r/flicks

… was how it semi-subverted the classic revenge story and emphasized what a horrific thing revenge is.

More than any other genre, Robert Eggers’ films are rooted in horror. And in this most ambitious of his films, The Northman conveys that horror from both sides of the story. On the one hand, you have the horror which Amleth experiences. His whole life is ripped apart as a boy. He witnesses his father’s murder by his uncle, he glimpses his mother being carried off, his home looted, and those loyal to his father being killed. He then spends his adult years in exile, living as a berserker and raider, until the gods remind him of his need to seek revenge. As the story goes on, his quest becomes a curse, to the point that he could easily escape with Olga and live his life, but he’s compelled to return and throw his life away in the name of taking revenge.

But meanwhile, there is also a lot of focus on Fjolnir, the treacherous uncle, and Gudrun, his wife and former sister-in-law. If we can trust their accounts, Amleth’s father was an abusive spouse who forced himself upon Gudrun. She finds salvation in Fjolnir, who frees her from a husband she hates and a son she was forced to bear. Then, years and years later, they’ve built a humble but peaceful life in Iceland, free to live together and start their own family. And one day, their lives descend into horror once again, and their lives are destroyed by a spectre from their past. Amleth is almost like a horror monster from their POV: the son of the man who blighted their lives, he goes on to kill their sons, burn their home, and kill them one by one.

Not in any rendition of Shakespeare’s Hamlet have I ever come across such an effective portrayal of the destructive cycle of revenge.

I don't mean that in a bad way because it's just that I have acquired a penchant for strange sci-fi movies after seeing one made in the mid 80s about a guy who comes to present from the distant future to investigate a series of bizarre alien occurrences.

I kind of forgot the name of the movie as it was a movie that starts off in a diner where the lady who works there turns out to be an extra terrestrial being, then gets zapped by the aforementioned main character as I did see the movie, but to put it simply, I was looking for more weird sci-fi films like it.

This is strictly regarding their directorial careers. Both men were highly accomplished thespians before trying out directing. They both directed films which won Best Picture and Best Director at the Oscars. The similarities end pretty much there, so it’s more a question of whose directorial films you like more.

A lot of people seem stuck on the Mary Shelley “framing device” and end up calling it a plot hole. She is the spine of the story!

1. In the original Frankenstein, the Bride never lives In Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel, the female creature is never actually born. Victor starts to make her, panics about what two creatures might do together, and literally tears her to pieces before animating her. So, she never breathes, she never speaks and she never gets a name or a perspective.She exists as a possibility and then as dismembered remains. The “Bride of Frankenstein” we all picture is not from the novel, she’s a later invention.

2. Whale filled that void one way, Gyllenhaal fills it another. James Whale’s 1935 Bride of Frankenstein solves this absence by: Giving us a camp, iconic Bride with the famous hair and hiss and Framing the film with a fictionalized ditzy Mary at a house party, spinning “one more story” to entertain her guests. That Mary is already an invented device (a playful “author” figure justifying why we now have a Bride at all). Maggie Gyllenhaal escalates it. Instead of “I made this up at a party,” she asks: what if the woman who wrote Frankenstein was haunted by the story she couldn’t tell, and by the woman she never got to write? So Mary doesn’t just invades yhe story.

3. Why possession, and why Ida? The film opens with Mary, in black Victorian dress, saying plainly that she has a story festering in her brain and that she’s pushing the tumor aside to tell that story. Then she possesses Ida, a woman who:

Has almost no voice in her own life (her first “I’d prefer not to” gets an oyster shoved down her throat).

Has no solid sense of self, no “spiritual boundaries,” which makes her easy to inhabit.

There’s also a clear parallel with Mary Shelley herself. Frankenstein was first published anonymously in 1818 then Mary’s name only appeared later on the 1831 edition, in a male literary marketplace that constrained what women could publish. The female creature that could have been a whole other story is violently erased before she exists. Mary possessing Ida is a Gothic way of saying: The unwritten woman in Frankenstein didn’t just disappear. She became a wound in the author and in the culture.Ida’s emptiness mirrors the textual void where the Bride should have been.

There’s even a spiritual parallel. In older spiritual lore, the concept of being claimed or chosen by a spirit is sometimes described in bridal terms like you belong to the spirit, you are their vessel, their bride, their chosen one.That’s what happens when Mary claims Ida. It’s the joining of two incomplete selves. Mary gives Ida voice, fury, and direction, power that comes at the cost of her body’s autonomy. Like The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, it’s the same scary logic of being the “bride” of a spirit or dark force that promises power but demands surrender. Yet Ida does something radical by using that power to turn against her possessor. The spirit that entered her to speak ends up teaching her how to speak for herself.

4. Good intention does not cancel violation Mary forcing herself into Ida's body is what sets the whole fight in motion. Ida starts as a woman with no voice and no spiritual boundaries. The possession forces her to fight back against the world around her and against the spirit inhabiting her. L If you track how often we see or hear Mary, it lines up almost perfectly with Ida’s development. Early on, Ida is barely there as a person. Mary is loud, insistent, steering the narrative through her. As Ida gains a voice,saving Frank, refusing proposals, choosing violence when she needs to; Mary appears less and less. In the end, when Ida screams for Mary, Mary doesn’t come. Ida is finally alone in her own body, making a choice that belongs only to her.

5. Mary inside her own story is the gothic logic of the film. Over the past few weeks I’ve seen a lot of “Is this supposed to be real events, or Mary’s invention, or some secret sequel to the novel?” as if the film owes us a single, tidy lane. The whole Gothic mode thrives on m dream and reality leaking into each other, author and creation trading places, ghosts crossing the line into flesh.

Mary stepping into the world of her own fiction is a literary device. She’s so consumed by the story she couldn’t write that she starts to live alongside it, bleeding into it. You can literally see that on Ida’s body: the black crystal pallid fluid used in the experiment stained the bride’s skin and looks like splashes of ink, as if Mary is writing through her skin. The film treats the Bride’s body as both text and character at once, which is about as Gothic as it gets.

If you cut Mary out, Ida is just:

A sex worker killed and reanimated.

A chaotic, angry woman on a crime spree.

A figure the world chases and executes.

With Mary in, the same events become:

The unwritten Bride from the original novel finally forcing her way into existence.

The author’s ghost pushing too far, and the “character” pushing back until she can stand alone.

Two women separated by centuries but sharing the same wound. Mary recognises that emptiness because she lived it. She doesn’t choose Ida despite her silence; she chooses her because of it

FYI:

These are just my interpretations, shaped by my background and experience; I’m not claiming to know the director’s intent. I’m especially interested in comments that respond to the points I raise here rather than just whether the movie is good or bad overall.

Hoping for a bit of help.

I'm looking for movies or miniseries that fall into any of these categories (or even similar categories):

1. two childhood friends grow up and one becomes a cop while the other becomes a criminal

2. two cops are friends (maybe partners), but one becomes crooked while the other stays honest

3. two criminals are friends, but one wants to go straight while the other doesn't

Anything along these lines. It doesn't even necessarily have to include cops: could be criminal and priest/politician/etc.

Got it?

You guys seemed to enjoy the IMDb top 250 quiz#1, so here comes 15 fresh emoji puzzles for you to solve! 👇

https://rejbus.com/themed/a08882f1-b737-461e-bf70-f75d9b9f742c