u/Razor_Emmanuel

This is partially a follow up to the post I made four days ago.

2001: A Space Odyssey is the one film I put off for the longest of any other so far. I had it in my collection on both DVD and blu-ray ever since I got into and started collecting film four years ago. I tried to watch it then when I was young, but stopped after 30 minutes. Years later, I learned about Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita and how Stanley Kubrick adapted the disturbing novel into a dark comedy, my sources of information made it seem as if because of Kubrick's film people missed the entire point of the novel, because of that I chose not to watch any of Kubrick's films as a sort of condemnation . I found out in the past four days through discussing this topic that I was actually misinformed, and my entire crux against Kubrick was made from a false pretence. (I even realised my own hypocrisy of condemning Kubrick for his Lolita adaptation, and at the same time being fine with Alejandro Jodorowsky, who has a much more sound argument against him for "immorality")
So I finally decided to give Stanley Kubrick an honest shot by watching 2001 and... wow.

I cannot believe I put off this film for as long as I did, it was incredible. 2001 feels like one of those films where it gets better after you watch it and sit with it in your head, and also an abstract film, one that can be interpreted in many ways with different themes which you can pick and choose.
My personal interpretation is that the film is about the advancement of man as well as technology. The obsidian slab (I found out writing this is called "the Monolith") represents the unknow and also advancement, and each time it appears eerie music plays. It first appears to the apes in prehistoric times, the apes are at first terrified of the slab but gradually calm down and inspect it wanting to figure out what it is, which continues to the scene where, to Strauss' I. Sunrise: Also, March Zarathustra, a puzzled ape realises it could use a bone as a weapon, representing the first ever blip of what would become human intelligence. The slab then appears again at the moon, discovered by the humans, which prompts the expedition into Jupiter, and appearing when David reaches Jupiter, finally when David becomes the infant, which advanced to such a level, we do not even understand as the viewers. HAL-9000 feels a lot more revenant today with the existence of chatbots and generative AI. My interpretation of HAL's action is of a computer that got too smart and started acting like a human. I believe that HAL was not intending on being malevolent, but was programmed too well, that it got rid of the other crew members because it saw them as a threat to itself, and by extension the mission, the downside of prioritising productivity over all else, like AI is programmed to. Probably my coldest take though, I did really like HAL's character. I really liked about 2001 was that, it did not necessarily have a "main character", that each segment of the film is almost something else, humanity's evolution from the apes, the technology and world humanity built, they voyage to jupiter and it's surreal arrival, all felt distinct.

The filmmaking itself is also really impressive to the point it holds up really well, especially for the standards of 1968! The film makes very good use of music, specifically classical music, the aforementioned I. Sunrise: Also, March Zarathustra by Richard Strauss has a a lot of leadup to a very impactful drop (I do not know my exact music terminology) plays when the ape realises it could use a bone as a weapon, the first major human advancement, and at the very end when David becomes the infant, and seemingly transcends humanity. I initially thought there were a lot of shots and scenes at the beginning, before the voyage to jupiter, that feel detached, but in the grand scheme came along incredibly and were not wasted, I realised it was like an abstract painting, where it's about about how it makes you feel.
The surreal visuals, like the scene where David reaches jupiter, the altered gravity scenes, and visual effects as a whole were also really good and impressively accomplished, once again especially for 1968, when digital effects did not even exist yet. The cinematography and editing were also very well done, with hard colours and the distinct symmetrical imagery that is a key part of Kubrick's style.

Overall, Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was a wonderful film which I am so glad I have finally seen, and I am glad that I was convinced to finally give Kubrick a shot.

What do you think of the film, and even Kubrick as a director?

A question I have been asking myself for a bit.

I am someone who really loves film, and knows a LOT about film... but I don't actually watch that many films.
My most recent films I have watched are The Only Son (1936) and Late Spring (1949) both by Yasujiro Ozu. They are the only two films I have seen by Ozu, and I think they were incredibly, to the point I might have a new favourite director as of now. I intend to watch more films by Ozu, I think I have enough of a grasp to speak what I think about his style, but I got thinking.

I was recently part of a discussion on this forum about Stanley Kubrick's Lolita, this film has impaired my want to watch any films by Kubrick, for I was aware of the novel it was adapting, to my chagrin I have not read it either, and how the film effected the perception of the novel in a way that went against the novel's entire message. But it made me realise, besides Spartacus, I have not seen a single Kubrick film, me, someone who claims to love cinema, has not seen a single Kubrick film.
Also, as of writing this post, Krzysztof Kieślowski is my flair, and yet as of now I only have seen Dekalog 1-7 and pieced it with A Short Film About Killing.

This got me thinking, am I a film fraud? I have read more about films than actually watched films, I try to get into directors like Ozu and Alejandro Jodorowsky, and yet I neglect directors like Kubrick, and several other influential directors who I can't name off the top of my head.
I also haven't seen certain films for ethical reasons, I do not separate art and artist, Kubrick is not AS bad, but in comparison I hate Roman Polanski for that reason.
I also watch films infrequently, I find I often need to be in a good headspace to help me process the film, which I need to prepare myself for.

I feel like a fraud, what can I do to make myself a more legitimate film buff?

Edit: I get I sound like a paranoiac who cares too much about how they are perceived, but the reason I care so much is because I want to be as knowledgable on film as I can be, I know a lot about it but I am concerned I can't back myself up. I want to hear what others have to say on this.

I have been meaning to get into the work of Yasujiro Ozu for quite some time now, I have frequently seen Tokyo Story (1953) at the top of many "best films of all time" lists, and I wanted to watch more Japanese films that were made by directors other than Akira Kurosawa.
I wanted to watch one of Ozu's previous films before watching the film many consider his "best" so I could get an understanding of his style so I could appreciate his other films more. I was initially going to watch Late Spring (1949), but the blu-ray I ordered of it came with The Only Son (1936) which I would go on to find out is Ozu's first sound film, so I decided to watch it first, and I must say, I am really impressed.

The Only Son (1936) is a film about a mother from a rural Japanese province who decided to do whatever she could to get her son, Ryosuke into secondary education, and visits him years later when he moved, and finds him as a teacher living in poverty.
The film is a unique and successful attempt at capturing the difficulty of lower class life in and the financial hardship of it. At the beginning of the film, the mother is dismissive of higher education, because she is a widow and had insufficient money to send young Ryosuke to secondary education, but went through with it, in the hopes of helping her son have a better life. When the mother visits Ryosuke years later, he does what he can to make sure his mother has the best experience she can in Tokyo, and pulls as many strings as he can to financially afford it. The people around Ryosuke and his family are also struggling in their own ways, as one of Ryosuke's neighbours can barely afford to buy toys for their children.

My favourite part of the film is the underlying theme of anti-fatalism in the face of hopelessness and hardship. Ryosuke's mother put herself through financial hardship so her son could live better than what he was born with, later in the film after the time jump it is revealed her financial situation is even worse than at the beginning, but she refuses to give up in order to be there for her son. Ryosuke gave up hope in trying to move up, demoralised by his social standing as a teacher, and that his teacher who motivated him to purse education ended up in poverty as well cooking porkchops for a living. Despite this, Ryosuke does everything he can to do his best for his mother, and helps his neighbours when they have a medical crisis. Ryosuke throughout the film is very self-depricating believing he will never be more, but at the end of the film when shown of his potential and how life is not over just yet, he decides to not give up and study even further when his mother helped him regain hope.

In terms of filmmaking, Ozu's minimalistic style and approach to cinematography helped emphasise the emotion of the characters and I believe successfully made the film, and it's themes connect more with the audience. (Pardon if I do not have as much to say about the cinematography of this film as in my previous post here, this film struck me as one that puts more emphasis on the story and themes than cinematography (it is not bad at all, but the main draw I believe is in the story))
I really enjoyed my first Ozu film and am looking forward to watching more of his work, what do you think of Ozu's first sound film?

Greetings, this is the first time I have ever posted anything on this subreddit, or any religious forum.

I am a young man of Eastern European background in an English speaking country (not the states) who wants to convert to Judaism, I was raised secular and have never formally converted to any faith, but was always a spiritual person, when I was young I thought I was going to be Christian, but left after I realised my theological views did not align, and general disillusionment. When I finally researched Judaism, it just clicked with me, more than any other religion I have ever researched.

I want to convert to Judaism, but I am very unsure what to do, or what denomination I even would be. I live in a very isolated city where the Jewish community is almost nonexistant (I do not think I have ever met a religious jew in my life). I have actually managed to successfully reach out to a reform synagogue and am preparing to visit it, but I have began experiencing doubts to do with denominations.
For, there are parts of myself that I do not want to compromise for a religion, I would say I am an artist, and there are some topics and ideas I want to depict in my art that are quite mature, this is why I did not convert to islam, it would compromise that. This is why I have gravitated towards Reform, however the more I thought about it, I am concerned it could be disputed, not to detract any credibility from Reform Judaism, but I feel that if I want to convert to Judaism, I would want my conversion to be indisputable. (or at least as indisputible as it can be)
So I have begun to consider Orthodox Judaism, however feeling unsure about that as well due to the more strict nature of it. I am curious about Conservative/Masorti Judaism, but my city does not even have a Conservative/Masorti community.

I am also concerned that I could relapse into my former Christian beliefs, also, some members of my family have not been supportive of me pursuing Judaism. I still really want to convert to Judaism, but am unsure what to do, should I stick with the very little I have established with Reform, or should I reach out to an Orthodox group potentially at the cost of my personal integrity? The best way I can describe it is that it feels almost paralyzing. I mainly just want to become Jewish while still getting to be myself.

PS. I really do not mean to be offensive or generalise the denominations, I am sorry if I come off that way, I just feel completely lost with this. I have had a very lengthy spiritual journey and this is where I ended up.
I have been meaning to make this post for a while, I was trying to find a way to put my mind to words, and pardon again if some of the stuff I have said came off iffy.

It has truly been a while since I watched a film that was able to get to me as much as Matewan (1987). It is John Sayles' most well known work, about a union organiser who is sent to a small mining town in West Virginia in 1920, and has to help its workers against an exploitive company and the private detectives hired to break them, based on the real life Matewan massacre of 1920.
Matewan is a very emotional film, not in the sense that it will leave you in tears, but in that it is very good at setting off strong emotions within the viewer. A major theme of the film is unfairness, Sayles makes the audience watch as the workers and townspeople of Matewan are taken advantage of, how they are mistreated and even wrongfully antagonised. It was maddening to watch.

In contrast, major reoccurring point in the film is the relations between the three different groups that make of the workers: the native townspeople, the Italian immigrants, and the recently arrived African-Americans. The film starts off with a lot of racial tensions between the three, the latter two start off being treated as unwelcome foreigners and scabs by the townspeople, as they were brought in by the mining company to work instead of the local union. As the film progresses the three all begin to connect, they all realise they are not so different, and they all have a common goal. This is primarily depicted through the relationship between Mrs. Elkins and Rosaria, as they start off distrustful of each other, not accepting the other's cooking, to at the end helping each other cook to feed their children. At the end, they were all people who just wanted to be allowed to live.

The detectives are some of the most vile antagonists I have seen in a film for a long time, their actors do a great job at making them so cruel and malign. What stuck out to me the most is how they were depicted with such open immorality, the detectives had no sense of honour or dignity for others, they mock faith, and use tactics of fear and force to keep the people repressed. The detectives represent the evil that keeps people down when they are too scared to stand up, they thrive on good people doing nothing, but become less powerful when good people like the sheriff, and the protagonist stand up to them. >!This all culminates in one of the most emotionally cathartic villain defeats I have seen in a long time.!<

Up until now in the post, I have mainly been discussing the story and writing of the film, one of the strongest aspects of Matewan is the cinematography. Sayles makes good use of lighting and consistent usage of visual darkness to give the various scenes feelings of warmth and others cold, or dangerous. Something that struck out to me was the usage of colours, and how in each scene they just go together in such a harmonic way.

But to go back to the point of emotion, I think one of the reasons this film is so competent at bringing out emotion, is that the mistreatment and hardship that the workers and townspeople endure in the film still exists in the modern world. The way their are repressed and treated by tools by companies who think they are unstoppable still persists, and as much as I would like to say that companies no longer hire private detectives, practically mercenaries, to break people who stand up, there are less fortunate parts of the world where that is still the case.

Overall, I am really impressed by how good and emotional of a film Matewan was, and I look forward to watching more films by John Sayles after this.
What do you think of the film?