This week we enlist professional help to talk about Beasts of the Southern Wild. Dr. Bruce Geryk, the guy who got us to see the movie, explains himself. At the 1:05 mark, we pour a 4×3 of best uses of alcohol in a movie.
Next week: Lawless
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Don’t tell me none of you liked Beasts of the Southern Wild! Why, if you didn’t like that, I might not be able to trust your opinions on mov- bahahahahahaha!
Oh man. Almost got that out with a straight face. Anyway, my bets go: Tom: Doesn’t like it because we aren’t properly “rewarded” for our “investment” in a particular character. Christian: Doesn’t like it because “the story seemed all over the place.” Kelly: Doesn’t like it because of a perceived “self-awareness” that Kelly believes is absolutely deadly to a movie that is striving for a “magical feeling.” Kelly will take it for granted that everybody agrees the movie is striving for a “magical feeling.” Dr. Bruce Geryk: Will slowly feel worse and worse about his decision to come on this podcast, with a growing sense that he is either Luke Wilson in Idiocracy or has been phase-shifted into a dimension with a completely different aesthetic sensibility.
I went to go see this movie on Saturday because of the synopsis it had on Wikipedia, and because the name intrigued me. It was almost nothing like what the synopsis made me think it was, but I still enjoyed it a lot.
The synopsis mentioned the aurochs like they were a focal point of the movie, and not just thrown in there for the sake of allegory. I think I went into it hoping for some grand fantasy adventure where a six year old protagonist fought off these prehistoric beasts with her nature magic and then had some sort of tree-hugging Fern Gully type resolution where the humans and animals became friends.
So yeah, it was nothing like what I thought it would be. I was disappointed in that sense, but the movie was still very good. I thought the acting was great. I don’t normally go see a movie *because* of the acting. I typically only notice acting if it is bad, but the acting (and maybe in combination with the fact that I didn’t recognize any of the actors) made it all feel a lot more immersive. I found myself being able to believe that these people lived in The Bathtub, and this is how they really dealt with their world shattering problems. I was drawn into the world of the movie, and thats the kind of movie that does it for me.
Sorry, it wasn’t the Wiki synopsis but the Movie Tickets synopsis that put that expectation in my mind.
“Hushpuppy, an intrepid six-year-old girl, lives with her father, Wink, in “the Bathtub,” a southern Delta community at the edge of the world. Wink’s tough love prepares her for the unraveling of the universe; for a time when he’s no longer there to protect her. When Wink contracts a mysterious illness, nature flies out of whack-temperatures rise, and the ice caps melt, unleashing an army of prehistoric creatures called aurochs. With the waters rising, the aurochs coming, and Wink’s health fading, Hushpuppy goes in search of her lost mother.”
sorry it was the movietickets synopsis that gave me those expectations. This is copied from their website:
CB, I have to say I think the aurochs were more than just “thrown in for the sake of allegory.” I think they were an integral part of the film.
CB, never trust a movie synopsis! Unless it’s from Kellywand.
I agree with you, I think I didn’t correctly word what I meant.
The synopsis I read, which mentioned an unleashed army of prehistoric creatures, made me think that the aurochs would be featured in a violent conflict between them and the inhabitants of the Bathtub. I thought the movie would be about conflict with the aurochs, instead of how the movie actually was.
I think the aurochs, as they were used, were allegorical for facets of human group behavior, which (as it seemed to me) was what the film was about.
I like to think that Bruce Geryk identifies more with Terry Crew’s character in Idiocracy.
Also, Bruce has what plants crave.
All feelings are magical, to the synapse magician. Although on Valentine’s Day, I see him more as an illusionist.
You may consider this hair splitting, but based on my own experiences at wineries I don’t think the bucket Paul Giamatti drinks from is a spit bucket but rather a discard bucket for wine that tasters don’t finish. Not that this isn’t gross nor is it something you’d ever want to drink, I just don’t think it’s quite as horrifically nauseating as you guys were thinking.
Hey, Bruce really rocked the 3×4 this week. Strange Brew is classic. Can you believe that when I was about 10 I went trick-or-treating with my best friend as Bob and Doug MacKensie? Would they let kids wander the streets with empty beer bottles anymore? (I think the next year we were Bartles and Jaymes. True story!)
Yeah I think you’re right about that Pogue. I think I realized the same thing the last time I watched it, but the gross-out sense memory I had from my first viewing, when I should have known better as well, carried over into this discussion.
I remember one day on my first job waiting tables, as we were prepping for the dinner service the restaurant manager sent me downstairs to the food director/sommelier’s office to deliver something or other. Bread or apps or something. He was down there meeting with some wine vendors I think. I completed my mission and the guy said, “Take this back with you.” It was their spit bucket. And it was pretty well full. Ugh. I remember going up the stairs trying not to think about what I was carrying so my stomach would stay calm.
Apparently I carry that experience with me. The Sideways moment isn’t as bad as that, but drinking the accumulated backwash of all those tourists is still pretty disgusting.