Is it true women don't get this movie?

is it true women don't get this movie?

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/justneckbeardthings/comments/3j07az/films_mlady_will_just_never_understand/
youtube.com/watch?v=zmyGURNxyHU
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The truth is nobody gets this movie, but the difference is that men are too proud to admit it, while women are the only ones who admit it.

I'm pretty sure most women would like the movie just because "omg russell crowe is so handsome"

Pic related would be a much better choice.

It's a film about brotherhood, respect and leadership set on a boat, there is nothing to "get" you moron.

yea proof that its just interpretation and anyone saying women dont "get it" are just men angry at women

It's not complicated to "Get." - it's just the antithesis of a chick-flick. It's a modern day Zulu. There is nothing "to get" - it's an appeal to an aesthetic and philosophy as well as a call back to when men weren't limp-wrist latee sipping faggots whinging into their gender studies blogs. It's romanticized masculinity and all of the virtues that implies. "women don't get it" because modern feminist indoctrinated women cannot understand that masculinity actually has a virtuous side.

>doesn't get it
>claims there's nothing to get
>calls other people morons

My mother loves it and I find it boring, so no.

not really, if men were totally out the equation no woman would ever go and see this movie, despite it's objective high quality as a production.

>women don't get masculinity
Explain why they like Chads then.

>doesn't get it
>claims there's something to get

I made my mom watch it and she was very confused, she said it was just garbled visuals and muffled text.

Confirmed

I agree but only on the basis of a logically better choice

Master and Commander is the superior meme

But I didn't claim that. I only said no one gets it. Learn to argue loser.

they like people with confidence. I can't tell you how many times I've seen some uggo with a 8/10 chick, not rich or anything, just because he got lucky when he was a kid and got big balls after that

it's just that people with confidence are often Chads

movies aren't puzzles which you have to put in a certain kind of way to "get" them you absolute pleb, there is no universal singular "meaning" or point which everyone should get out of it other than the general themes explored which I already mentioned in my previous post

So they DO get masculinity?

I guess. I'm not the guy you were replying to earlier. I wouldn't necessarily equate masculinity with confidence though

>people dedicate their entire lives, humanity its entire existence to try to "get" the meaning of life
>if a movie that has no meaning or "get" then it's not true to life and thus meaningless and worthless
Thus either this movie is worthless or you just don't get it. Pick one. I'm the later.

And my mother said otherwise

Nice to meet you. I'm the sooner

>he made a typo, so his entire argument is invalid
Way to reveal yourself redditor.

I think New Zealand or Australia has an actual club with 5,000 members made up of 'wives of Aubrey/Maturin novel reading husbands'.

its not about loving it or finding it boring its the reasons why

Glad you immediately outed yourself as a plebeian.
So by your definition every film from Tarkovsky or David Lynch is worthless?

lmao sure thing buddy, keep searching for your precious meaning of life friendo

reddit.com/r/justneckbeardthings/comments/3j07az/films_mlady_will_just_never_understand/
btfo by reddit anyone who thinks its true is basing it off anecdotal evidence of one women they know or is just a raging virgin

The reason why? What do you mean? People were saying that women don't like this movie and I was pointing out that in my experience that isn't the case.

Dude. You outed yourself idiot since you are basically confessing you don't get Tarkovsky and Lynch films. Not only that, but you're claiming theres NOTHING to get? How stupid are you?
Even if I don't get a film, I don't claim there's nothing to get. If so, the film would have been pointless. You're the true pleb.

Woman detected

Yes, there is no universal set meaning in any Tarkovsky or Lynch films which you should "get", only general themes which are explored and every viewer pulls his own interpretations out of the experience.
Both Tarkovsky and Lynch hate direct symbolism, if you asked them "what does this or that mean in that scene" they would get instantly dissapointed.

To clear things up for your pleb mind, here's a quote about symbolism from Tarkovsky himself:
>"I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite"

>getting a film means understanding the filmmaker's intention
Are you seriously this stupid? Can't believe you had the audacity to call me a pleb. No wonder you don't get any of these films. You didn't even try.
>turn off your brain bro
>enjoy the themes bro (themes are truly the pleb's understanding of anything)
>it's vague on purpose, so it's artistic, don't try to find any meaning in it bro

I got it though. They were gay right?

bait

I'm saying there is no universal meaning everyone should get, every viewer get's his own personal "meaning" if you really want to call it that way.

Tarkovsky explains it pretty clearly here
>People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts?

That quote is retarded and a roundabout way to say, "pls overthink my movies because I'm full of myself."
Aristotle said it best over 2000 years ago and it's basically what Tarkovsky is trying to say poorly.
Plot is king. The "rain in Solaris" is just plot. Like life, plot is just a series of events, you can either find meaning in it, or don't. Do what you will with it.

Has anyone here actually read the books?

That whole spiel is contradictory.
>there's nothing to get
>symbolism is bad
And then he says
>I'm trying to tell you something, not hiding my thoughts (while being cryptic)
I didn't know he was such a huge hypocritical faggot. At least Lynch and Malick are honest about trying to find meaning and ask the audience to be open minded, but also not afraid to tell a story that states their opinion at the same time.

And yet, not having so banal a philosophy is the only reason why Tarkovsky continues to be lauded as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.
He's literal visual poetry. Fuck your plot.

>And then he says I'm trying to tell you something, not hiding my thoughts
He never said that, he wants you to experience those artistic images and make your own interpretations of it.

Heavy use of direct visual symbolism is ironically making a film more simpler and finite, for example a scene with two romantic interests being separated by a fence would be a strong direct symbol of them being separated and only that, once you "get" it there's nothing more to see or experience.

As for thinking that Lynch thinks there is definite meaning everyone should get, here's another excerpt from a Lynch interview
>And it doesn’t matter if that conclusion [of the audience] isn’t the same as yours?
>"Right, because even if you get the whole thing, there would still be some abstract elements in it that you’d have to kind of feel-think. You’d have to say, “I kind of understand that, but I don’t know exactly what it is.” Sort of. The frames are always the same on the film—it’s always the same length, and the same soundtrack is always running along it. But the experience in the room changes depending on the audience. That’s another reason why people shouldn’t be told too much, because “knowing” putrefies that experience"

>visual poetry
Except he said he hates symbols. Poetry requires symbols. Language = symbols, not only the syntax but poetry is metaphors, which are fucking symbols. Tarkovsky makes PLOT, and hopes the audience finds meaning through it. Any striking visuals is simply the reflection of life in the PLOT and in service of the PLOT. If he made a visual to tell poetry, then he would have committed a personal faux pas by making a fucking symbol. If you think Tarkovsky knows more about poetics than Aristotle, then you're a fool.

faggot detected

So explain the film. Inb4 there's nothing to get and it's about masculinity. Well a big part of being a man and not a woman is being able to admit your faults. To truly understand the meaning of Master and Commander is to admit that you don't understand it. Do you understand life? Even if you did, you would have had to first admit you didn't.

>Poetry requires symbols
>poetry is metaphors

Holy fuck you are dense.
So you think poetry is made up of metaphors exclusively? Really?
Please tell me this is bait.

>Tarkovsky makes PLOT, and hopes the audience finds meaning through it
Again you are factually wrong by making ignorant conclusions in your head based on literally nothing.

Another quote from Tarkovsky
>I am constantly being asked what this or that means in my films. It's unbearable! An artist does not have to be accountable for his intentions. I only desire to induce feelings, any feelings, in viewers.
And guess what is the sole purpose of poetry? To induce feelings in the person who reads it.

>two romantic interests separated by a fence
You can have multiple meanings for that.

At this point, you are literally arguing for my side. My entire point is that there IS something to "get." I never said it had to be singular. You projected that straw man. If you are the original user, then you said there's NOTHING to get but some general themes. That's contradictory even by your own definition. Because later you say themes help stimulate personal interpretations.

Tldr: you are retarded and just want to quote Lynch and Tarkovsky to seem smart. Are you Nerdwriter1 by chance faggot?

>cherry picking to win an argument
That's fucking pathetic. First thing I said was language itself is made of symbols. You use language for poetry don't you? Fucking idiot.

this is my mothers favorite movie

she is a bat shit insane whore though

Are you Tarkovsky? Then you are basing it on your interpretations of his quotes too faggot.

According to your gay ass quotes, if you tried to ask him what he meant by his quotes, he would've told you to fuck off.

I am sorry but you are the one that is a pleb.

>you said there's NOTHING to get but some general themes
Yes I'm the original user and I never said there's NOTHING to get in any post, you just projected that straw man in all caps in a post before.
I am just saying there's no universal singular point or meaning which everyone should get, viewing films should be a personal experience where you "get" your own personal interpretation of it.

So by this post it seems that we agree to some extent, up until now you implied that it is singular.

disgusting tranny

I'm sorry user but it seems that you lack basic reading comprehension because his words are pretty clear.
He made films trying to induce feelings from the viewer (like any decent piece of art), not trying to make an elaborate puzzle of visuals for you to get a certain 2deep4u point out of it,

You are free to draw your own conclusions from his films, but that doesn't mean that there is a set right or wrong interpretation.

Nigger. We argued for nothing. Are you too?
If yes KYS. If no, both KYS.
>"draw you own conclusions" is like 1st grade shit
Even Hack Snyder can tell you that. It's like you keep trying to explain how to wipe my ass. While I'm trying to understand why? You tell me there are multiple reasons. I'm trying to understand why wipe my ass philosophically. DO YOU ***GET*** IT?

Not sure. I think it's a safe bet the assclowns who push that idea on Sup Forums don't get the Aubrey-Maturin novels though.

Women don't understand comadere or brotherhood. These concepts are completely foreign to them. Also dying for ones country? Serving a King? Women understand nothing.

*dibs fedora* i wouldn't die for my (((country)))

Im sure your mother tells you that you're smart

Is it true you don't GET women?

Do traps get it?

At least someone does, no one's ever told you.

traps get my dick

No it is one of my favourites. When I first saw it I had to rewind it when they fought the french in the beginning, it blew me away.

I do get why other women might not like it but they probably have the attention span of a goldfish.

My dad would watch it every time it was on HBO, which was about 4 times a month. I watched it with him and loved it and then read the books which make watching the movie a lot more fun despite changes. It should have won best picture but LOTR was due for an accolade overall and it was just bad timing.

t. woman who considers master and commander in her top 3

good choice

youtube.com/watch?v=zmyGURNxyHU

Grill here, and I did get Master & Commander pretty well, real nice movie. Those values of comraderie and fire-forged brotherhood are a lot more universal than you guys give credit. And BTW, I don't even find Russel Crow THAT attractive.

Want to know a movie I sincerely didn't get? The Wrestler. I guess that pro-wrestling being completey unknown in my country really hurt my perception of the movie.

Only a woman and lying men would claim they get M&C. Real men humbly realize it's impossible without understanding life itself.

Only patrician post ITT

You are making C&M sound incredibly pretentious. Don't, a movie that good doesn't deserve that kind of crap.

You don’t have to know a thing about wrestling to appreciate The Wrestler.
It even has some of the same themes of camaraderie and brotherhood just like Master and Commander.

I suspect it's because of the isolation theme.
It's is a big part of The Wrestler and I think the concept of isolation is truly alien to women.
That's why women don’t particularly enjoy films like with Taxi Driver, The Conversation, The Man Who Sleeps etc

My first girlfriend loved this movie, as well as having read all he Aubry/Maturin books. And was a huge Horatio Hornblower fan.

And I should clarify she was a real fan of the stories, not a gay shipper like most girls into dudes doing dude stuff shows.

Okay. Explain it.

Group of millenials who don't understand naval tradition. You people are fucking so stupid. WW2 had the same naval tradition as the British Empire. and you fucks don't recognize it.

>film is partially about honor
>they only beat the other ship by underhanded trickery

During the Napoleonic Wars, a brash British captain pushes his ship and crew to their limits in pursuit of a formidable French war vessel around South America.

Somebody already explained it

Perfect.
So you're both retarded. Lmao.

AND the duellists AND taxi driver AND zardoz AND apocalypse now AND countless others.

Woman detected

Wrong. I get it now. The ONLY person who gets it in this thread and all of Sup Forums history is this

Often a painting or a visual has no set meaning, it's merely an artist attempting to express and share an emotion with his audience. Is that concept so foreign and hard to understand to you?

yeah what is with taxi driver? only anecdotal evidence but all women i've talked to about it don't have a high opinion of it

>modern "art"
Way to out yourself as a pseud faggot.

what

I'm a woman.

I get the movie.

Let's be honest though, it's a poor man's Hornblower.
Less fun, less character, less sailing lingo. It's lacking decent gay subtext and Crowe is a shit actor.

Only pretentious modern art/cinema hacks insists their art is "deep" like that. You think the real masters like Da Vinci or Michaelangelo didn't have an idea or understand what they were trying to achieve?

I'm not insinuating anything is deep. I'm explaining something that is the exact opposite of deep, often art can just be a visual meant to evoke an emotion from the viewer.

Then the artist is wrong. There's always something to get or understand. Any artist who claims they did it randomly are full of shit, and want to hide their true reasons to be mysterious. Also, fuck them. Death of the author.

yea the thing to get or understand is the emotion

>baits newfriends will never understand
I'd never suspected an old dead and buried meme would be so revitalized with the post elections arrivals.

>just respond to b8 with memes bro
>Haha praise Kek
Kys newfag

Wew what an insecure faggot

It's not being deep, it's loathing banal characterizations and socially commendable trends within the craft. It's like seeing an entire market that craves extreme action superhero flicks and not wanting to conform, regardless of that being where all the money is. Artists with that Tarkovsky mindset aren't seeking to be different just for the sake of difference, they want to be free to express their aesthetic values free of the faggots like you that need everything to orderly fit into their little shitty world of the already set and established. But I don't expect so stubborn a cunt to understand that, because its shitty perspectives like yours that genuinely act as the bane of any passionate creative's existence

Neck yourself

you don't get it

While I think the vast majority of women are utterly incapable of understanding the kinds of films that regularly get posted in these threads, I don't think it's impossible for a woman to "get it". All it takes to understand is a certain perspective, and I believe it is possible, however unlikely, for a woman to remove herself from her own ego and come to reach that necessary perspective.

The only two films I can think of, that are completely lost upon women, are Predator and Commando. I have never met a single man that dislikes either of these movies, and I have never met a single woman that adores them to the same degree that most men do. There's nothing to these movies. They're nothing but muscles, guns and violence. And that's exactly why women will never understand them. These movies speak to men on a base, primal, biological level, they speak solely to the id, ignoring the ego. No amount of rumination or contemplation or alteration of perspective will lead women to appreciating these films in the way that men do. They excite men chemically in ways that are literally impossible for women.

>I have never met a single man that dislikes either of these
uhh command really isn't that good lad its pretty unrealistic

I'm a dude and I thought it was trash, but ok

I get it. it's just weak. Not terrible, just weak.
Like you.

You shouldn't talk about your mum like that

>implying you're a man
dick or gtfo

>its pretty unrealistic
wat

this is better bait than the op