Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,518
edits
Amélie/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (Mass update links) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
{{work}}
* Everybody gets a happy (or at least deserved) ending... except Georgette and Joseph. Their romance goes up in flames and we never get to see how it's resolved. If it's meant to show
** I don't think it was supposed to teach a lesson. I think it was just that people are going to be people.
** I got the impression they were the type of people who enjoy having a torrential relationship with a loved one they're able to kvetch about, and wouldn't really be happy otherwise.
Line 16:
*** Maybe we ought to start calling it Unfortunate Inference.
*** Maybe some people are less likely to see the implication because it doesn't affect them personally. Nevertheless, if they weren't *trying* to make a statement, they made one anyway by creating a Paris that doesn't reflect reality.
**** The movie has a Paris with talking photographs and desk lamps, a character watching a newsreel of her own imaginary life, sex in a public restroom so loud it
*** Montmartre is ethnically diverse now. But if you talk to actual Parisians, they will tell you this movie shows the city in a very retro way. The characters are not real people, but more like symbols of certain aspects of humanity. You could replace the whole cast with African or Asian actors and it wouldn't mean a thing, would change nothing in the story. This eastern European troper with strong Jewish ancestry has no problem relating to French cast in a movie like this.
*** Or maybe they weren't implying anything and simply didn't think about it during casting?
Line 22:
*** The film's perceived racism (a negative racism, one based around not depicting something) is one of the reasons why it was not that well reviewed in France.
{{worksubpagefooter}}
__NOTOC__
| |||