• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Alex Garland Scifi Films & Shows

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,274
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Interesting. I actually really enjoy discussions about the role of gender on society. Sometimes certain things produce a kneejerk reaction in me, but if I stop and try imagine myself in the other person's shoes, I can usually see where they are coming from.

I'm wondering now about common differences in reactions to romantic rejection from women as opposed to men. Let's say we have two rivals viaing for the affection of one person of the opposite gender. If the rivals are both men, is the man more likely to take it out on the woman if she rejects him in favor of someone else? If the rivals are both woman, are they more likely to fight each other rather than take it out on the man?

I suspect this is the case but somehow I feel you might have more insight on the situation.
I'm just one individual but if you had asked me the question without providing your own answer, I would have answered similarly. Not that women don't kill or abuse men, it definitely happens (hey, look at Heard vs Depp), but yes women seem to be the targets more often in both cases and especially in regards to murder with men hounding/murdering women who leave them. Just watch about ten seasons of forensic files, sigh.

I still gotta say the whole body horror sequence at movie end is completely nuts, roflmao. I'm still like damn!

I still am having trouble knowing how to read the ending. It would be REALLY easy to view it all as some kind of metaphor with her wrestling over her own unfounded guilt imposed on her due to social expectation and yet there are clear evidential signs in the final moments that suggest it was real -- so I have no freaking idea.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,274
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So I just got back from Civil War. I think it's pretty stellar overall. Most complaints seem to obsess that it isn't the film they wanted to see, which is some kind of exposition on the way American government will break down and what political splits will occur. The film pointedly ignores many of the "why's" (I think purposefully) and instead of looks at these series of events through the literal lens of photo-journalism. In a way, it might have more to do with Nightcrawler rather than some dystopian war film, although the latter film had edgelord journalists covertly making the news themselves as necessary and this is more about the protagonists' responses to what is unfolding and what drives them personally.

SOme of these questions cannot really be answered, and Garland refuses to simplify things -- he acknowledges both their idealism but also how some of their behavior resembles junkies looking for something that makes them feel, even while they detach from what they are seeing. Is it justifiable for them to do this, to be more effective and to help with survive, or is it a loss of humanity / leading them astray?

So there are some character arcs in the film that are explored. The battle sequences are actually pretty terrifying and crazy. I just can't imagine standing in one of those places watching this unfold. And a Press jacket is NOT a bulletproof vest either, it's only a gentleman's agreement -- nothing stops you from getting shot in the most horrible ways possible.

Jesse Plemons is also terrifying. Damn that guy.

Offerman, Mizuno, and Plemons really aren't in the film very much. The main cast is Dunst, Moura, Spaeny and Henderson. I will pretty much watch anything with Spaeny, after I saw her in DEVS. She's really solid. I need to watch the Priscilla [Pressley] film.

As far as films he's written/directed, I think Men might be the weakest, despite the creepy ending, and Dredd is probably the next weakest because it's so straightforward (but hey it was an action film). Those two are at the bottom. I don't consider either a bad film, they are actually still both pretty enjoyable. I'd probably say Annihilation is my favorite, with Ex Machina right there as well, then Civil War (which is really solid), then Dredd and Men. I think Ex Machina is more of an overall fan favorite because it is more accessible, but that's exactly why I think Annihilation is more spectacular -- it totally refuses to over-clarify itself and ends up being even more profound. [I really love both of those films.]

In terms of his written work that he didn't direct, I would probably say it's 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Never Let Me Go, and 28 Weeks Later. I think Never Let Me Go is strongest with its writing, I feel like the directing wasn't quite as good.
 
Last edited:

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,657
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so

The Cat

Just a Magic Cat who hangs out at the Crossroads.
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
23,739
I haven't seen the film, but why are they calling it apolitical? I'm guessing it has to do with the ending of the movie.

Garland makes a few points in that article that I really agree with.
Because they have not truly realized (yet) that they cannot just put the genie back into the bottle.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,274
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's less about the ending and more about the fact is that Garland is not spending time on (1) how the country ended up in a Civil War and (2) whether the rebels or administration is in the right. Basically they think he oughta pick sides and focus on how things got to that point (as some sort of commentary on today's times, i guess), but that wasn't the point of his film.

There are hints of how the civil war started -- there are a few "rebel" factions, not just one. The president is on his third term. Apparently journalists in DC are shot on sight. It sounds as if the president has gone authoritarian for some reason. The amusing thing about the president is that he doesn't show up much and all you hear from him are rosy prospects... but that's not what is happening.

It really is exploring journalism in a beleaguered country, explores whether a journalist is supposed to take sides or just "capture truth" as it occurs for others so others can see and take sides, whether being a journalist saps away some of your humanity, and so on.

The civil war is just a backdrop to the question Garland is exploring.

It is a very thoughtful film and there are some sequences and/or snap shots that are going to stay in your headspace for a long time after. There's some terribly bleak moments and a few glorious moments as well.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,274
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
1000004996.jpg
 
Top