how did people feel about the film? - Old Joy (2007) Discussion

[–] dmulvaney 18 years ago

It was the most beautiful movie I've seen all year. I wish more people could see this movie and love it as much as I did. Like you said, everything is changing so fast, no one has the time to sit down and take everything in. I think the environment split their friendship apart. Daniel London's charater grew up and did what society thinks is normal and got married. Will Oldham's character never fell into that trap. He stayed the same. There are so many layers to this film, its hard to label its theme but what I got from it was with all this chaos going on now, all this madness we should just pause. There are many, many more suttle themes to this film but going into the theater and watching Old Joy took me away like no other.

reply

[–] cracker82 18 years ago

Wow, this film sounds really sweet. It's only playing in one theatre in Toronto, but I definitely plan on seeing this.

Though the story of this film reminds me a lot of another really good film...

who here has seen "Spring forward"?

reply

[–] mlone 18 years ago

I saw "Old Joy" at Sundance in January 2006, and didn't really care for it at all. My husband really liked it, and I've seen two very positive reviews of the film, so I think I'm in the minority. I wonder if men could relate to the story and therefore enjoyed it more than I did? I was quite disappointed; I thought it was slow and I didn't care about the characters. But, as I said, I seem to be in the minority, so maybe I missed something. I'd appreciate any comments.

reply

[–] productionmike 17 years ago

This wasn't a typically paced narrative -- I must agree, if I wasn't in the 'right' state of mind while viewing, I may have been impatient with it. It is a very 'male' film, almost taboo in exposing the complex unspoken world of masculine communication, male roles. So yeah, 'slow' is one word, but 'meditation' is probably more accurate. The characters seemed like very real people, nothing super extraordinary about them, which makes the film all the more relate-able, humanistic.

Maybe this wasn't your film. Good luck in finding yours.

Mike

reply

[–] heatherjoy-1 17 years ago

I didn't like this movie either. I didn't understand what it was trying to say and thought that it was rather boring. I was really excited to see this movie because of a rave review from the NYT and was surprised when I didn't enjoy it. My husband didn't like this movie either so I don't think it's a matter of gender.

reply

[–] WomanOnWheels 18 years ago

I just saw this movie, and I quite honestly have no idea how it could be given 4 stars and referred to as one of the finest American films of the year (as Manohla Dargis did in the NY Times). I do not need a movie to have a huge amount of plot, but this movie was almost comatose. I obviously missed a lot of the nuances that other people loved, but I thought the acting was mediocre, as was the writing. The best part of the film was the dog, Lucy.

reply

[–] alltogetherhappy 18 years ago

Greatest film of the year. Absoultley beautiful.

reply

[–] noodle372 18 years ago

Agree with you totally, the dog was the best thing in it.

reply

[–] rs114-1 18 years ago

The longest 76 minutes of my life. It was one of those "critic's films" where you try to rationalize some quality into it, to justify the time you wasted seeing it. Very self-indulgent, very undisciplined filmmaking. Some interesting moments, but that's all.

Basically, you've got two friends, where one has committed himself to adult responsibilities, and the other is a rambling, spaced-out pothead with minimal direction. Most adults are familiar with these themes - everybody has to grow up, everybody has to make decisions.

The quiet moments of this film were meant to be profound meditations on nature, but they really don't add much to the film - they just make you look at your watch and wonder when this thing is going to end. Also, the Air America sound clips and the homosexual hints towards the end of the film didn't help any.

How could it have been better? More focused conversation between the two men. Better editing.

What this film really needed was a confrontation between the two men. Then we could have seen how friendships can end.

reply

[–] blister329 18 years ago

You should probably indicate that you have a semi-spoiler in your post. But, other than that, I do agree w/ you. I thought it was very beautiful and I liked the juxtaposition of the two characters but I wish there was more interaction between the two. The scenery shots, as beautiful as they are, were a bit much. I love the outdoors but I don't want to feel like I'm watching a National Geographic documentary. Having said that, I'd still rather shell out the $$ to see this as opposed to Deck The Halls.

"...but the bees won't sting/'cause you love me."

reply

[–] alltogetherhappy 18 years ago

"critic's films"? That's ridiculous. Critics would not like it if did not hold some good quality. How can it be self indulgent, when it's an honest film?

You obviously do not understand subtly because that is what this film is all about. We don't need a confrontation because we all know that the friendship is over. The quite moments did not make me look at my watch, they had me glued to the screen.

I think you're just way off base here.

reply

[–] dmulvaney 18 years ago

Why do some people want them to have a big confrontation or more deep talks? Why is that needed? Why not just keeping it real instead of artificial? I think its sad when people want some crazy event to come up in a movie when it isnt needed. It was there the whole time! "SPOILER" The last time these past lovers would ever see eachother! What more do you want?
No one has the time to just sit back and observe real life, it always has to have some crazy plot twist or more action. In this day and age where everything is now now now and everything must be explained. Why? Life just isnt that way. Sometimes people don't get a second chance, some times people never get over their past love, some times people don't have big confrontations and leave things quietly. In this world where artificial rules, this film says no. Lets show something real.

reply

[–] JohnFK 18 years ago

Lovers? I'm not going to jump to any conclusions here, but at least in my mind, they weren't gay. I mean, they could have been, but you know, men can actually have relationships that doesn't involve sex.

reply

[–] productionmike 17 years ago

You really think they were lovers?

When he felt the hands of his friend on his shoulders, it was definitely the look of hetero-rigidity if ever there was one.

I didn't see much else to indicate theirs was a history of old lovers.

The gayest thing in the film is Todd Haynes as Exec Producer.

Mike in LA

reply

[–] kylestumpe 18 years ago

SPOILERS
I definitely did not interpret that massage to mean that they were gay lovers. I just thought Kurt was trying to get Mark (was that his name?I forget) to loosen up. Mark is so wound up. And the Air America was used excellently - in the beginning it was used to set up this environment of being wound up, stressed, nervous. There was a lot of setting, the shots out the window and the Air America clips set the scene wonderfully. In the end, when Kurt left Mark, instead of going with the peace that they had found up in the mountains, for some reason Mark made what I thought was a mistake and he went back into this life of stress, and he turns back on Air America, and the shift from peace to tension is so noticable when he does this. It's a very subtle device, but it worked really great.

Early on in the film I started thinking that Kurt and Mark are like the same person just at different times in their lives. There was a time when they were both young and having fun, and they were both probably a lot like Kurt at that time. Then they spent time apart, and Mark went on a path where he got "serious" and "responsible". When they meet again, it's as if Mark has forgotten about this past and has not dealt with it, because there's this immediate tension. Kurt's character knows there is a tension. I thought the movie was taking a look at the tension within individuals when they start feeling like they need to grow up, but at the same time start pushing away their past.

The end had me questioning what I had previously thought. Kurt's story is really important to the movie as a whole. The thing about sorrow being the same thing as joy. Kurt's story was part of the same movement as Mark accepting the moment he was in and relaxing (during the massage). I found this to be a pretty profound scene, definitely the most important scene in the movie. Mark really changes here, and at the same time Kurt slows down and he doesn't have any of the anger he was showing a little bit earlier.

The end is pretty funny - they both go back to where they started. Mark is driving his car nervously, his mind going around in circles listening to political voices, going nowhere. And Kurt is just drifting around in the streets, not really making much of himself.

reply

[–] JohnFK 18 years ago

Nice post. You pretty much nailed some of my thoughts about the film as well :)

reply

[–] productionmike 17 years ago

This film shouldn't be touched or re-edited. You should go live in Oregon and see why this film was made. If you do live there, you should hike to a remote hot spring with a friend and find how you two have changed from the basic situation.

The editing was superb.

The confrontation in the film was at the end when the man had to return to his bitchy impregnated wife who can't let him enjoy his weekend alone by the incessant phone calls.

And just cause one man gives you a massage, this isn't homosexuality. I believe there's gentalia involved in that.

Some people can be so uptight and spastic, I swear.

Lighten up folks, and stick to your studio films.

Mike in L.A.

reply

[–] estein-3 17 years ago

Myself and my wife saw this film recently in Paris. It took me back 30 years or so to those days of our youth in Northern California, camping out, and of course the hot springs. The kinds of conversation, the concerns about getting into contact with nature, and of course the sadness of the moving apart of people who were once very close.

The married man perhaps is looking to recapture the "free" life he had in the past as well as his youth. He is no longer in his 20s and has moved on to other concerns and dealing with the world as it is (and not as he would like it to be) and yet he does not want to let that past life disappear.

His friend is trying to "stop the clock". Trying to find the old feeling of connection and freedom but unable to capture it. The dope just adds to lack of communication and yet he needs it to cover his fear that his "world" is disappearing.

For one moment they recapture their old emotional connection but it is "old joy" as in the story of the Indian woman in the dream he relates.

As my (French) wife remarked - as old friends they talk to each other very little only around the campfire where one friend expresses his need for this friendship.

This is how friendships end - not with a bang - but a realisation of how they have grown apart - if you like with a whimper.

An interesting variation would be a similar situation where two women friends meet and slowly realize their moving apart and the loss of their friendship. Can anyone recommed a similar film where the two characters are women?

reply

[–] SallyBOBally 17 years ago

This film didnt really take any chances. It was about two friend that grew apart, it was about rediscovery, about the inevitable transition to adulthood...but it just BARELY addressed these issues. Either with vague dialogue, or with akwardly directed moments that the audience was suppose to identify as enlightenment. Nothing happened. No conflict. I get the idea of this film, the quiet subtly it was trying to achieve, but it didnt work. AND obviously somebody is close friends with the NY times because "One of the greatest American films" is a gross over statment.

I'm a Modern Girl, But I Fold in Half So Easily

reply

[–] webberpdx 17 years ago

Jenny Lewis would certainly disagree with you here. Conflict is evident from the very beginning when they first meet up, and the the sometimes deafening lack of conversation between the two (especially on the initial ride out to the springs) sets in motion the level of complexity that their relationship is about. In fact, it is my opinion that the level of comfort that they display is indicative of the level of the relationship; they seem OK with the silence. That speaks volumes to me.

The film wasn't intended to "enlighten" the audience. It was simply a meditation on the closing gap between nature and the daily grind as well as the rapidly growing (and in this case, lost) gap between responsibility and innocence. It was an homage. It was a eulogy to the death of a former time in these friends' lives.

As a Portland resident it hit home because when I first moved here almost every week I would go into the wilderness with a good friend and hike and camp. It was fantastic. Now, married with my first baby on the way, I rarely see my friend anymore, and when we do get together we fondly remember those times when getting out of the city for three or four days was no big deal. Now, getting away for a few beers for a few hours seems like we both pulled off the greatest coup in history.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PTA-fan 17 years ago

wow, thanks for your profound insight into the film. you should really become a filmmaker with your tips on editing and your brilliant examination into the ending of the film.

My top 20:
http://www.ymdb.com/tyler-l/l28735_ukuk.html

reply

[–] muzzaofoz 17 years ago

One of the best movies of 2006.
Every now and again a movie comes along that reminds you why you love cinema so much.

reply

[–] SallyBOBally 17 years ago

PTA Fan,

You seem like a reasonable person. But, it saddens me to think that people like you would rather resort to snide comments than engage in a good-natured debate.

I'd hate to know what your friends and family are in for if they disagree with you on something. Eek.

I'm a Modern Girl, But I Fold in Half So Easily

reply

[–] pauleky 10 years ago

"...the homosexual hints towards the end of the film didn't help any."

Homophobic much? Sheesh - it's 2015. Get over yourself.

reply

[–] JohnFK 18 years ago

The best movie (in terms of emotional impact on myself) I've seen since 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'. Brilliant.

reply

[–] taraalcar 18 years ago

I didn't actually see it, so I guess I don't know, but the critic for my home paper gave it one star out of five, citing that it was the most boring movie he had ever seen. To quote him, "In real life, more happens."

reply

[–] Air61 18 years ago

Most every serious critic in the country, those that write for the major newspapers and magazines, gave this movie an excellent review -- it received rave after rave. It was also nominated for Best Picture at the Gotham Awards, is nominated for an Independent Spirit Award, and won the jury prizes at several film festivals around the world. Perhaps you should question the judgment and qualifications of your hometown paper's movie critic.

reply

[–] taraalcar 18 years ago

I do... he gets it wrong a lot of the time :)

reply

[–] electricwarrior1975 18 years ago

I loved Old Joy.

It definitely has echoes of Terrence Malick and, more recently, David Gordon Green films and instead of finding it boring, quite to the contrary I felt that each of the 76 minutes of the movie were meticulously planned.

About the two men being lovers, I don't think that was what the director was insinuating, but I think they had a deep abiding love in the past that had dissipated as friendships and love relationships often do, and Kurt just wanted to give something more of himself to Mark--even if it was just a massage.

Great movie, a real surprise and something I'll watch again and again. I hope Criterion puts out the DVD of this.

reply

[–] dmulvaney 18 years ago

SPIOLERS- I have seen Old Joy twice. After the first time I thought they were just friends until I talked to my screenwriting teacher who recommended the movie to me and he told me that he had come to the conclusion that they were gay. With this realization I had to go back and watch this beautiful movie a second time and if you listen to what they say and how they react to one another its right there especially the campfire scene. I hate going over this stuff but I think knowing that they were past lovers makes the much more enjoyable.
Kurt asks Mark if its okay if he can sleep in the tent. Mark answers, "Yeah, its a two man tent. Two man and a doggie tent." Kurt-"Yeah, shes a girl."
This is very very suttle but it gets the messege across. If they were just past friends, why would there be this awkward question? And why would Mark mention the dog? Having the dog in the tent makes the whole thing less awkward so its not just them in the tent by themselves and to top it off, Kurt mentions that the dog is a girl just to make it less uncomfortable, adding a girl in the tent to make it less gay.
The whole massaging scene, the shot of the ring on Marks left hand disappearing in the water, so many symbols for this love. "Sorrow is just worn out joy." OH MY GOD! Its not easy to see this the first time but I'm sure that they had something in the past. Please see the movie again with this in mind! It makes it even more heartbreaking.

reply

[–] JohnFK 18 years ago

Look, there's lots of obvious ambiguity about the sexuality of the two people, but the point is: Why does it matter? In my opinion, the question is left completely unanswered precisely because they aren't. In actuality, the whole point of the ambiguity is that they aren't. Why should they be? Because of the comments and the shoulder-massage? I don't think so. In my mind they aren't gay, and quite frankly, it wouldn't make much sense (to me) if they were (the characters in this movie are open minded, there is no point to prove about sexuality in this film).

The tent dialogue is a direct effect of Kurts character, why he didn't bring a tent in the first place (he's a drifter, it might conflict with how he feels about nature, he's free spirited, spontaneous etc. etc.), and is just a silly reference to how it oftentimes is ackward for any men to be close to eachother. But in this case it's no big deal, but simply a subtle pun because they're close - but not gay (and it also helps establish the obvious and artificial wall between them constructed by the different directions they have been pursuing since the last time they bonded, and it's sort of the normative/expected way to ask).

The part about the ring is (in my mind) a quite obvious metaphor of Mark's current relations with the world (his wife, first of all, but also his inability to disconnect from it all and just be himself, living in the moment - be free).

Anyway, don't listen to what other people think about the movies that you watch (if you don't feel that they point out something that you totally missed, and you truly agree with their observations). If you originally thought they were straight, why did you change your mind when your teacher said he thought they were gay? Is somehow his opinion better than yours? I'd say I'm a bit worried about your teacher if he concluded anything about their sexuality after watching the movie.

reply

[–] dmulvaney 18 years ago

Thats fine if you don't think they were gay I just think knowing that, or thinking that they are adds to the story. I didn't believe right away that they were gay when my teacher told me he thought they were, thats why I saw it a second time to see. After watching it a second time I believed that they were gay. Its okay if you don't come to the same conclusion as I did but I hope you will watch it again and maybe you might change your mind. There are so many things pointing toward there past relationship. Why was his wife so weird about them hanging out? I don't think she was so offended that he woud hang out with his old stoner friend, her reaction was more jealous. I don't know if I'm right but there are lots of clues to this, hopefully everyone who sees it a second time with an open mind will come to another conclusion.

reply

[–] JohnFK 18 years ago

There are so many things pointing toward there past relationship. Why was his wife so weird about them hanging out?

Because Kurt was a drifter, and Mark had finally put some roots down, and was «normalized». What is obvious is that his wife is opposing it, how do you connote that to anything sexual? You're saying that there are many things pointing to them being former lovers; bring them on, I haven't seen any. I mean, the whole message of the movie (as least as far as I'm concerned) is political and existential in nature, not sexual (although there are undertones).

(...but I'm of course not counting out the possibility of me thinking otherwise after I see the movie on DVD, although I'm pretty confident I won't)

reply

[–] darklemur 18 years ago

if you're not down with 'feminine narrative' as a means of actualizing a theme or concpet this movie won't make much sense, but get semi-well versed in american short stories and it becomes a great little film. i dug it to no end.
er, its an english majory movie i suppose.

reply

[–] JohnFK 18 years ago

Why did you answer my post?

reply

[–] darklemur 18 years ago

uh, rather, i meant not to answer you specifically. my bad.

reply

[–] heatherjoy-1 17 years ago

Wives are often jealous of time that their husbands spend with friends. That doesn't mean they're afraid of their husbands sleeping with their friends.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] artfuldodga 18 years ago

i'm about to check it out, will comment here when i do.

edit:

um..i thought it was kind of boring, no real point to it at all? other than 'live in the now, cause you can rarely get yesterday back, if you want it at all'
'friendships grow apart because some friends grow more than the other'

points in the film i'd vear off into space & start thinking of something else, usually during thos driving scenes (i have scenery like that where i live, seeing it on film is very boring)

old joy :P how about no joy at all in this film, oh and no real conflict whatsoever.

4/10 *

--

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] who_wants_a_pony 18 years ago

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

oh wait did u say something ?

reply

[–] bloovee 18 years ago

So it's like, "Brokeback Mountain" in a day, without the sheep and the sex.

Or "Sideways" without the wine and the women.

Or "Into Great Silence" with too much talking.

Not sure when they'd have had Bagby Hot Springs to themselves...

Nice scenery though.

reply

[–] appie_1989 18 years ago

Well, first I like to say that I'm from Holland.
And I saw this movie 'yesterday'on television by accident. At least,it was 00.25 and I was downstairs, I thought perhaps there's something on tv. And before I knew I saw a few seconds of the beginning of the film, and I thougth : 'Wait just here..., this might be interesting'. The ambiance was kind of empty and nostalgic ( it was the beginning, when you see the city and stuff ). Though I kept looking, because I had a feeling that this had something that I wanted. And then I looked in the tvguide and read somehting like : two old friends go to the mountain and bring old back memories. And then I knew, I must stay to watch this film.
Well, to make a long story short, I think this movie is fenomenal. And yes, especially when they are in the quite and peacefull nature. And although there are not a lot of conversations / dialogs, many wise and nostalgic things were being said in this film.

I think it was sad that those two friends, who knew each other so long, were kind of 'estranged' with each other. Although Mark denied that to Kurt, I found it a kind of estrangement that just happens ( appearantly ) with friends who know each other very long, and then go further with their own lifes, ( marrying, having kids etc. ) and then feel that there is something missing...they try to get it back , wich Mark and Kurt do in my opinion. I think it was the best idea to go to mountain, especially if you want to be away for a while from the dirty and hectic citylife. Hell yeah, man, i regret that there are no mountains here in Holland, because then I would definetely go there, hehe :P. Well, you can't have everything, that's what vacations are for. But anyways , because i want to keep it short ofcourse :P,

I enjoyed the silence along with the magnificent beauty of the environment. Man, for a long I enjoyed my widescreen TV :).
Well, I hope it will come soon on dvd, and also in Holland, otherewise I must download it :P, ( hehe, kidding ).

Well, greetings from Holland.

reply