I wanted to smack the editor in the face and yell "hold your fucking shots! why are you cutting every three seconds?"
also why the hell did this movie have two plots that were in no way related besides minuscule thematic elements.
What did you guys think?
You're such a philistine. Stop posting on my board at once.
Nocturnal Animals is certified kino.
it was made by a bored rich fashion designer that wanted to make a lynch movie
cheesy crap
>besides minuscule thematic elements.
Young girl ass was one of the similar elements.
and yet the critics are eating it up. proof critics are shit.
the fucking shot of the dead wife and daughter that goes on for such a short amount of time I hardly have a chance to grasp what has happened, dear god that is sloppy film making
I mean besides this shot, and the fact that the gyllenhal character gets revenge, what is connecting the two plot lines?
>aside from a major thematic similarity, what is the similarity?
well you see it from Jake's standpoint. Why would he want to stare at his dead wife and child?
I think you're just retarded.
why was the other plot line necessary though? remove either side of the story and the other is still the exact same thing.
but we cut back to him staring at them, the viewer should be forced through the site just like he was
>remove either side of the story and the other is still the exact same thing.
What are you even trying to say?
Or maybe since he is an actor, the viewer has a reason to stare at his face while he is in awe. To see his tears and agony.
Why are you so salty about not seeing flat white ass
>he viewer should be forced through the site just like he was
Showing his reaction is objectively a better choice, otherwise the audience could project a different emotion on the scene and thus find certain points in the plot unsatisfying from their point of view instead of having a clear path forward in the story.
If you were to remove the A plot the B plot would still unfold in the exact same way, and vice versa, they added nothing to each other
dear god that is putting no faith in the audience, it was horrifying for that brief second, also a great shot, the red couch the two bodies in center frame, really well composed, but we are only allowed to see it for three seconds between the two times they cut to it, really unsatisfying for emotional impact
>the B plot would still unfold in the exact same way
But it wouldn't since Susan is clearly affected by reading the novel, getting paranoid and hallucinating.
hallucinated in literally one scene that was not really necessary to the rest of the movie, the rest of her reading it is just reactionary shots of her looking away from the book in awe of how raw and emotional it was
all we needed to know was that the book really effected her and that she was falling back in love with edward, the actual plot of the book was completely uneccesary
>hallucinated in literally one scene that was not really necessary to the rest of the movie
It adds to the theory that she's mentally unstable which leads to one interpretation where Edward is mostly a figment of her imagination because all the people she knows are surprised when she talks about her ex-husband and say that they never knew that she was married before, which is also why Edward never shows up at the end.
> the rest of her reading it is just reactionary shots of her looking away from the book in awe of how raw and emotional it was
She also called up her daughter directly because of her reading the book. And the whole story of this narrative is driven by her reading of the novel which leads to all the flashbacks about her relationship with Edward. If you cut out the novel plotline all that's left is a woman remembering her previous marriage for no reason.
>she was falling back in love with edward
What movie did you watch?
>>she was falling back in love with edward
>What movie did you watch?
thus making the fact that he didnt show up his revenge, showing her that if she got rid of him originally he would never come back
>Edward is mostly a figment of her imagination because all the people she knows are surprised when she talks about her ex-husband and say that they never knew that she was married before, which is also why Edward never shows up at the end. so how the fuck did she get that book? what is even the point of the movie?
you're 15 and we all agree that you're wrong
>>>/reddit/
also who the fuck is the daughter? did she not get the abortion?
>thus making the fact that he didnt show up his revenge, showing her that if she got rid of him originally he would never come back
I still don't understand how that would mean she's falling in love with Edward again. I mean you don't fall in love again with your ex after he's written a damning allegory of your failing marriage, do you?
>the fuck did she get that book? what is even the point of the movie?
I said mostly, so the real Edward could be anyone except an ex-husband (a friend, an admirer, an old flame). The movie makes it very clear that her mental state isn't the most stable.
Acting was pretty meh (only Shannon shines) and the dialogue was corny
so its a movie about a mentally unstable lady reading a book? that isnt exactly compelling and again, what is the point of the whole other plot of the movie if this is what was trying to be expressed?
and sure, she may have not fallen back in love with him but some need to reconnect was clearly implied, which like I said was in order to get his revenge which like I also said its not necessary to have the plot of the book for this to work.
so either this is a movie about a crazy lady reading a book and basically the story within a story means literally nothing, or this is a movie about a lady finding her desire to reconnect with a lost love in which the story within a story was not necessary.
so why the fuck did both plots exist in the same movie? to make it bearable to sit through? cause the book was the only entertaining bit here
Michael Shannon totally chewed every scene he was in, really loved his performance, also thought that Aaron Taylor-Johnson gave a really good performance as Ray
>what is the point of the whole other plot of the movie if this is what was trying to be expressed?
What is the point of any movie then? You seem to be annoyed at the mere existence of the of the movie being about an unreliable protagonist.
>and sure, she may have not fallen back in love with him but some need to reconnect was clearly implied
And exactly how did that come about?
>which like I said was in order to get his revenge which like I also said its not necessary to have the plot of the book for this to work.
How would you have it work then? The book is the catalyst for most of what happens to Susan (her flashbacks, her instability, her paranoia) in the first plotline. Do you just want her to sit in her apartment and go insane for no reason? The book is the engine for Susan's story as well.
>so either this is a movie about a crazy lady reading a book and basically the story within a story means literally nothing
I think we can all agree the film as a whole is about guilt and the past coming back to haunt you no matter whether you think she's going insane or not, so it's definitely not about literally nothing.
>or this is a movie about a lady finding her desire to reconnect with a lost love in which the story within a story was not necessary.
Again, how does that desire to reconnect come about?
>cause the book was the only entertaining bit here
You should've just said at the beginning you just want a murder drama.
>how does that desire to reconnect come about?
what was the point of her email saying they should meet up? or the look of sadness on her face when he doesnt
>What is the point of any movie then? You seem to be annoyed at the mere existence of the of the movie being about an unreliable protagonist.
I am annoyed by the fact that this was a movie with a story within a story, but the two stories in no way play upon each other, one is not necessary for the other to work, the book could have been about literally anything as long as it effected the susan.
>I think we can all agree the film as a whole is about guilt and the past coming back to haunt you
how is it about this if you are correct in the assumption that there was no ex-husband in the first place?
>You should've just said at the beginning you just want a murder drama.
I had no idea what this movie was about going in, I had no expectations I just wanted something well shot and well written
are you retarded? the book is an allegory for her killing their daughter. jakes character writes it in order to get revenge on her for leaving him for being unsuccessful. him not showing up at the restaurant is his final act of revenge. she is sad because she regrets marrying arnie hammer and staring in a tom ford film
>effected the susan
>I just wanted something well shot and well written
hmm
so when in the story is the abortion? is it the murder of the wife and daughter? also who the fuck is the daughter that she calls?
>what was the point of her email saying they should meet up? or the look of sadness on her face when he doesnt
You're still not answering my question. What plot poit spurred the desire to reconnect? Also meeting someone ostensibly to talk about their
>I am annoyed by the fact that this was a movie with a story within a story, but the two stories in no way play upon each other, one is not necessary for the other to work, the book could have been about literally anything as long as it effected the susan.
And I am annoyed by the fact that you still think there is nothing linking the two stories together even after I've brought up multiple points where the two stories are linked with and influence each other. If this had been a WKW film you would have a point about the storylines being completely unrelated but it's just not that case in this movie.
>how is it about this if you are correct in the assumption that there was no ex-husband in the first place?
I only said it's one interpretation because the movie is open-ended and with a few ambiguities. Either way, it's all from Susan's point of view so even if the objective reality of Susan's world she does not in fact have an ex-husband called Edward, that doesn't diminish the narrative in the film because it's what she believes in her psychologically fragile state of mind.
>I had no idea what this movie was about going in, I had no expectations I just wanted something well shot and well written
i.e. more guns and blood
hmm, I guess thats fair, the character loses his family and wants revenge for it, similar to the author, but that really just feels like bookending it when the rest of the story is really not important
well in the scene where jake is hiding out and they come looking for him again and he chooses to stay hiding i believe is him saying amy adams character was a coward or something
i mean, its not a perfectly written film, so plot holes are there but overall i think its fairly clear
>What plot poit spurred the desire to reconnect?
she doesnt believe in his ability, she feels guilty about the abortion, the learns he is now good at writing and in town, decides to hit him up, he snubs her
>And I am annoyed by the fact that you still think there is nothing linking the two stories together
linked together through thematic elements of loss of family revenge and one shot of an ass, could have been done through scenes in one relating to scenes in another, more shots carrying over from one to the other, specific things from the text impacting susan in specific ways. this felt like someone wanted to write a story within a story threw in two quick ways they relate and called it a day.
>I only said it's one interpretation because the movie is open-ended and with a few ambiguities.
so... this theory doesnt mean anything for how the movie should be perceived?
>i.e. more guns and blood
thanks for putting words in my mouth
>i mean, its not a perfectly written film, so plot holes are there but overall i think its fairly clear
I totally agree, and to be fair I did enjoy it plenty while watching it, just thought there was plenty to be nit picked