Still spoilers


I don't know what you've read and I don't know how deep it goes, but I think the film was so utterly bleak and dark at the end that it was the director's way of saying "hey, we're all still here! this is just a movie!". I don't know if he was asked to do this (being in Iran, would this be a little too heavy for some of the audience members?) or if he did it under his own free will (I would hope so!) but I just got the point out of it that it was a breath of fresh air and that it was meant to elevate the spirits a bit after a movie that heavy without having to do something... Spielbergian to lighten the movie's finale.

So... if it was a statement, it was a statement about the movie's tone... it wasn't part of the narrative.

I guess if you wanted to take it to the next level it could represent some sort of weird afterlife?!

People take Abbas' films way too seriously in my opinion. They are lyrical, they are more about feeling, open space and less about plot and abstraction. The Wind Will Carry Us is basically 3 hours of the day to day business of an Iranian village. It's quite clear he loves his country and his people (and shoots them in beautiful ways) and I don't think there is anything Lynchian going on in a lot of his films.

It's also a possibility that it's over my head too though!

Yeah, truthfully, I didn;t read too much. Just skimmed over a topic or two. But considering how I saw it, pretty much all the discussion on it seemed too deep. Might be interesting to actually read some day.

What you say makes a lot of sense...and just to lighten the mood, get the audience back into reality, it defintiely works. It definitely made me snap out of the darkness at the end (although we don;t necessarily know that he didn't make it through the night, right? (I hate rhyming like that. just seemed inevitable there)). I dunno. Perhaps because I initially saw it so detatched from the actual film - a special feature - I just don't know that I see it's relevance to the film. Er. I guess you kinda just gave it's relevance. Hm. If those little during-credit blooper things (pretty much how I view this) were butt up against the movie as if they were a part of it, it could get pretty confusing. Now i'm just typing to watch my fingers move.

Ah well...at least I didn;t miss some glaring metaphor or theme with more insight into the ''actual'' film. :O

Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)
Country: United States
Director: Miranda July
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415978/

"We are quirky people and do quirky things but at the end of the day, we're all interconnected!" Boy. How many times have we heard this over the last few years. It's a genre now. I shall call it "the Magnolia genre".

Look, it's not the worst film in the world, and Miranda July (writer, director, star) seems like a perfectly good human being. The movie is fairly lightheared even though it has two heavy subplots that deal very openly with pedophelia. A very, very uncomfortable, and in both cases, wholly unbelievable forms of pedophelia. Did anybody believe that 5 year old boy could cut and paste sexual conversations and read that well based on the actions of his overall character?

It's just another in a long line of films that is written from one perspective, and one writing style. It represents someone's reality, but only one person's... when that stretches, after a certain point, everybody starts sounding like each other, with the same glazed look as they experience life(tm), love(tm), sex(tm), death(tm) and doweries(tm).

In many ways, independent American film is stuck in this quirky mode. It's much harder these days to make a $70 million film with a message and with deeper meaning but it seems like anybody with a livejournal could pop together an indie film that speaks to this genre.

Standouts included John Hawkes. It seems to have a rhythm, but it's just too typical and too stereotypical.

Yeah, Me and You failed to really impress me. I didn't mind it. In fact I did like the installation pieces, especially the memorial one at the end, and her voiceovers. Some of the ideas were interesting, or at least "realistic" but their execution was just to dreamy. The entire film to me felt the way July sounded in her opening voiceover. If that makes any sense. Furthermore, I did find the austere delivery of the entire casy, except July, to be too much. Either that or it was meant to make her look even more cutsie and sweet in comparison, but she really didn't need any assistance in doing that.

Eh, it had its moments, and I do wish they had seeped through the entire film instead of being isolated within specific installation art shots. And I didn't mind some of the ideas, but what you said about execution is pretty much dead on.

No, it makes perfect sense, in fact you summed up the film. It's a statement written with one limited artistic voice that sounds like it's purposely holding back, wide eyed, open and at the same time, oddly condescending.


The best moment of the whole thing was when the tape ran on too long and the art director lady was watching. For a second there, I thought the movie made a real emotional connection, but nothing really came of it.