Sorry latheheads . . .
. . . this is just bad.
shareYou're just bad
(An equally valid point)
Hardly (an equally valid point), since you don't know me. But I certainly know this movie, after suffering through it to the end.
However, if your complaint is that mine was a drive-by comment, allow me to make amends with a little drive-by psychiatry.
I wonder if much of the fond praise for this film isn't due to the time of life when it was first seen? Its fans often say "when I saw this as a kid" or "as a teen". Well, what would be more alluring to a kid than a fantasy where your every wish comes true? The fact that the "wishes" are dreams over which you have little control speaks to the lack of control all children suffer in their lives. Furthermore, how many kids feel some subconscious guilt for, say, the death of a parent, thinking that if I'd only been more obedient or gotten better grades, then Mom, (or sis or Auntie Jane) wouldn't have died. And if this flick is nothing else it's certainly one long primal scream of GUILT.
Need I even mention the doctor (an obvious father figure) who tries to control the poor kid's power, his very thoughts? This movie represents the quiddity of all powerless children dreaming the impossibility of controlling their own lives. Impossible, therefore dangerous, deadly -- the uncontrollable lathe of heaven.
I don't criticize anyone for liking this flick, I merely question the reason they like it. I find the underlying concept marvelous, just poorly executed, often downright silly (in this version.) But people love things from their youth for reasons that haven't much to do with quality. In my own memory there lurks a misty, half-dream of a series called "Supercar". As a kid, I just loved the idea of the power and freedom of that thing flying around anywhere and everywhere, even under water. I could have sworn it even flew in space and sprouted wheels when needed, functioning as an actual car. But that was just part of my fantasy, as I recently discovered when I downloaded the series and sat down to enjoy the adventures of Mike Mercury again. What's this? No wheels?! And it never actually gets out into space?!? Dang! Turns out I invented those small details to make Supercar even more perfect in my mind. I also must have invented most of the great action I remembered. In fact, it's pretty slow stuff. Interesting to watch, certainly, as a 60s curiosity (and springboard for Gerry Anderson's later, more mature efforts -- I'm quite fond of Fireball XL5), but hardly the wonderful, amazing thing I thought I remembered it to be. My childhood memories simply outstripped reality.
Point being, if I had seen The Lathe of Heaven at a similarly impressionable time in my life I might sing its praises too.
But I didn't. So I have no emotional dog in this hunt. Fact is, even the actors seem to be chuckling as they slog through this film, at least toward the end where it really slides into silly. Even they knew. It's just not very good.
So once again you provide nothing about the actual film to justify your criticism.
P.S.
I first saw this film in 2009 at the age of 25 and I consider it to be a lo-fi psychedelic masterpiece.
>>I consider it to be a lo-fi psychedelic masterpiece
Maybe it views better on LSD
Perhaps you should go back to your 105th viewing of "Superbad"....
...Guess What S1m0ne! We have now entered an age where we can manufacture fraud faster than our ability to detect it
Not familiar with "Superbad" -- super good?
share I think I can easily state that "Supercar" fans might find this film rather high/hard to grasp. Personally I find this film highly imaginative and very compelling but I have little remembrance of Supercar, so what do I know..
And childhood impressions aside, I was in my early 20s when I first saw this. I just saw it again for the first time since then, as far as I can recall, and it neither surprised nor disappointed me. In fact it made me rethink the story in more depth.
As for your pseudo "psychiatric" analysis rory, it is rather odd at best. Why oh why did you see the need for it?
One thing is known, and that is everyone has an opinion about a film whether it is based on a true understanding or just a "Super-ficial" view.
"Balthasar is a good man, but until all men are like him..we must keep our swords BRIGHT!"
Like the previous poster - I first saw the film in 2009. I was 32 at the time. I loved it so much I checked the novel out of the library. I read the book and was pleased to see how faithful an adaptation the filmmakers created. I think PBS produced the film, so that would make sense.
shareCalvin,
"I loved it so much I checked the novel out of the library"
No possible better endorsement of any film.
Me too! I bought a copy of the book in a second-hand bookstore and am still discovering and enjoying Ursula LeGuin's books (this is my favorite so far, with The Dispossessed a close second).
shareMost things do.
sharerory-100^
I just watched this film for the first time last night (via youtube), so can't say that I like this movie (which I do) because I first experienced it during my coming-of-age years.
However, I think your point is valid in some respects -- that at least *some* folks will have an emotional connection to 'something' (whether it be a book or movie or song or whatever) that they were first exposed to when at an impressionable time in their youth and/or life, and this 'connection' could potentially bias them somewhat in their appraisals and opinions.
Also, I do not like this movie due to any psychological subtext (and, psychology is my field of expertise :) I just watched it for the story and the performances...
I have to admit, though, that I have loved Bruce Davison as an actor since way back when ;)
However, I don't think that lends itself to so much bias regarding this particular film as I happen to think he is a fantastic actor, and the quality of his acting that resonated with me back when still resonates with me today, up to watching an older movie of his now ('The Lathe of Heaven'). In addition, there have been other films he was in that, despite his wonderful performances in them, I just didn't like that much.
I liked this film, although I still am trying to figure out the end. A bit too ambiguous for me; maybe it is spelled out better in the book?
Besides wonderful performances, some scenes I found simply stunning, such as the plague dream sequence.
And, I would also argue that there *could* be a kind of complementary/reverse/whatever bias to the one you mentioned, *against* the movie.
To wit: Young people raised with CGI and all the current technology can at times be biased against films that were made when current technology was not available, and thus can have difficulty discerning the quality of a quality film otherwise (i.e., they can't get past the dated special effects).
Also, without knowing the cultural context of the times a story was written/a film was made, it can be difficult for some to appreciate historical / sociological foundational themes in some older films. One need not necessarily have to personally experience such a context, although that can help -- an informed awareness of context can often be enough for a viewer to have a greater appreciation for an older film and its story, just like any form of art appreciation, whether the art is 2 days old or 2 centuries old.
Just my two cents...
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
Hey denise!
Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my (deliberately provocative!) OP.
Your point about a "complementary/reverse bias *against* the movie" is well taken. Kids raised on CGI are at a definite disadvantage viewing old flicks. They almost have to be detoxed from Avatar-like "realism" to be able to appreciate the good story telling of, say, "Them!", or "The Incredible Shrinking Man", or "The War of the Worlds" (1953, of course.) And, in that sense, my own complete disinterest in the 1970s milieu will perhaps forever doom me to under-appreciate "Lathe" (darn!)
On the other hand, only if your love of Bruce Davison survives http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832447/ will I believe you capable of the complete emotional detachment you claim
All the best!
rory-100^
LOL :)
I must admit: I haven't seen that Killer Shrews movie. Drat! How the heck did you dredge that one up? ROTFL
'The Incredible Shrinking Man' ~ a true classic.
Your detox statement -- very well put!
Disinterest in the 1970s milieu -- for shame!!
:)
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
The Killer Shrews (1959) - a guilty pleasure of mine. Their return (2012) - problematic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMJUAIeprls
If they just have fun with it and let it romp (like those dogs made up like raging rodents in the original) it might be fun. But do modern film makers have that kind of restraint?
I basically stopped existing in the 70s and began a slow time regression back, back, through the 60s, 50s ... leaving me now existentially somewhere in the 12th Century. I think it was the bell-bottoms.
rory-100^
Bell-bottoms??
Okay...can't leave THAT one alone :)
Some bell-bottoms were very over the top, with huge flares and I did not like those much.
But, I *still* like some lesser bell-bottom flare to pants, so long as the upper sections are not baggy.
The polyester materials back then, and french-cut sleeves for women that could make the skinniest woman's upper arms look fat, I can still live without though :)
Shag haircuts -- nah --, but the Farrah Fawcett flip, so long as it too isn't over the top and the rest of the hair is layered nicely (and not just straight as a board with these huge winged flips at the sides) I think still is attractive.
Glad to hear you have a guilty pleasure like the 'Killer Shrews'. You should see some of *my* guilty pleasures.
Again, I haven't seen the original ‘Shrews’, nor did I know there was going to be a remake.
Restraint with modern day film makers?
I find generally the larger the budget and/or the more of a love affair with CGI, the less the restraint.
But, after watching that trailer you provided the link to (thanks for that!), this remake doesn't appear big budget and looks rather tongue-in-cheek.
And, Bruce Davison!!! What a good sport!!!
The 'tear them up' line??
I couldn't find a copy of the original 'Willard' for quite a while, but then some great person posted the movie on youtube. Tis SO much better than the remake.
I have now GOT to watch the original ‘Killer Shrews’ for sure, you corrupter, you ;)
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
You've spent quite a lot of time, Rory, on developing and defending your hypothesis - too much to have really overlooked the fact that, as LeGuin acknowledged, this is a Taoist novel (she worked on her translation of the Tao Te Ching for several decades).
If the philosophy resonates with you, you'll probably find the movie interesting despite its 1980s production values. If not, try to remember scrambling up, up, up the ziggurat all day and coming back to mold small screaming people into productive little snot farmers. You'll come to understand how the idea of giving in to The One (even in a cheap foam turtle suit) can be quite appealing.
I'm making something of an assumption about your age given the vintage of Anderson's ouevre - apologies if I'm driving you into a particularly early retirement!
Rory: seems your low appreciation of this film/story is quite different from the praise it's received from most quarters. (And, your pyschological analysis only supports the depth of the meaning of the story! lol)
From Wikipedia:
"The novel received nominations for the 1972 Hugo[1] and the 1971 Nebula Award,[2] and won the Locus Award for Best Novel in 1972.[1] Two television film adaptations have been released: the acclaimed PBS production, The Lathe of Heaven (1980); and Lathe of Heaven (2002), a remake produced by the A&E Network."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lathe_of_Heaven
"your pyschological analysis only supports the depth of the meaning of the story! lol"
With apologies for the late reply: Touché!