure out what took paragraphs and paragraphs between you and I, then I'm disheartened to think one of my family members would watch this and obviously not put that effort in. They would look at it on the surface and see mother = good guy with the world against her. They'll view it as a girl who's living life the best she knows how (they leave their kids with strangers, they smoke pot, they move from hotel to apartment to family member's house to hotel). It's a tragedy to think that they won't learn from this movie. And that's what makes it irresponsible, to me.
I like how you explained her level of thinking which, in turn, explains her level of caring. You're right. She does care for Moonee. I realize that now. That makes much more sense to me. I still don't think she truly loves her, though. Like I said, love has to do with sacrifice, and I don't see her sacrificing anything for Moonee. It's all that childish immediate gratification you talked about. You nailed it with that explanation.
And, you're right again, to say that we can't argue over the emotional response taken from this movie. We can only discuss the director's intention. I say it glamorizes poverty because it starts with the title slide and the song "Celebrate Good Times". I don't think he meant it ironically. I say it glamorizes poverty because the beauty with which he shot this film. I say it glamorizes poverty because I do think we were supposed to smile and shake our heads at the kids' "adventures". I do think it glamorizes poverty because it highlights a "caring mother" and her "precocious" daughter (that's loaded language, for sure). I do think it glamorizes poverty because we see the mother making bad choice after bad choice instead of seeing her trying to pull herself up and out, and the joke is maybe I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS SHE'S MAKING BAD CHOICES...
I think the director wanted you to think it was a happy ending with that shot of the castle and almost forget about her being placed in the state's custody.
I dunno...maybe I just wanted some hope as I was watching. I was depending on the director to give me something to look forward to, and he didn't give any.
Do you think your relatives would end up seeing something like this? I just don't see this being irresponsible, and I still don't think it glamorizes the impoverished situation the characters are living in. I think there is a heaping portion of irony in this, and maybe the biggest difference in the way we're seeing this film is that I'm seeing it as ironic and you're not. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong exactly, just that our readings are different.
I mean, yeah it starts with Kool and the Gang. I had forgotten about that. You DON'T think that's used ironically? I think it's absolutely used ironically. And I'd say the beauty of the colors and the giant orange and the ice cream place and the tacky gift shops (I saw all those places, by the way...it's all barely within walking distance. The ice cream place is especially far away. Baker really makes that whole area seem more isolated and tinier than it is.)...all the beautiful shots are ironic. The fact that the place is advertising that it's magical when it is clearly not and Dafoe's character is clearly not some sort of wizard despite his ability to make lights come on when he lights a cigarette...that's ironic. I think the very sharp contrast between the way the kids see the world and the way the audience is going to see that world is ironic (dramatic irony).
I don't think the intended audience for this movie is going to watch this and think, "Wow, being poor is much more magical than I ever thought it could be! I want to live in a motel some day and have pedophiles hanging around my children and the constant buzz of helicopters and get to see grotesque old ladies by the pool and have our mattresses replaced because of bedbugs!"
Of course the mother is making bad choice after bad choice. She's in a seemingly endless cycle that she can't break out of because she's too stupid to realize she's in the cycle. She's like Sisyphus pushing that bolder up the mountain over and over again except she doesn't even know she's doing it. I really don't think ANYBODY (and this includes the people you mention in your life) will watch this and, like women watching Wonder Woman, think, "Finally! It's a hero for me!" It might feel like a mirror is being held up to their lifestyles and their own choices, but it's only an idyllic existence for the kid, and that halcyon world is shattered for Moonee by the end of the movie. Because yes, that Disney castle is probably ironic as well.
So you've got drugs, you've got prostitution, you've got squandered money, you've got petty crimes...and those are causes that lead to negative consequences. The mother (who I don't believe is the protagonist, by the way...nor the one we're really supposed to empathize with) is in the same deep hole she's in at the beginning of the summer with no real hope that she has the capabilities to climb out. She's lost her daughter. She's a loser likely to continue losing again and again.
You can still feel for a person making bad choices, but it's really Moonee, whose playtime or "adventures" show that she's both as innocent as a child and definitely capable of falling into the same self-destructive (or just plain destructive) traps as her mother, who we're supposed to connect and empathize with. The hope in the movie, if there is any, is that she will get some help and be able to disembark from that dismal merry-go-round that her mother is gleefully riding on. And you're right--there are characters in the same living situation who are foils for Moonee's mother. You see a family actually leaving, presumably moving on to greener pastures without tourist helicopter rides. You see her friend's grandmother who is working a little bit harder to do something. You see her mom's friend stop being Moonee's friend. We can empathize and root for those characters (and their real-life equivalents) even when it's really hard to root for Moonee's mother.
I can definitely understand the criticism that there's a lack of hope here. I think that's why Willem Dafoe's character is so important. He really is like the wizard of this Magic Castle, but he's completely impotent. He can walk a broken ice machine out of there, he can replace mattresses, he can chase away sketchy people or make those grotesque ladies put more clothes on, but he can't really work any actual magic to fix these people. He's got the perfect sad eyes to play this character. I can totally understand not liking (even hating) this movie because you feel like Dafoe's character, somebody without any real hope.
Calling this movie hopeless or saying that it provides no answers or lacks a theme...those are gripe that I could understand though I don't think a work of art has to fill a person with hope, provide answers, or have a theme.
Apologies for any typos...I'm not taking the time to proofread any of this gibberish.
This discussion is coming closer and closer to reaching 'Up' word count levels!
Ok...in my quest to have you concede SOMETHING, I'm going to compromise with you even further and capitulate that this movie is, in fact, not irresponsible or irredeemable. As I dwell on these emotions, and as I become more and more removed from watching the movie, I realize that my instinct was truculent and emotive. I should have been more academic-minded.
BUT, let me further my point by making a comparison. One that I hope you will agree with, thus making you agree with me. I want to compare The Florida Project to another movie. One that is a technical masterpiece, yet it romanticizes so many horrible things and highlights an underbelly of American society. Its protagonists are bad people; they are selfish, greedy, rebellious, and prideful. Still, I believe the director wanted us to empathize with them. That movie is Goodfellas.
I've really done some soul searching on this. I kept thinking, "The only reason I don't like Florida Project is because of the subject matter. It hits too close to home. I can see how people would take this and let it justify their choices -- let it give grounds for their life style. Is their any other movie I DO LIKE that does the same thing? If so, I can't hate on Florida Project. It would by hypocritical." BOOM, I came up with my favorite movie of all time, Goodfellas.
I know that there are people who root for Joe Pesci's character all the way until he gets popped in the back of the head. I know there are people who shook their head and grinned at a whacking here and a brutal beating there. I'm not saying it justified their lifestyle as if they were actually doing those things, but I do think the director was romanticizing the lifestyle all the same. Should I be as concerned that someone would watch that and say, "Oh, that means I can do those things." Perhaps. Joe Pesci losing his temper and becoming violent is something you see a lot of in the neighborhood I grew up in. But, I'm not about to condemn Goodfellas, so I can' t condemn Florida Project.
BUT, can you at least agree with me, that these two directors weren't just being ironic with these movies? That they were, in fact, painting a portrait of a part of America that is not realistically represented, and they were doing it in a romantic way. That the protagonists were bad people (I definitely think the protagonists in Florida Project are Moonee and her mother).
Unfortunately for me, because I see such similarities with these two movies, I have to again bump up my rating. I'm now at a 13/20. It is a masterfully done movie, but that ending just doesn't settle well with me. *but you're wearing me down*
On a side note, I really like your interpretation of Dafoe's character being the "wizard of the castle." I really like that metaphorical take.
I see you're underestimating my stubbornness again.
I don't really get any sense of irony in Goodfellas. In The Florida Project, I definitely do. Goodfellas, I think, is more like a Shakespearean tragedy. Maybe it's because I've seen in multiple times, but when you watch Goodfellas, you just know that its characters are heading toward tragic endings. I think The Florida Project has more hope. I think the tragedy in The Florida Project with these characters is a much quieter tragedy, but it's an obvious one. It may be hidden underneath all this Baker fantasy gloss, but it's there. I think that's what gives it this visual irony.
When I was a kid, I had a giant fight with my mom that resulted in her having to call my dad to come over and apparently have some ability to reason with me. I punched a hole in a wall, and she screamed and screamed. Then, in pops my dad, and I'm thinking, "What the hell is he even doing here? How did she think this would make a difference?" The hole that I punched in the wall was patched up, but you could always see it there. There was like a dent where the new wallpaper was. And for years, even as a visiting adult, I would have an emotional reaction when I saw that little dent. It reminded me of a bunch of things, but more than my mistakes or my mother's mistakes or underlying anger issues that I had or whatever, it always weirdly reminded me that I had a really shitty father. And he wasn't even there when I punched the wall and had nothing to do with it!
So Baker has kind of wallpapered over what these characters are going through. It's pretty wallpaper, and it's capable of fooling a kid maybe, but we know what is below the surface. It can't be hidden. And that's where the visual irony comes in, I think.
That was probably a terrible analogy.
I also think a big difference between the two movies is that I'd say Baker feels for the characters more. I don't think Scorsese really gives a crap about whether we empathize with the sorts of human beings he's creating. He knows people like that really exist, and there are themes that we can learn from their story, but I don't think he really cares if we have empathy, does he? I think Baker does, almost in a manipulative way. Yes, the characters are all making decisions that lead to a series of causes and effects that have gotten them to where they're at, but the roots of those decisions are so completely different. It's harder to personally connect with the Goodfellas characters, isn't it?
Interesting connection between the two. I don't think I ever would have thought to link these two movies in any way.
Here's what I will concede (although I think I kind of admitted this from the get-go)...I don't think my response to The Florida Project is "academic-minded" at all. I can see some technical brilliance, but my love for the movie has more to do with my emotional response just like your initial hatred of the movie had to do with your emotional response.
I've had to do some research regarding Sean Baker's intent and purpose of making this film. I've watched 5 or 6 interviews with him and the cast (over 2 hrs worth of interviews and talking about the film), and there are two things that have come up over and over that is pertinent to our conversation. From the mouth of Baker himself:
1. This movie is basically a comedy with touches of drama
2. It's a movie about a mother and daughter
3. The origin and idea of this movie came from reading about the "hidden homeless", and he wanted to shed light on the issue of marginalized communities.
1. I think about Joe Pesci's cowboy character, and how he kills a couple people immediately followed up by an intended laugh from the audience (I have a few examples I could give you: Spider, Maury, Stacks). Now, I chuckle because, yes, like you said, it's not as easy for me to relate to this movie as it is the overall idea of poverty. But think about a family who's been victimized by the mafia. They would look at that and say, "That's not funny..." They would have distain for those scenes. I think you and I are both on the same page when it comes to my emotional response, but I need to think about the movie as a work of art, and not just how I react to it. The same would be said to someone who reacts negatively to Goodfellas. I don't like that he wanted to "entertain" (his words) with this movie by using Moonee's mom as the protagonist. Use any of the other more honorable characters. Why "entertain" me with such a horrible person?
2. He confirms that Moonee and her mother are the main characters; hence, they are the protagonists. As a matter of fact, it was until after the script treatment was written and the movie green lit that Bobby and the children came into the picture. The Little Rascal element came later. Again, why choose such a deplorable mother as our protagonist? I really don't like that he wanted us to empathize with such an irredeemable character. It just didn't work for me...like, on a huge level. You can tell Baker and that actress truly love that character. They talk about how she's "carefree" and "free spirited". Come on...that's romanticizing a mother living off well-fair, some one who supposedly won't work (there's only one scene with her at a temp agency), making countless bad choices for her daughter, and is all out toxic.
3. His larger point is to highlight this issue of homelessness and poverty. However, why did he go with this character? It sucks the empathy OUT. Why do I need to work so hard to empathize and want to help a person who puts herself in this situation? Why, why, why could he have chosen one of the other more honorable mothers? Even the actress playing Moonee's mom says she is a lot like her character. What!?! Why would you want to emulate that? I told you. There are people who would emulate her. Who would defend her. Who see her as the hero against those CPS workers. Bobby is "the man" collecting rent. I feel like he hurts his mission with this character.
I don't get emotional watching Joe Pesci joke after capping a cohort. But there are people who would. Do I think the movie is less of an achievement? No. But like you said, Scorsese probably didn't want us to care as much for those characters. Baker wants us to reach out to Moonee's mom. I would only reach out to take her child from her, and I don't think that's the answer Baker would want from his audience.
I've had to do some research regarding Sean Baker's intent and purpose of making this film. I've watched 5 or 6 interviews with him and the cast (over 2 hrs worth of interviews and talking about the film), and there are three things that have come up over and over that is pertinent to our conversation. From the mouth of Baker himself:
1. This movie is basically a comedy with touches of drama
2. It's a movie about a mother and daughter
3. The origin and idea of this movie came from reading about the "hidden homeless", and he wanted to shed light on the issue of marginalized communities.
1. I think about Joe Pesci's cowboy character, and how he kills a couple people immediately followed up by an intended laugh from the audience (I have a few examples I could give you: Spider, Maury, Stacks). Now, I chuckle because, yes, like you said, it's not as easy for me to relate to this movie as it is the overall idea of poverty. But think about a family who's been victimized by the mafia. They would look at that and say, "That's not funny..." They would have distain for those scenes. I think you and I are both on the same page when it comes to my emotional response, but I need to think about the movie as a work of art, and not just how I react to it. The same would be said to someone who reacts negatively to Goodfellas. I don't like that he wanted to "entertain" (his words) with this movie by using Moonee's mom as the protagonist. Use any of the other more honorable characters. Why "entertain" me with such a horrible person?
2. He confirms that Moonee and her mother are the main characters; hence, they are the protagonists. As a matter of fact, it was until after the script treatment was written and the movie green lit that Bobby and the children came into the picture. The Little Rascal element came later. Again, why choose such a deplorable mother as our protagonist? I really don't like that he wanted us to empathize with such an irredeemable character. It just didn't work for me...like, on a huge level. You can tell Baker and that actress truly love that character. They talk about how she's "carefree" and "free spirited". Come on...that's romanticizing a mother living off well-fair, some one who supposedly won't work (there's only one scene with her at a temp agency), making countless bad choices for her daughter, and is all out toxic.
3. His larger point is to highlight this issue of homelessness and poverty. However, why did he go with this character? It sucks the empathy OUT. Why do I need to work so hard to empathize and want to help a person who puts herself in this situation? Why, why, why could he have chosen one of the other more honorable mothers? Even the actress playing Moonee's mom says she is a lot like her character. What!?! Why would you want to emulate that? I told you. There are people who would emulate her. Who would defend her. Who see her as the hero against those CPS workers. Bobby is "the man" collecting rent. I feel like he hurts his mission with this character.
I don't get emotional watching Joe Pesci joke after capping a cohort. But there are people who would. Do I think the movie is less of an achievement? No. But like you said, Scorsese probably didn't want us to care as much for those characters. Baker wants us to reach out to Moonee's mom. I would only reach out to take her child from her, and I don't think that's the answer Baker would want from his audience.
What the hell? You're going to make me argue with the director now?
Well, we're definitely in agreement that the mother in this movie shouldn't be looked up to. I really don't think that's his intent though. There are tons of fictional works with protagonists who get in their own way. I think she's yet another example of that.
The actress playing the mom is a lot like her character? Ick. That's not a fun thing to read.
I'm still going to disagree with what you say Baker wants from his audience. Or doesn't want. You said you would only reach out to take the child from her but that that isn't what Baker's answer would be. But isn't that the exact decision he makes as a storyteller at the end of this?
Now if you would have started all this by using the words "making poverty into a comedic issue" instead of "glamorizing poverty," I don't think I would have had an argument at all. I can definitely see that argument being made. Of course, it could be made about the Little Rascals, too.
Have you seen Baker's Tangerine? I thought it was really good, too. It was filmed with iPhones.
Thanks For Sharing Your Knowledge With Us.You Can Watch Free Movies
Post a Comment