Denis Villeneuve's Enemy ends with Adam being confronted by a giant spider in the bedroom. In a film that otherwise adheres to realism–despite its occasionally surreal quality–the scene stands out. Like most viewers, Adam is initially shocked, but then he lets out what can be best described as a smirk-sigh. Does he know something about the spider that viewers do not? The spider motif is not something that comes abruptly at the end; it exists throughout. So, what does the spider represent?
Villeneuve has his own interpretation of this issue, during the film there are several references to different types of spiders but also about their webs. This symbolism at first speaks about women but has an effect on the feelings of the protagonist. If there is a right answer, it is interesting to think why he leaves this question to the audience. – EllenPastorino2 years ago
The movie Annihilation (2018) has a pretty confusing ending with lots of interpretations. What happened to Lena? What was the significance of the mirroring alien? How does the ending tie in to the themes seen throughout the rest of the movie? Who is the Kane we see at the end of the movie?
"We Need to Talk About Kevin" has been praised for its insightful portrayal of a mother's complex emotions and colour is an essential element in cinema, used by filmmakers to create emotion, convey meaning and evoke historical context. For example, the color red is often associated with passion, love, and danger. Analyze the importance of color in the movie and how it influences the way we perceive and interpret the film.
This is a super interesting idea because colors change the entire vibe of the scene! – cjgirly1 year ago
Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness and Spider-Man: No Way Home deal with the multiverse in various ways. Multiverse stories can be interesting and also complicated. How did these movies handle this complicated plot? Was it done well or could it have been done better? It might also be good to compare it to other stories with a multiverse plot (ex. Everything Everywhere All at Once, Bioshock: Infinite, Dark Matter by Blake Crouch, or Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse if you want an all Marvel article). Explore the pros and cons of a multiverse plot and how these stories fit into it.
(My Opinion): I believe that Dr. Strange and Spider-Man used the multiverse mainly for nostalgia, to varying degrees of success, and the stories ignore the other strengths of the plot (especially Multiverse of Madness). I think these stories are flawed but enjoyable. Feel free to disagree with me, agree with me, or bring up more talking points!
I agree with your opinion on this matter. Multiverses were a cool idea in the MCU before it became just another fluff tool for their infrastructure of storytelling. – gbarreto2 years ago
Both Marvel and DC approach multiverse to create new plots but rebrand the same story of Western society's "nostalgia" (as mentioned) of the triumph of the white man and/or the masculine concept of strength that consumer culture celebrates. The strength of superheroes celebrated across multiverses means white men and Western societies love to see their superiority not only in one universe but also in all of them. The concept of multiverse is not new, it is mentioned in Indian myths (Mahabharat) and ancient songs of Bangladesh. For example, the songs of Duddu Shah, a 19th-century Baul poet from Bangladesh, refer to the word "digontikar" which means multiverse. There are several songs about the multiverse that celebrate a spiritual force that connects all humans of the multiverse through black holes in space. He uses the words "pingolo trosto jota" and "kuar dale dhandomaan" signalling the black holes in the space connecting multiverses like tree branches. The inclusive and spiritual thoughts of inclusive humanity that these references of multiverse portray are rarely visible in graphic-narrative-based multiverse stories in Marvel or DC. The obsessive focus on having binary oppositions of powerful heroes and villains might be problematic for young minds. – Golam Rabbani2 years ago
The Dark Knight is widely regarded as one of the best movies of its kind. It is officially a sequel to Batman Begins, but unlike most sequels, audiences don't really need to watch the first movie to understand or enjoy the plot of the second. The only major plotline that continues between the two (apart from Bruce Wayne Being Batman, of course) is Bruce and Rachel's relationship ("If there is ever a time when Gotham doesn't need Batman, we can be together.") Does the stand-alone nature of this movie make it a better sequel? Or a worse one? What metrics do you use to measure the quality of a sequel? We don't determine the quality of a horror movie by how much it makes us laugh, for example. Do we determine the quality of a sequel by how much it depends on the story of the first movie? Compare to Terminator 2, Rocky 2, John Wick 2, Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back, and other movies considered some of the best sequels of all time.
Godfather 2, Aliens, Toy Story 2, Logan as well. – Sunni Ago2 years ago
I think it's important to remember the difference between this sequel and the other's you named-- source material. I'm not saying it lacks originality, I adore THE DARK KNIGHT but there were characters and relationships that we as a culture were familiar with before the first film even released too. Might be interesting to explore the effect it had – hudsonmakesmovies2 years ago
Also Back to the Future Part II, Shrek 2, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, X-Men 2, Spiderman 2... – noahspud2 years ago
James Gunn and Peter Safran, the new leadership at DC Films, recently announced a slate of ten new projects that will start a new era of DC Films. The team is moving on from much of the properties and actors associated with DC's past films (for example, Henry Cavill will not return as Superman). The author would analyze the slate of releases announced by Gunn and Safran, as will as discuss the viability of their approach to developing a new connected television and film universe. The author could also touch on their handling of outside universe projects like Joker 2 and The Batman Part II.
For many people, true stories are far more compelling than fiction and so there is an ever growing market for documentaires and tv series based on true stories. However, there are some ethical considerations that need to be taken into account.
Firstly, when filming documentaires, do producers have an obligation to represent information as wholly and accurately as possible? We can see the simple of nature documentaries wherein the lion eats the zebra, but the event can be seen as either a victory or a defeat depending on whether the documentary focuses ont the lion or the zebra. Do those who make documentaries have a responsibility to represent both perspectives?
Secondly, what kind of obligations should be held in regards to the subject of a documentary or a film based on a true story? Especially in the case of a tragedy, it is possibly for filmmakers to take advantage of a person's grief for the sake of the story. Finally, does the dramatisation of true stories in some way glorify the event? This is an especially pressing issue when it comes to films about serial killers, for example ted bundy when he was portrayed by Zac Efron, or Jeffrey Dahmer who was protrayed by Evan Peters. Following the release of Dahmer in particular, there have been complaints from the families of victims and a response from viewers that was shockingly unempathetic. Extremely wicked shockingly vile and evil even garnered fan girls for the serial killer Ted Bundy. Do dramatisations of tragedies create a warped discourse surrounding these tragedies?
This is a brilliant and relevant point. In the onslaught of "based on a true story" kind of entertainment, I think there should be requirements for creators to go through to green-light certain projects. An example is Dahmer's father never giving consent to release tapes or create any of the documentaries surrounding his son. Blonde is a great example of the fetishization of Marilyn Monroe's trauma to the point of fabricating traumatic events while using her name to push a narrative that is only tangentially related to her. They knew that if they created a fictional starlet as the vehicle for violating and violent sexual assault, people would be horrified and it would never be cleared. There is an ethical issue at the heart of this topic. It would be crucial to provide equal examples of when it's done right in honoring the topic and when its simply glorifies one side. – LadyAcademia2 years ago
This is still so relevant today. Every time I see a serial killer documentary or a series like Dahmer, it kind of annoys me. I wish people would stop glorifying these killers because every time they're released it only creates new crazed fans of these killers as seen in the aftermath of Dahmer. It also most definitely is disrespectful to the victims and their families who have actually have to live through these events and now have to relive them because of these fans. – farhana11022 years ago
This is a great topic and can innovates many thinkings around ethical storytelling. I think it is important to give distinctions on documentary, film and TV series. For documentary, the producer is looking to approach the true story as close to reality as possible. Hence, it requires less drama and more objective view. For film and TV series, I think producers must respect every person who involved in the true story. That means they should not misinterpret and over glorify the evil. The script or screen writer is also important when discussing this topic. They also have the obligation to know the story thoroughly and not making the script sounds silly. – Eddie2 years ago
As a viewer, among other reasons, we watch movies and TV shows to escape and be entertained. However, the use of dark imagery has become a trend in many productions, which can contribute to a bad watching experience.
When scenes are overly dark or lack proper lighting, it can make it difficult to see what is happening on screen. This can lead to confusion for the viewer and detract from the story being told. It can also be physically uncomfortable to strain our eyes to see what's happening.
While it's important to respect the author's intent, there are ways to incorporate mood and atmosphere without sacrificing the viewer's experience. Lighting should be used to create tension or set the tone without compromising visibility.
Additionally, it's essential to think about accessibility. Dark imagery can be particularly challenging for viewers with visual impairments or older audiences who may struggle with their sight. It's important to ensure that everyone can enjoy the production fully.
Is this really a question of opinion or fact? Some even say that the alleged similar experience faced by a character in the dark is not faithfully reproduced on screen because of the way our eyes and vision adapt to dark surroundings.
I suggest you Google this trend because it is a trend. Check Variety and others.
Accessibility is totally on point here. How can you appreciate a movie if you cannot see the scenes?
14 million people in the US are visually impaired (2006, according to the National Institute of Health).
http://surl.li/ghnlm — Check it, a quick Google research on the theme.
And I do not need to give tons of examples and stuff. This is a topic suggestion, not an article afaik.
This is not a personal matter at all, this is considering other people who might have other problems with accessibility.
– Beatrix Kondo2 years ago
This is a topic I've seen complained about recently. In discussion of it, I often see a quote from the cinematographer of the Lord of the Rings movies brought up: when asked on a set where the light comes from, he simply said 'same place as the music'. Some people (me included) see this as a good approach, with lighting being important to have even when it's not 'realistic'. – AnnieEM2 years ago
This is a fantastic observation of an aesthetic issue. The film industry has relied on lighting to provide depth and ambiance since the golden age of Hollywood. Many black-and-white movies relied on stark lighting differences in order to communicate the tone and the weight of the moment, such as On The Waterfront, Stage Fright, and other films. Another aspect is the use of color. Wong Kar-wai is a master in mood lighting without sacrificing color or suspense. Seeing the ways that old Hollywood mastered communication through lighting and the way that international cinematographers create visual complexity could be a good aspect to explore. – LadyAcademia2 years ago
Dark aesthetic is beautiful but I agree, one can only appreciate it if one can see it. Both Peter Jackson and Gullimore del Toro have commented on the artificial 'unreal' lighting on their sets, that it's perfectly fine to have dark aesthetics, but one needs to see the art you create so you have to take some liberties in order for it to be appreciated, and I completely agree. – Veara2 years ago
