29
An in - depth discussion of film @reddit2telegram @r_channels
Utopia might be the most darkest show I have ever watched.
By utopia I don't mean the amazon version but the uk one that sadly got cancelled only after two seasons , but even then it achieved so much in just a matter of 12 episodes. It's absurd, sad , dreadful of a show but the best thing I liked About the show is the atmosphere it creates , maybe it's because of its beautiful cinematography which is better than most movies imo . The story is incomplete but it still managed to leave a strong impression on me especially the first episode of season 2 , one of the best episodes I have ever watched .
https://redd.it/1vxyotf
@r_truefilm
Casual Discussion Thread (August 24, 2026)
General Discussion threads threads are meant for more casual chat; a place to break most of the frontpage rules. Feel free to ask for recommendations, lists, homework help; plug your site or video essay; discuss tv here, or any such thing.
There is no 180-character minimum for top-level comments in this thread.
Follow us on:
[Letterboxd](http://letterboxd.com/truefilmreddit/)
Twitter
The sidebar has a wealth of information, including the subreddit rules, our killer wiki, all of our projects... If you're on a mobile app, click the "(i)" button on our frontpage.
Sincerely,
David
https://redd.it/1vxifjx
@r_truefilm
Hunger games
Are you guys ready to see the new hunger games film. I for sure I am ready to watch it.
I bought the book for all 5 books of the hunger games, and the books are very good just like the films.
But anyway are you guys ready to the hunger games sunrise on the reaping on November 20th? This year in theaters.
Or are you just going to watch the film when it comes out on streaming. If you plan to watch the film streaming, that fine people can do whatever they want.
https://redd.it/1vx9370
@r_truefilm
seen and understood with a nuance and care that films about trans issues (much less specifically trans women) rarely deploys.
Learning about the complete absence of any transgender women in the casting soured this feeling, the imagery associated with myself and people I love once again being deployed to advance the careers of people who are distinctly unlike us.
I do not blame Schoenbrun for this, I know it's a hard pitch to get a transfem actor anything more than a sentence or two. In fact this films sole on screen transfem, Louise Weard (director of the Castration Film series), is relegated to the glamorous cameo role of the unnamed "Queer assistant"
Why, even as a narrative surrounding us is raking in millions of dollars, are we limited to nameless and uninvolved cameos even as we sit in the director's chair?
I felt similarly about 2023's Barbie; a movie that is textually about someone who exists in a world of gendered shadow play recognizing the misogyny they are subject to, and subsequently claiming womanhood for their own (despite the suffering it subjects them to). A narrative tailor made for the transfeminine experience, where we are again relegated to nothing more than a glancing cameo before being placed somewhere conveniently out of sight.
Is this really the best trans representation in film can be? I really hope not.
https://redd.it/1vwg79w
@r_truefilm
Does anyone else feel seeing the 555 telephone prefix on screen brings out immersion?
A small filmmaking nitpick, but do you remember ever seeing a phone number shown on screen in a film or tv show where it starts with the number 555? I’m aware it’s to designate a phone number that can’t be used by in real life, and I’m not sure if it’s a sign of me watching more films/tv than the average person, but it always brings me out of the story everytime I see it on screen. It just reminds me I’m watching something instead of living in the minds of the characters which is what I personally prefer and like about watching various things.
I’m just wondering if there’s a noticeable amount of people that have similar thoughts or may be aware of any alternatives filmmakers can use and should adopt more often.
https://redd.it/1vwikqu
@r_truefilm
guess impatience made me skip through stuff or watch it on two-times speed.”
After watching movies distractedly—if they watch them at all—students unsurprisingly can’t answer basic questions about what they saw. In a multiple-choice question on a recent final exam, Jeff Smith, a film professor at UW Madison, asked what happens at the end of the Truffaut film Jules and Jim. More than half of the class picked one of the wrong options, saying that characters hide from the Nazis (the film takes place during World War I) or get drunk with Ernest Hemingway (who does not appear in the movie). Smith has administered similar exams for almost two decades; he had to grade his most recent exam on a curve to keep students’ marks within a normal range.
The professors I spoke with didn’t blame students for their shortcomings; they focused instead on how media diets have changed. From 1997 to 2014, screen time for children under age 2 doubled. And the screen in question, once a television, is now more likely to be a tablet or a smartphone. Students arriving in college today have no memory of a world before the infinite scroll. As teenagers, they spent nearly five hours a day on social media, with much of that time used for flicking from one short-form video to the next. An analysis of people’s attention while working on a computer found that they now switch between tabs or apps every 47 seconds, down from once every two and a half minutes in 2004. “I can imagine that if your body and your psychology are not trained for the duration of a feature-length film, it will just feel excruciatingly long,” USC’s Lippit said. (He also hypothesized that, because every movie is available on demand, students feel that they can always rewatch should they miss something—even if they rarely take advantage of that option.)
Kyle Stine, a film and media-studies professor at Johns Hopkins, usually begins his course with an icebreaker: What’s a movie you watched recently? In the past few years, some students have struggled to name any film. Kristen Warner, a performing- and media-arts professor at Cornell University, has noticed a similar trend. Some of her students arrive having seen only Disney movies. Erpelding, at UW Madison, said he tries to find a movie that everyone in his class has seen, to serve as a shared reference point they can talk about. Lately, that’s become impossible. Even students who are interested in going into filmmaking don’t necessarily love watching films. “The disconnect is that 10 years ago, people who wanted to go study film and media creation were cinephiles themselves,” Erpelding told me. “Nowadays, they’re people that consume the same thing everyone else consumes, which is social media.”
Of course, young people haven’t given up on movies altogether. But the feature films that they do watch now tend to be engineered to cater to their attentional deficit. In a recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Matt Damon, the star of many movies that college students may not have seen, said that Netflix has started encouraging filmmakers to put action sequences in the first five minutes of a film to get viewers hooked. And just because young people are streaming movies, it doesn’t mean they’re paying attention. When they sit down to watch, many are browsing social media on a second screen. Netflix has accordingly advised directors to have characters repeat the plot three or four times so that multitasking audiences can keep up with what’s happening, Damon said.
Some professors are treating wilting attention spans as a problem to be solved, not a reality to accept. Stine, at Johns Hopkins, is piloting a course on “slow cinema”—minimalist films with almost no narrative thrust—with the goal of helping students redevelop long modes of attention. Rick Warner, the director of film studies at the University of North Carolina, deliberately selects films with slow pacing and subtle details, such as Chantal Akerman’s Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, a three-hour movie that mostly follows a woman doing chores in her
Thoughts on Julien Duvivier?
I've watched a few of his films over the years but seeing La fête à Henriette on the current Criterion Channel retrospective made think about just what a solid cinematic craftsman was.
Even though a young Francois Truffaut praised his work in the pages of Cahiers and Arts, I think Duvivier is kind of retroactively placed into the boring old cinéma de papa of pre-nouvelle vague French cinema.
I don't think that's fair. For one, he wasn't just a director for hire. He consistently had a hand in writing his movies and sometimes actually was the sole screenwriter. Filmmakers of the caliber of Orson Welles, Ingmar Bergman and Jean Renoir praised him as a stylist.
And his filmography has at least a few moments of narrative/thematic audacity that bely his reputation for safe, commercial cinema. I think of Panique (1946), a film about the mob mentality and scapegoating a social outsider made in the immediate aftermath of Vichy. La fête à Henriette is almost a 50s French precursor to something like Adaptation. or Stranger Than Fiction: a metafictional comedy about screenwriters making creative decisions that alter the film within a film.
All this to say that the Duvivier Criterion retrospective is definitely worth a look.
https://redd.it/1vwc20c
@r_truefilm
Thoughts on Burning (Lee Chang-dong, 2018)
I know this film comes up here once in a while and has its fans (myself included, and always enjoy reading posts about it). I saw it for a fourth time last night with a friend, and had some fresh thoughts. Spoilers follow, so don't read on if you haven't seen it (it's well worth seeing through fresh eyes).
Things I noticed this time round:
Jong-su's last words to Hai-mi are pretty hurtful. Ben later explains that she'd said how much she trusts Jong-su, and how she believes he'll always be on her side. In light of that, those words must have hurt deeply. Also, just before the words were spoken, she'd become tearful again watching the sunset. She'd earlier commented how when feeling this sadness with a sunset, she wishes she'd just vanish and not exist at all. This all lends weight to the possibility that she commited suicide.
Towards the end of the film is the shot of Jong-su in Hai-mi's apartment, writing his novel. The camera pulls away to reveal him small, contained within the window, with Seoul looming large around him. This feels like the end of the film in terms of reality. The very next shot is the first shot of the film that isn't from Jong-su's point of view. So this could be taken to be what he's writing about - imagining Ben grooming one of his girls before another kill. The scene after this is where Jong-su murders him. It seems implied now that this is just imagined - another fantasy wish fulfillment (like when he fantasises about Hai-mi being in bed with him). This is further strengthened by the lawyer telling Jong-su that his dad would be a good protagonist in a story - Jong-su craves to be the protagonist in his own story.
After the film, in discussion, my friend offered that she saw it that Ben was involved in human trafficking, which is how he made his money, and the scene with him putting make-up on the girl was him preparing her. I had never considered this before, but found it fascinating how a fresh interpretation could be so different from anything I'd thought.
Such an incredible film though, it's so hypnotising with its details and between-the-lines implications.
https://redd.it/1vw87pe
@r_truefilm
Thoughts on The Straight Story?
Question, What are your thoughts on The Straight Story?
I recently rewatched The Straight Story and I gotta say, I still love this film. This is perhaps the closest to a normal film David Lynch will ever make and I just love that his most normal film is literally title The Straight Story. The film is just so wholesome and the interactions in the film just feel real, very Ernest Hemingway. It is also very simple, about a story of a brother who uses his lawnmower to travel to visit his estranged brother.
Richard Farnsworth gives a great performance as Alvin Straight and In my opinion, he should've won the Oscar for Best Actor that year. Farnsworth just gives the right pathos to Alvin and you can feel that he has a lot of regret but wants to make right and flat out refuses to let age get the best of him in seeing his brother.
Overall, it is a great film and is in my top 3 for Best David Lynch Films
https://redd.it/1vvx5mk
@r_truefilm
I just saw Coyote Vs Acme today
This movie went through hell to get here today but in maybe one of the rarest cases of its kind the film is actually incredible.
The rotten tomatoes score could have been a ton of critics just happy to see a film like this finally make it to theatres rather than praising the overall film but man I am so glad that's not the case.
It just released in the UK yesterday and I just got back from seeing it just now.
I genuinely couldn't stop smiling through the whole film. Each new scene I just couldn't wrap my head around how this almost got deleted..... then I remembered the CEO allegedly didn't even watch the film.
The score, the cinematography, the writing. The animation work. How is it a home run on everything? I'm really at a loss for words how good this movie turned out to be.
https://redd.it/1vvnour
@r_truefilm
SPOILER ALERT Discussion on THE OTHERS (2001)
SPOILER ALERT
Why didn't the amazing twist in 'The Others' didn't really feel like a shock? It felt more like a copy from sixth sense?
I had no clue, whatsoever, about the movie when I started watching it.
Watched The Others for the first time recently, and when the truth came out, first with the servants, then with protagonist and the kids, I didn't get that jolt I was expecting. No shock, no "wait, what just happened." Just a kind of flat acknowledgment: "oh, the protagonist is dead," which felt like a direct lift from The Sixth Sense.
And that's the weird part, because Sixth Sense actually blew my mind when I first saw it. Cole never directly interacting with Malcolm, the cold spots, all those clues you don't clock until the reveal, it worked because I had no idea what was coming. With The Others, I went in without spoilers too, but I was still kind of indifferent by the time the reveal hit. It felt like I'd already seen this movie two years earlier.
Maybe it's just that The Sixth Sense got there first and made the "character doesn't know they're dead" twist a known device, so anything using it afterward loses the element of surprise. Or maybe The Others leans so heavily on the same structure, isolated house, oddly behaving side characters, the slow dawning realization, that it just can't help but feel derivative rather than original.
Surprised I haven't seen more discussion connecting the two. Anyone else feel this way, or did The Others actually land for you?
https://redd.it/1vvb4r3
@r_truefilm
The lighthouse island is alive. (The Lighthouse 2019 Film Interpretation/Theory)
I'm about 7 years too late, I know, but I haven't seen this theory float around film spaces yet. After my 4th viewing yesterday, I came to this conclusion about the film.
The island in The Lighthouse (2019) is a sentient prison-like entity. Not in any real or biological sense but in the sense that it's a supernatural place built to serve a punitive function. This idea used in horror is similar to the hotel in The Shining or Monster House. I believe it is a self sustaining prison that beckons the guilty (with the thought that they're voluntarily going there of their own volition) and enslaves, imprisons, and punishes them with madness. The island facilitates this as a way of sustaining itself and its light through their labor. All aspects of the area play a role in damning/punishing the keepers/prisoners of it. The seagulls, incessant storms, false prospects of women and parole (The boats never coming to save them). The island dangles mercy in front of them without ever actually granting it. Much like the myth of Prometheus when he is regenerated everyday just for his abdomen to be eaten again and again, giving Prometheus respite and false hopes of a halting of the punishment.
Dafoe, who is a veteran of the island, acquires a warden-like role. Functioning as some sort of pseudo right hand man. He brings new inmates to punish, assigns them duties to maintain the island, belittles them, etc. Despite his role though, he still suffers by the island's hand, yet another false mercy by being led to believe he has any real power.
Pattinson, whose stained past led him to arrive there to look for legitimacy, is hopeful for lightwatching duties but is rejected instantly by Dafoe. I believe the light represents the prospect of redemption and freedom, like moths and flames. Dafoe's obsession with it is an intentional result of the island, to keep him there as he is a prisoner and the warden. He was deceived by the light to become an extension of the island and an integral part to keeping the light and life of it.
Now, to answer a question that plagued me on all my watches. Why was Dafoe allowed to look inside the light but Pattinson wasn't? I think I finally understand why (atleast relative to my theory). I believe the island rewards Dafoe of his patronage by allowing him to derive pleasure from the light with the ulterior motive of the island being to keep him there for as long as he lives, sort of like a life sentence. When Pattinson looked inside after murdering Dafoe, he was punished with eternal Promethean wrath because he had killed the island's trusted keeper. And moreso, the island deems viewing the light undeservedly as a transgression, and Pattinson died because he did not accept the truth behind his guilt while Dafoe did. While it is unclear what exactly it was that Dafoe had done to deserve imprisonment, I think he is accepting of his guilt (which I think is the another goal of the prison). However, It is implied that Dafoe killed Pattinson's precedessor because he also tried to undeservedly access the light, an act that I believe was permitted by the island because it deemed it to be a fitting punishment.
An extra idea that reinforces my theory is the subtle scene of repressed homosexuality (You know which one). When they almost succumb to the loneliness and kiss each other, they quickly wake up to what they're doing and instead express that passion through fistfighting. A familiar case which alludes to the guise of masculinity to veil and repress the true sexuality of those in denial. A case that is ever present in prison.
Thoughts?
https://redd.it/1vvb9by
@r_truefilm
Kevin Conroy on the shift toward "Star Casting" and the changing landscape of voice acting
(Link to the video)
In this clip, the late Kevin Conroy discusses a significant shift in how Hollywood approaches casting for animated features and major voice roles. He points out that the modern studio reliance on "star casting"—prioritizing A-list screen actors over specialized voice talent to draw audiences—would have likely prevented him from ever landing his iconic role as Batman in the early 1990s.
This brings up an interesting dilemma regarding the art of voice acting and film production. When looking back at the theatrical shorts of the classic animation era or the defining television series of the 90s, iconic characters were largely built around performers who specialized strictly in the nuances of vocal performance. Today, studios frequently cast recognizable on-screen celebrities to headline animated films, regardless of their specific voice-over experience.
I'm curious how this community views this industry shift from a cinematic perspective. Does "star casting" genuinely elevate an animated film's prestige and box office draw enough to justify passing over dedicated, specialized voice actors? How does this modern trend impact the legacy and artistic merit of character-defining performances like Conroy's?
This example is well over the 360-character limit, summarizes the clip, explicitly guides the discussion toward the artistic and industry impacts of the casting shift, and uses the video as a supporting piece of a larger text-based argument.
https://redd.it/1vv93pt
@r_truefilm
Selena, Malcolm X, The New Edition Story, and Straight Outta Compton are the gold standard for biopics. If you’re not following these blueprints, don’t bother.
Most biopics these days feel like glorified, rushed Wikipedia articles with a budget. They try to cram forty years of someone's life into two hours, hit the obvious surface-level milestones, and completely miss the actual soul of the person or the movement.
Selena nailed the cultural impact, the deep family dynamics, and the exact spirit of her rise without feeling like a clinical play-by-step document.
Spike Lee’s Malcolm X understood that to capture a giant, you need scale, patience, and zero compromises on both the political and personal transformation.
What makes Straight Outta Compton and The New Edition Story absolute blueprint material is that the actual people who lived it were directly involved in telling the story. New Edition proved that a multi-part format gives group history the room to breathe, while Straight Outta Compton captured raw era energy by zeroing in on key, specific arcs instead of watering everything down.
Having the real people in the room to guide the authentic friction, the business details, and the brotherhood is essential. We shouldn't have random studios buying up someone's life rights just to produce a hollow story. The people who were right there beside them, living that history, MUST be involved.
These projects work because they aren't just actors doing cheap mimicry.
They capture the real atmosphere, the era, and the true cultural weight of the subject. If filmmakers aren't going to bring that level of direct authenticity and depth, they should leave the story alone.
What other biopics do you consider absolute gold standards? What else actually belongs on this level?
https://redd.it/1vv2jyo
@r_truefilm
My reading of Dead Poets Society (a 5 year experience)
When I first watched Dead Poets Society at 10, I hated the ending. I hated Neil's character and how easily he gave up on his dream and on life itself. I thought it was a failure of imagination. Succumbing to death rather than fighting his parents, seeking comfort from his friends, or even running away. Anything, for the sake of just trying.
But five years later, at 15, do I really understand? I don't think there is any character I see my reflection in more.
His tragedy isn't that he doesn't love life or acting. It's kind of the opposite. He loves something deeply in a world that has convinced him that loving it is unacceptable.
Sometimes there truly is nothing left to do. We can pretend things took place differently. In another life, his parents understood. His friends helped him. He decided to wait just a little longer. But the story will continue to end the same.
We always only hear "to speak or to die," as if it's one or the other. But for him, it was both.
"I was good. I was really good."
But often, to speak in itself means to die.
I just hope that understanding it doesn't mean becoming him.
https://redd.it/1vuqgus
@r_truefilm
The Movie ‚The Square‘ from 2017 is an example for bystander paralysis. How real are the following aspects?
The movie depicts a scene of high class individuals all in some form of banquet hall eating and enjoying themselves, when what’s believed to be entertainment shows up. Entertainment in the form of a man acting as an ape.
The thing about this scene is that the actor didn’t know that the people in the room weren’t actors apart from very few. This way it serves as a sociological study of how a group of people acts in face of danger. Most shy away from the situation hoping they won’t get attacked by that ‘ape’. Eventually, they do fight back when a beautiful redheaded woman in a pink gown gets dragged away.
My question is: do you know about what people in the room were real actors that knew about the situation? Was the ape actor actually beaten by the crowd? Did he suffer severe injuries?
https://redd.it/1vxgtq2
@r_truefilm
Does anyone else here miss the slower pacing of movies from the 80's and 90's a ton?
Watching American Psycho for the first time and it is an absolute joy. While the film was made before my time, there's just something about how it flows together that's just so pleasing to experience in a way that a lot of newer films don't have. Not to say that all newer films are bad nor that movies aren't made like this anymore, I am sure that there are some indie films closer to this style, but there's something about it I'm struggling to describe that I absolutely love.
It gives itself room to breathe, to build things up and do set up and go at an even pace. Watched Memento a while back and felt similar there as well. These are both thrillers, but they take their time without feeling slow at all. It's nice. I feel like if these movies were made today the violence and reveals would be done way earlier and just go go go.
This isn't me complaining about hyper paced 2020's stuff either, and there is plenty of incredible new art being made that I need to get around to. This pacing issue I personally feel I've seen since at least 2015 or so. With the hyper paced super connected world, sitting down and just watching a long form movie with no second screen or distractions or constant notifications is just really nice.
I mean in American Psycho after the first murder Patrick Bateman has blood all over his face, but when he goes to sit down and smoke a cigar the less bloodied side of his face is viewed from the camera. That's an intentional artistic choice, I don't know fully know what it means but I know the artists are trying to say *something* without a single line of dialogue.
When the movie Iron Lung came out, a ton of people, including critics, complained about the length and how it was too slow or needed a half hour's worth cut. I could not disagree more. The slow buildup of dread, the feelings of isolation, the uncertainty of if the speaker was working or not by body blocking the wires in the shot thus intentionally making it unclear if the voice on the other end at points was even real, all of that was so well done and intentional and I don't understand how people wouldn't like those details.
I'm glad I have access to all these older titles. I don't have to endlessly complain about new stuff because A. some new art works are being made this way and B. I can easily go back and watch these sorts of things thanks to the largest library in the world being at my fingertips. Who knows, maybe at some point I'll even make something in this style myself. We all have to start somewhere. I don't even necessarily hate newer films either, the second Venom movie had the newer pacing yet despite that the relationship between Eddie and Venom was genuinely heartwarming. I just miss when this pacing and style was more the mainstream and not in more niche spaces is all even having been born after this was the standard.
https://redd.it/1vxh9z0
@r_truefilm
Dead Poets Socitey
Is there anyons interested in creating a groupchat similar to the main group from the Dead Poet Society? Should there be 7 of us like in the movie or more? Depends on the number of people interested I guess. I am looking for a handful of interested young men AND women who are fans of the movie. We can throw some verse, help each other out and talk about poetry, romance, history etc. Who's in?
Drop a comment and we'll talk it out.
https://redd.it/1vw16n3
@r_truefilm
Teenage Reclamation and Fetishization at Camp Miasma.
Camp Miasma is not a subtle movie, it is extremely forward about being a commentary on transmisogynistic archetypes in the horror genre and the long lasting effects this can have on a transfeminized person's sense of self and sexuality. The spectre of the transvestite haunts the narrative and defines the boundaries of self expression, only through reclamation and fetishization of the transfeminized slasher does Kris escape her mental block around sexuality; analogous to the way that Billy inhabits the site of her trauma and transforms it into an object of sexual excitement.
This is common in transfeminine spaces, to rehabilitate and re-examine stigmatizing depictions in service of self empowerment. Many trans women grow up only able to see themselves depicted as murderers and rapists, and subsequently inhabit those roles through the vehicle of sexual play.
Kris is haunted by Little Death the same way those transfeminized are haunted by Norman Bates, Longlegs, or Buffalo Bill; and her self actualization is only attained through not only facing her trauma but taking on the viewpoint of the victimizer.
Notably absent from the movie however is the presence of transfeminized people, save the director. Billy and Kris are both played by cis women, and Little Death as the amalgam of the transsexual slasher is depicted by a transmasculine individual.
While Kris's journey with the movie in a movie is superficially similar to transfeminine reclamation of problematic archetypes, her gender positionality is not.
Cis women who internalize transmisogynist archetypes that they are not the subject of will frequently go on to seek out trans women and project these ideas onto them, furthering the process of transfeminization and restricting the social and sexual roles transfems are capable of inhabiting.
The gender blind casting of the film significantly alters its messaging, the absence of transfemine involvement in their sexual roleplay shifts the narrative from that of one to empowerment to further fetishization.
It is not a heartwarming romance of two women breaking through sexual trauma by shaping it to serve themselves; they are inhabitating a role that never belonged to them to begin with. Using the spook of the sexually dominant and willing to penetrate trans woman to bring themselves satisfaction, in the same fashion that real world cisgender people will coerce those transfeminized into acting as their ideal masculinized partner.
Even as ur-slasher Little Death is denied access to womanhood, punitivitely gendered as a man, and murdered for daring to assert herself despite this; she is denied again the access to womanhood in casting. Again the weight of the feminized penetrator is carried by someone who it was never that heavy for. In the same way Kris and Billy utilize the idea of a trans woman in their sexual play, Haven's casting is a transmasculine person furthers the puppeteering of transfem's bodies as ruthless, domineering penetrators.
Transfeminine and Transmasculine people are not symmetrical, their roles in society and the media it produces is chiral — where there exists the idea of the delusional and bloodthirsty transvestite, there is no equal and opposite idea of transmasculine people with equivalent prominence. Transmasculine people are free to inhabit the roles forced upon the transmisogynized with playful abandon, as Haven does in this film, or to leverage these ideas surrounding trans women to coerce them into acting for their own sexual pleasure. Furthermore the casting of a Transmasculine person in a role where one could presume they have some relationship to womanhood reads as tactit misgendering (or more uncharitably: a retreat into birth sex assignment as a signifier of innocence, a luxury transfeminized individuals are not afforded)
My point in writing all of this is frustration. I went into this film blind, having not seen Schoenbrun's previous films or knowing anything about the actors. Initially I was elated by the film, I had felt
apartment. “I try to teach films that put their habits of viewing under strain,” Warner told me. “I’m trying to sell them on the idea that a film watched properly can actually help them retrain their perception and can teach them how to concentrate again.” Once they get used to it, students enjoy the challenge, he said.
But other professors, perhaps concluding that resistance is futile, are adjusting to the media their students grew up on. Some show shorter films or have students watch movies over multiple sittings. Erpelding, who primarily teaches filmmaking courses, has moved from teaching traditional production methods to explaining how to maximize audience engagement. He now asks students to make three- or four-minute films, similar to the social-media edits they see online. After all, that seems to be the only type of video many young people want to watch.
By the way, the last scene of The Conversation has the paranoid Gene Hackman destroying his apartment in a desperate and futile search for listening devices. He eventually gives up, and mournfully plays the saxophone amid the wreckage. It’s a brilliant scene, and worth the wait.
https://redd.it/1vwhyup
@r_truefilm
From The Atlantic: The Film Students Who Can't Sit Through a Film
Cinepals: If you don't care to engage with the Atlantic piece (not long; cut and pasted to spare you the pay wall) at least check out the headline! (A pal turned me onto this one). EL
Headline: The Film Students Who Can No Longer Sit Through Films
The attention-span crisis goes to the movies.
By Rose Horowitch
Everyone knows it’s hard to get college students to do the reading—remember books? But the attention-span crisis is not limited to the written word. Professors are now finding that they can’t even get film students—film students—to sit through movies. “I used to think, If homework is watching a movie, that is the best homework ever,” Craig Erpelding, a film professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me. “But students will not do it.”
I heard similar observations from 20 film-studies professors around the country. They told me that over the past decade, and particularly since the pandemic, students have struggled to pay attention to feature-length films. Malcolm Turvey, the founding director of Tufts University’s Film and Media Studies Program, officially bans electronics during film screenings. Enforcing the ban is another matter: About half the class ends up looking furtively at their phones.
A handful of professors told me they hadn’t noticed any change. Some students have always found old movies to be slow, Lynn Spigel, a professor of screen cultures at Northwestern University, told me. “But the ones who are really dedicated to learning film always were into it, and they still are.”
Most of the instructors I spoke with, however, feel that something is different now. And the problem is not limited to large introductory courses. Akira Mizuta Lippit, a cinema and media-studies professor at the University of Southern California—home to perhaps the top film program in the country—said that his students remind him of nicotine addicts going through withdrawal during screenings: The longer they go without checking their phone, the more they fidget. Eventually, they give in. He recently screened the 1974 Francis Ford Coppola classic The Conversation. At the outset, he told students that even if they ignored parts of the film, they needed to watch the famously essential and prophetic final scene. Even that request proved too much for some of the class. When the scene played, Lippit noticed that several students were staring at their phones, he told me. “You do have to just pay attention at the very end, and I just can’t get everybody to do that,” he said.
From the November 2024 issue: The elite college students who can’t read books
Many students are resisting the idea of in-person screenings altogether. Given the ease of streaming assignments from their dorm rooms, they see gathering in a campus theater as an imposition. Professors whose syllabi require in-person screenings outside of class time might see their enrollment drop, Meredith Ward, director of the Program in Film and Media Studies at Johns Hopkins University, told me. Accordingly, many professors now allow students to stream movies on their own time.
You can imagine how that turns out. At Indiana University, where Erpelding worked until 2024, professors could track whether students watched films on the campus’s internal streaming platform. Fewer than 50 percent would even start the movies, he said, and only about 20 percent made it to the end. (Recall that these are students who chose to take a film class.) Even when students stream the entire film, it’s not clear how closely they watch it. Some are surely folding laundry or scrolling Instagram, or both, while the movie plays.
The students I spoke with admitted to their own inattentiveness. They even felt bad about it. But that wasn’t enough to make them sit through the assigned movies. Mridula Natarajan, a freshman at the University of Texas at Austin, took a world-cinema class this past fall. “There were some movies that were extremely slow-paced, and ironically, that was the point of the movie,” she told me. “But I
What Have You Been Watching? (Week of (August 23, 2026)
Please don't downvote opinions. Only downvote comments that don't contribute anything. Check out the WHYBW archives.
https://redd.it/1vw9fh9
@r_truefilm
The Master (2012) meaning
I see it as a representation of adding meaning to the meaningless, purpose to the purposeless, use to the useless. This is representatives by the repeated instances of repetition of seemingly useless and random activities.
Searching for purpose in the purposeless is exactly how religion started. I think it’s a story about the meaning of curiosity and religion. This is further backed up by the fact that it’s about a “scientific religion” but it’s all under the guise of this one man and all his followers are adding their purpose.
People are unhappy with book 2 because it goes against what they see is purpose and meaning of book 1. Book 2 is about this man (Freddie) who had no purpose and just walked the path in front of him but then his purpose was given and found as something people see purpose in.
It’s a story about religion.
I think it’s also a PTA’s most nuanced film in terms of meaning, at least with my interpretation.
In my interpretation its story is told through everything not said but acted. Every part of the story is something where we ironically have to find the meaning of from the meaningless. Just like religion. Just like my interpretation.
It’s a semi-meta film where its true meaning has to be discovered by doing the meaning, we are the members of the religion.
https://redd.it/1vvwnvt
@r_truefilm
The Cautionary Tale of Richard Stanley
There is an excellent documentary about Richard Stanley’s disastrous experience adapting the HG Wells The Island of Dr Moreau called Lost Souls. It’s a deep look into the pitfalls of developing and producing your lifelong dream project. Also directing Marlon Brando or Val Kilmer as well! I wrote a substack article about the story if that’s more interesting than documentaries for you. I work in film (was a development exec then rewrites) and it’s very relatable and frankly depressing.
I find these documentaries that follow doomed projects strangely fascinating, like a car accident but worse. I’ve never experienced a set or development on this level. Have any of you? I’d love to hear what you learned from the experience, and if you went back for more?
https://notesonfilmdevelopment.substack.com/p/the-director-who-lost-his-own-movie?r=4idcqp&utm_medium=ios
https://redd.it/1vvrfns
@r_truefilm
Kevin Conroy on the shift toward "Star Casting" and the changing landscape of voice acting (redone)
(In light of things, I decided to redo this post, which is now archived.)
In this video, the late Kevin Conroy talks about how Hollywood's shift toward "star casting"—prioritizing A-list screen actors over specialized voice talent—would have likely stopped him from ever landing his iconic role as Batman in the early 1990s.
It's a great dilemma regarding the art of voice acting and film production. When you look back at the theatrical shorts of classic animation or the defining television series of the 90s, iconic characters were largely built by performers who specialized in the nuances of voice performance. Today, studios frequently cast recognizable screen celebrities for animated films, regardless of their voice-acting experience.
I'm curious how this community views this shift from a dramatic perspective. Does "star casting" genuinely elevate an animated film's prestige and box office draw enough to justify passing over dedicated, specialized voice actors? How does this modern trend impact the legacy and attachment of character-defining performances like Conroy's
https://redd.it/1vvlbfa
@r_truefilm
Can a love of classic cinema and impatience with others' antipathy towards it be accounted for by one's own exposure (Or lack thereof) to certain media growing up?
I've flirted with the thought for years that the movies I watched and didn't watch growing up shaped how my tastes would eventually settle into their current form in a bit of a unique way. I was curious if anyone has experienced anything remotely similar.
I skipped a lot of the 80s-90s blockbusters growing up (With some exceptions here and there like Ghostbusters and E.T. that I did catch), not seeing them until 2014-2016 in my late teens. At this same time, I was exploring cinema in general. While I was, to my own tremendous disappointment, disenchanted by Star Wars and Indiana Jones (Although I ended up loving Terminator and Back to the Future as if I HAD grown up with them, so I wasn't trying to be a snob by any means), I was exploring much older films and having a pretty radically different experience. I was simultaneously LOVING movies like Casablanca, All About Eve, Charade, My Man Godfrey, The Day the Earth Stood Still and Bride of Frankenstein. I still obsess over them over a decade later.
What probably helped was that I went into cinema exploration with a bit of a bookworm's mindset, fully acclimatized to a slow burn and patience being necessary to get to the good stuff. I was noticing quickly how bringing up my enthusiasm for these movies to peers earned me baffled reactions and even harsh judgment and assumptions. I was so confused by this and in my younger years, unfortunately a bit judgemental in return to match their reactions to my findings.
I realized over time that I cannot expect people who likely did grow up with the exact movies I skipped to see the worth that I see. But man oh man, when you don't grow up on an 80s blockbuster diet, it's outstandingly obvious just how much Raiders of the Lost Ark is a strange combination of Lawrence of Arabia and old adventure serials, and not in a way that especially flatters it. Although as a counterpoint to that, apparently critics who obviously had no nostalgia for the film at the time did embrace it wholeheartedly, so maybe I am a snob. I found myself agreeing with Pauline Kael that if anything Temple of Doom did it better by leaning into the wackiness over trying to have your cake and eat it. Indiana Jones was always going to be more serial than Lawrence of Arabia, better face that rather than hide it.
But anyway. I think growing up with pretty much every Disney movie minus the package films and Black Cauldron also primed me for loving classics, some of these movies being actually made in that era or else leaning on the grand musical tradition, as well as clear paragon leads and "God I love being evil" styled big bads. This connection I only realized just today and I wondered if there's a Disney-to-golden-age pipeline anyone else can perceive if not directly relate to. Animation in general is really friendly to older films, where instead of perfectly copying them in an attempt to "innovate" (My bias in putting that in quotation is not lost on me) they do such loving homages to them. I'm thinking of Animaniacs referencing everything from The Gold Rush to Seventh Seal, Cats Don't Dance incorporating Shirley Temple and Max from Sunset Boulevard, and the "Nosferatu!" gag in Spongebob. Having grown up with these things dear to my heart, it was almost inevitable I should prefer movies the ones I grew up on were throwing respect on and my impressionable brain was seeing.
So I suppose my theory is that rather than any inherent trait in a person that makes them appreciate classics over modern films more, what one is exposed or not exposed to as a child more closely informs what they'll gravitate to when they're older. But I'd love to know what you all think.
https://redd.it/1vvgth5
@r_truefilm
My arguments against people who insist Edward Grey's behaviour towards Lee Halloway in Secretary isn't abuse or emotional manipulation.
So I just saw this movie and I want to comment on it. First of all, beautiful film. Needed a slight edit in some areas, but I'd recommend it.
An argument I see for this is that the director didn't intend for this to be abuse. Which...I mean you think about this for five seconds, you know the issue. A lot of people who commit emotional abuse don't know they're doing it and don't intend it. Still abuse.
The second is that Lee liked it. She found emotional pleasure in it. Enjoying abuse in and of itself does not negate its nature as abuse. By this logic, victims experiencing stockholm syndrome are not absue victims.
The thing that pushes this from a healthy sub-dom relationship into a manipulative para social relationship is that the film goes out of its way to explain that her reliance on sexual gratification was ruining her life. E. Grey was deliberately manipulating her, knowing full well she wasn't...well. There was a point where she was getting her life together, then he holds back the kinky foreplay because he...wasn't in the mood for it.
No I do not equate E. Grey to people who bring blatant physical and emotional harm to their spouse like say... Carlo Rizzi from the Godfather. I don't even think the guy is sleazy or balatantly narcissistic. I think he conned himself into thinking what he was doing was okay. I think both of these people were confused and didn't understand what they were doing because they both got satisfaction.
https://redd.it/1vvayo3
@r_truefilm
Obsession and the strange economics of independent filmmaking
DEBATE
Obsession is an interesting example of how strange independent movie economics can get. The film was reportedly made for around $750K and is projected to gross around $250M, while discussion around the production has raised questions about how crew members are compensated when a low-budget film becomes an unexpected hit.
I've been thinking about where the line is between accepting the terms of an independent production and expecting some kind of additional compensation when the project massively exceeds expectations. There are good arguments on both sides.
The bigger question for me is whether this is simply the reality of making independent films, or whether the industry could develop better ways to reward the people who helped make those unexpected successes possible.
https://redd.it/1vv4mgy
@r_truefilm
Movie theatres and poor selection
I love going to the movies, but I’ve discovered more and more lately that there’s nothing to watch… yes, they have movies running, but it’s mostly kids movies or movies that have been running in reaper there for months. There’s rarely anything new and interesting unless it’s the “season” for it. Like a lot of horror movies come out in October, a lot of big movies are coming out in November/December. But otherwise it’s just movies no one’s heard of, poor kids movie remakes or sequels, and stuff that’s been out for a while….
It makes me sad, cause I really love going to the movies, and I never really get to anymore cause there’s nothing to watch that would be fun. Has the movie production industry always been like this and I just haven’t realised until now? Or has there been a decrease in the production lately?
https://redd.it/1vuq4r0
@r_truefilm
The Odyssey was dull, drab, and lifeless
I finally got to see The Odyssey, in the way Nolan intended and I can't recall the last time I was so underwhelmed with a movie.
Don't get me wrong, the Cyclop scene and the Circe scene were incredible, haunting and very well made. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was visually dull and sterile.
We're in the Mediterranean sea. A mythologized version of the Mediterranean sea. Why do I feel like I'm a Nordic sea? (doesn't help that he used a viking ship..). Why is the island of Calypso, described as a paradise island where men get stuck depicted as a desolate beach with no vegetation?
The movie looked exactly like Dunkirk. There was no color, no whimsy, no excitement, no magic. Just a drab, 2010-gritty collection of depressing happenstances. This is the opposite of what Mythology is for a lot of us. I'm not asking for Narnia level of wonder, but holyshit man was it dull to look at. And don't get me started on the costumes.
I had a lot of problems with the story as well, but this is by far my biggest issue with the movie. Especially when all the marketing revolved around the movie being a visual feat. I grew up in Normandy and this is all it reminded me of. A far cry from the Mediterranean magical adventure it should have been.
I'm so done with these grey/blue/brown palettes. Bring color back.
https://redd.it/1vumpf7
@r_truefilm