I was watching the whole time Men, Alex Garland’s new film about men, I was thinking of a better movie about men, which is actually about women. Well, not the whole time, it just happened after a scene. The scene comes soon. Just emerging from an abusive marriage in which her husband commits suicide in a semi-religious fashion for divorce, Jesse flees the country to restore Buckley’s character as if she doesn’t know the definition of folklore. The big selling point of this movie is that British actor Rory Kinar has played the role of all the men in the city, which sounds interesting but it doesn’t end there. However, she is making her first walk through the forest which is a supernatural neon green because Garland, a sci-fi lover at heart, cannot resist expressing beauty (and healing) in this way. The decompression of his heroine becomes evident as he moves forward on a wandering path, taking the sky, the trees, the chirping of the birds around him, the coral music landscape to cheerful heights. The message is clear: this place, untouched by men, is utopian. “I wanted the countryside and the house Men To reassure the bourgeoisie about it – that comfort zone, “Garland told the vulture, adding,” For Jesse Buckley’s character Harper, it’s like, This is perfect. This is what I dreamed would happen. It’s a place where I can find comfort, process and get better

But what I can think of was a similar scene in the beginning Nightingale, Jennifer Kent’s 2018 masterpiece, which is to say the least, is also about toxic masculinity. In that case, a young Irish criminal, Claire (Isling Franিওois), known for her beautiful voice, The Nightingale, used to entertain her captors, walks through the woods in the Tasmanian Penal Colony in 1825. But he is not smiling. In the tree, he is not closing his eyes in joy. His eyes are rather peeled. Even while singing to his baby and giving him one or two smiles, his eyes from left to right, observing the situation around him, a knife in his hand. There is no one else here, only his voice and birds’. His weakness, exposed in the wilderness, is obvious. This scene stuck with me for four years when I first saw the film as the best illustration of the kind of naked immunity that women can feel when they are born into a world created by men. “She’s my property, so I’ll do whatever I want with her,” the lieutenant in charge of Claire would later say, and even her voice echoed in that forest. When Garland’s Men Excludes threats to women as a cool arrogance, Nightingale And Kent knows better: “The same violence that the violent mind created colonialism exists in the world today.”

If on the cue, a screening follows Nightingale At the 2018 Venice Film Festival (where the main competition was the only film directed by a woman), a male critic called Kent a “whore”. But he is not the only one who reacted badly to the film’s brutality. There were several walkouts, with one woman saying she had already seen Claire raped twice, meaning she never imagined seeing her child hit the wall again after her husband was shot. And fair enough. But especially that scene is a perfect example of how clear-eyed it is Nightingale My bachelor is my bachelor Men It’s not. Every detail is precisely calibrated. The provocative incident unfolds in a hut owned by Claire and her husband, it is dark, it shrinks, three soldiers who get drunk and occupy almost the whole place. There are screams, cries, screams and screams, a kind of endless aggression that closes your eyes and covers your ears and rocks in one corner, turning to the point where Claire is suddenly pale in comparison to what happens when she is raped for the third time. Done with her child. By then everything had stopped. Claire doesn’t die in that scene “” You can’t kill someone who’s already dead, “she will say later কিন্তু but silence marks her death. It is a feat of filmmaking without any wastage, without any misunderstanding, which conveys the unadulterated message that violence has spread to humanity so much that it stops as soon as we leave. “Welcome to the world, boy, full of sorrow from top to bottom,” Claire tells her aboriginal guide Billy (Bekali Ganambar) on her revenge journey, as if she didn’t know in advance.

“For me, it was important for people to understand what happened in those terrible moments – what happened around the world, not just 200 years ago. I wanted people to understand that it’s about power and it’s about destruction. Those were my guidelines,” explained Kent Vulture. “We are in this mess of the world because people want to get away from it, but we need to examine our behavior as well as the behavior of others and ask: ‘How can I contribute to world violence?'”

There is leather in the garland game, but it’s just leather. Men It’s a movie about a man who seems to have a handle on how women feel around men, a movie where a man repeatedly gives birth to himself in the last scene. In front of a woman. Is it really a metaphor? Or is Garland that unstable? (This is a rhetorical question.) Men Seems to be a fitting title এটি it’s simple and not a little lame. “It’s interesting that such a small, simple word can be so superfluous with a huge and completely thematic meaning,” Garland said. New York Times, Which claims the title is provocative. It’s not. It’s normal. It fits seamlessly into the margins of the A24 brand, the “indie movie” Studio du Jur, they are behind everything. Uncut gems Per In the middle of summer Per After Young—Which has collected a number of critical ribbons for making movies with smart aesthetics but without much real substance, a kind of lifestyle brand that is great for cinephiles. I mean, you get a lot of handsome hipster-friendly movies and marketing, but not really much to talk about. So instead involved in the deep underlying of a movie NightingaleCritics are left to kick around MenOf Lack of balls.

There’s nothing wrong with a movie about men’s attitudes about how they treat women (hull); There is something wrong with playing a central character in the same film Male, The bark is often the center frame, often shot from below – and then basically gives it a left rush. There is a beautiful scene where Harper enters a cave (symbolic) and proceeds to conduct a symphony from its echo. A good metaphor! Perhaps one garland was not intended! Probably she’s multiplied, but we didn’t know it, every aspect of her in this picture is invisible (like all the women are invisible, like echo-oh, deep, although I don’t really think it was her intention). Men are already presented more descriptively and physically. Maybe Garland wrote the first draft Men The first draft of his approach to toxic masculinity 15 years ago explains the very clear picture and the very clear dialogue with this pasteurizer that seems to be a repetition of a note: men are bad to women.

The recurring symbols include two Celtic creatures – The Green Man (a leafy dude who symbolizes reincarnation, although Garland presents him here as aggressive) and Sheila Na Giggs (nude female figure with extra love, everything from protection from evil spirits to fertility). Represents)) ্তুbut more obvious is the “forbidden fruit” of an apple tree. Yes, these words are pronounced, hence the words “girl of sorrow”. There’s also a lot of dandelion fluff floating around (seemingly a symbol of growth and optimism — somehow it has been given a slow-mo von trier treatment), repeated silent screams, and not to mention the decaying deer that has just passed. Everything except the kitchen sink! The rosary throws all over the wall — nature, myth, naked bloody shemale, hot priest shemale, the face of a terrible CGI ‘shemale screaming “stupid dog” —but what’s the end? “I was trying to make a movie with a sense of dread,” Garland explained in Dane of Geek. “I think this is the film, and it can be interpreted in different ways or it can take you in different ways.”

Oops, I mean, how can you argue with that? You can’t, that’s the real thing. Compare him with Kent to draw more than 150 detailed maps of each location he wanted NightingaleEvery single moment, to reflect Claire’s mentality. I understand Kent’s is a psychological period thriller, Garland is a modern day folk horror, and if I don’t compare these two movies Men Absolutely not begging me. Both are kicked by a woman’s trauma, both are exposed around a woman feeling insecure around the man. (Both have similar posters.) But where the rest of the Garland remains, it goes deeper into Kent. What makes this Nightingale While almost unwatchably spooky Men The dumb jump ends up being a bunch of fears. Next, the danger is a fantasy, a high-concept effort by a white man that he can only imagine. In the past, the danger is historical, it is the patriarchal legacy that empties women, empties men, empties society. It doesn’t have to be sorted out because the fear is inherent. But only a filmmaker who really understands what men have done can make the film. And it’s not Garland. In Billy’s parable Nightingale“White fellow path shit path.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.