In Bruges (Martin McDonagh, 2008)

[Mr Sausage]

In Bruges is a soft anachronism.

Isn't the whole point of it being set in Bruges for the deliberate anachronism?

Yes, it is my distinction. I believe that, for humanism to be convincing, it must first acknowledge the darker aspects of human nature.

Now you're the one being anachronistic, attributing modern prejudices to old philosophies that do not use them. Refusing to accept positivity as truthful or honest unless it's justified by a shadowing negativity is a modern prejudice (and a borrowed thought). Despair is not inherantly less honest and real than happiness.

La Regle de Jeu is perhaps the perfect humanist film in that, for all its light and life, for all its joy, it is a film that cannot be fully understood outside the context of the looming Nazi scourge

That's not humanism, at all, in any sense. A movie about the use of brittle social facades to maintain pleasant ignorance and to distance unhappiness, when seen in the context of nazism and the holocaust (and once more you've committed yourself to an anachronism), becomes a piece of cutting and pessimisitc satire on the damage wrought by willing human blindness and ignorance, not a humanist movie. How someone could say a "perfect" humanist film is one about the facade of human worth crumbling amidst the horrors of history, and not be himself an anti-humanist, is beyond my understanding.

In Bruges, on the other hand, denies and softens reality to make it's points, to turn Farrell and company into likable, 'decent' human beings (gothic setting or no).

Denies whose reality? The only reality that a work of art can deny is its own, since the only reality it can have is that which it grants itself. If a movie decides that its reality will resemble yours only vaguely, and then only at certain points, it is not failing a test, it is exercising its greatest gift, that of creation. In Bruges is, after all, a fantasy.

And unless you're willing to concede that a movie that "denies and hardens" reality to make its points is equally flawed as one that "denies and softens", you're enacting a double-standard (re: my earlier comments about the modern prejudice favouring dark, awful things as 'real').

[Nothing]

Well, I would define humanism as a belief in the intrinsic value of human life and the existence of inate human morality and reason. However, a philosophy doesn't exist in a vacuum, it has to be defended through dialectic, and the existence of genocide, murder, rape, infanticide, etc, is pretty much the first hurdle for a humanist philosopher (just as the existence of 'sin' has been argued about in religious philosophy for centuries). To enter into such a discussion, as Renoir does in La Regle de Jeu, does not suddenly turn a humanist into a nihilist, as you seem to be suggesting.

Beyond this... you're just making excuses for a crap film. No work of art exists outside of time and space (Jud Süß "grants itself" it's own reality too...) So, as I understand it, you are not arguing that the modern mafia maintains any code of honour or places any value on human life but, rather, that McDonagh is within his rights as an artist to alter this reality for the sake of entertainment. I, on the other hand, find this particular misrepresentation to be dishonest and unhepful, a stance that has been taken not because McDonagh truly believes that the mafia are upright, principaled human-beings, or that there is any artistic or political benefit to be had in portraying them as such, but, rather, because he believes that softening the mileu will make the film more palatable to a mainstream audience and, by extension, that this will make the film more profitable. He is not incorrect in this assumption as the commercial success of the film demonstrates. Such audience concessions are, however, two-a-penny in the modern film industry and are one of the most obvious 'red flags' that a director is not serious in his or her intentions. One might say, in conclusion, that McDonagh's defining characteristic is not humanism but cynicism.

p.s.
please do name a film that 'denies and hardens' reality (and to what end), although preferably not in this crap-Irish-playwright-honouring thread, which is far too long already...

[Mr Sausage]

To enter into such a discussion, as Renoir does in La Regle de Jeu, does not suddenly turn a humanist into a nihilist, as you seem to be suggesting.

Your attempt to give it a second context in the form of nazism and its atrocities is what would make it nihilist. The film already contains enough negative counterbalance without it.

Well, I would define humanism as a belief in the intrinsic value of human life and the existence of inate human morality and reason. However, a philosophy doesn't exist in a vacuum, it has to be defended through dialectic, and the existence of genocide, murder, rape, infanticide, etc, is pretty much the first hurdle for a humanist philosopher (just as the existence of 'sin' has been argued about in religious philosophy for centuries).

Ah, finally. A fine defintion. But you seem to have taken as a corollary that a humanist film, rather than simply being humanist, must be always trying to prove a philosophical position through dialectic--indeed, through your dialectic.

Anyway, I've been arguing against your idea of pseudo-humanism, not for the idea that In Bruges is humanist. I don't think it's particularly trying to be. In fact, what interests me more (tho' not as much as how much hysterical fun this movie is, and I'm sorry to have bogged it down with a technical discussion) is its mediaevalism, which you've been content to ignore.

Beyond this... you're just making excuses for a crap film.

I'm half expecting you to pause and add "and what's more, you know it!" and then jab a finger at me.

No work of art exists outside of time and space

A proposition I don't believe I've ever made. On the other hand, the reality inside the work of art may be outside time and space (see: any narrative dealing with divine entities).

So, as I understand it, you are not arguing that the modern mafia maintains any code of honour or places any value on human life but, rather, that McDonagh is within his rights as an artist to alter this reality for the sake of entertainment.

It is rather annoying to have someone else paraphrase your arguments useing their, not your, terms of value. Whether an artist does it for entertainment or not is irrelevant. That he is free to create his own reality in his film is true enough. The idea that creation and fantasy is anti-truth, being anti-fact, is deplorable (although not one you necessarily ascribe to).

I, on the other hand, find this particular misrepresentation to be dishonest and unhepful, a stance that has been taken not because McDonagh truly believes that the mafia are upright, principaled human-beings, or that there is any artistic or political benefit to be had in portraying them as such, but, rather, because he believes that softening the mileu will make the film more palatable to a mainstream audience and, by extension, that this will make the film more profitable.

A silly, a priori assumption that is useless in-so-far as it can neither be proved nor disproved, and as it speaks only to prejudice against the filmmaker and not actual information.

This is a baseless attempt to make a microcosm/macrocosm extension of the characters. You've taken the basic uprightness and decency of two of the characters, and the extreme pathological principles of the third (who is significantly less upright and decent), and from there tried to assert this is what the director thinks of the entire mafia in all parts of the world. There is no basis on which you can reasonbly make this claim, and only someone desparate to find moral failings in the work to justify his vague notions of dislike would try.

Such audience concessions are, however, two-a-penny in the modern film industry and are one of the most obvious 'red flags' that a director is not serious in his or her intentions.

Again, an a priori assumption, not an aesthetic observation.

please do name a film that 'denies and hardens' reality (and to what end),

The fact that you're skeptical of one's existence just proves my point that modern people are very ready to believe the absolute worst about humanity but very reticent to believe in its absolute best. I don't believe in one or the other film type, honestly. You do, however, and I think it's necessary to point out that if one is possible, so is its opposite; and to believe in one and not the other sets up a double standard.

[mfunk9786]

I liked how this movie had shooting and cursing in it

[Mr Sausage]

I liked how this movie had shooting and cursing in it

"Fuck off, Ken. They're filming midgets."

Classic.

[Nothing]

But you seem to have taken as a corollary that a humanist film, rather than simply being humanist, must be always trying to prove a philosophical position through dialectic--indeed, through your dialectic.

It really depends on whether said film means to be convincing or not. In any case, I'm sure the point has been made in the past that all art / creation is inherently humanist, otherwise what's the point?

What interests me more is its mediaevalism, which you've been content to ignore.

Setting a film in Bruges has nothing to do with mediaevalism.

A silly, a priori assumption that is useless in-so-far as it can neither be proved nor disproved, and as it speaks only to prejudice against the filmmaker and not actual information.

It is based on a viewing of the film and, also, on a knowledge of the corporate aims of (Universal) Focus Features. Well-established directors (Van Sant, Jarmusch, Cronenberg) have managed to work with Focus in the past, with some degree of success - although always towards the mainstream end of their sensibility, but the odds were always stacked against a first-time director like McDonagh. He made the decision to work with these people, of course (good for his ego / career / wallet)... But I guess McDonagh has to come out and openly admit that he is a hack for such claims to have any foundation. McG and Zack Synder will no doubt be heartened by this information.

This is a baseless attempt to make a microcosm/macrocosm extension of the characters..

And, of course, Joseph Süß Oppenheimer is in no way a surrogate for the Jewish race as a whole.... Sorry, but a filmmaker must take responsibility for the representations in their work.

Enough already!

[Mr Sausage]

Setting a film in Bruges has nothing to do with mediaevalism.

It does when you're making Bruges purgatory.

[mfunk9786]

Someone in this thread needs to lighten up, and they don't have tubed meat in their username.

[HerrSchreck]

Someone in this thread needs to lighten up, and they don't have tubed meat in their username.

I've been following this closely myself, and I don't think that's neccessarily fair, funk. Sausage is a formidable writer and debater-- and Nothing revealed a very strong intellect in this thread here himself-- and (as a guy whose voice has cracked here & there ponging the ball to & fro with Sausage) he can be very foxy and elusive in these kinds of debates... you'll notice Nothing has been talking (occasionally very corny and in the stereotypical twentysomething aesthetically puritanistic Art-For-Art's-Sake pose, but what of it?) mostly about Isms and the film, and sausage has been talking quite a bit about Nothing (with occasional little needlings like "silly"). It can get to you.

I half expected the thread to explode from the tension created by the mutual unfriendly quoting, and it's to both their credit that no one blew the doors out. I think they both should be commended for keeping it substantive and interesting.

[Mr Sausage]

sausage has been talking quite a bit about Nothing

Heh. In my defense I have been forthright about the fact I'm more interested in arguing about his formulation of "faux-humanism" than arguing about the qualities of the film itself, since it's not one of those movies you can persuade someone to like. And I hope my excessive quoting doesn't come across as too unfriendly: I do it mainly to help structure my thoughts.

But I think Nothing has grown tired of this so that last small sally was my farewell.

[Matt]

Is this movie the Fight Club of the oughts? Violence, cleverness, dorm room philosophy, and a certain melancholy-of-the-misunderstood-male, combined with a sense of having "discovered" the film for one's self due to middling reviews and low initial-release box-office all add up to the film now being nestled just below Magnolia on the IMDb top 250. I mean, it's okay, but it's the least interesting thing Martin McDonagh has ever put his name to. Maybe it's just the Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels of the oughts.

[swo17]

Before granting any credence to the film's presence on the IMDb Top 250, one should bear in mind that it's probably only like the 20th highest ranking film from said list that came out this year.

[kaujot]

Is this movie the Fight Club of the oughts? Violence, cleverness, dorm room philosophy, and a certain melancholy-of-the-misunderstood-male, combined with a sense of having "discovered" the film for one's self due to middling reviews and low initial-release box-office all add up to the film now being nestled just below Magnolia on the IMDb top 250. I mean, it's okay, but it's the least interesting thing Martin McDonagh has ever put his name to. Maybe it's just the Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels of the oughts.

Can you recommend a play of his that you really like?

[Matt]

Can you recommend a play of his that you really like?

I think my favorites are the trilogy of The Beauty Queen of Leenane, A Skull in Connemara, and The Lonesome West. His short film, Six Shooter, is also really good.

[tavernier]

Michael Feingold in the Village Voice reviews the current off-Broadway revival of McDonagh's Cripple of Inishmaan.

[Ruby]

This reminds me of a situation sketch show: a recurring character (Colin Farrell) pops up in a series of improbable but humorous circumstances. This would be enjoyable enough if McDonagh didn’t feel the need to dip into the well of profundity. The fairytale-gone-wrong vibe was a good idea in isolation but doesn’t fit into the film.

The direction is poor and at times, obviously trying too hard. Also, the city wasn’t really integrated into all those dialogue set-ups at all. The scenes that do address the city remind me of the London scenes in Trainspotting - they were forced and unreal but that was the point in Trainspotting whereas Bruges is supposed to be integral to McDonagh’s film.

He really can write but the success of this film baffles me.

As for his plays, Beauty Queen is very good and they are all enjoyable but sometimes the jokes are so forced it’s painful. They also display his unhealthy inability to self-edit, which is obvious in the script of In Bruges.

[mynamesranonymous]

Great actors.Not a huge fan of Farrell but this is his best film yet. This is what I got from the film.

The setting was very odd, fairytale like and added to contrast of the violence.Yet in itself it was filled with brown depressing colors. It resembled Ken,mature and old fashioned filled with history and lessons to be learned,something kids rarely do. Keep one of these 3 points in mind, doesn't matter which.

1. I honestly thought Harry was rich gang-leader and Ray just a new thug on the block on my first viewing,who 'disrespected' Harry's code,but why would they go through so much trouble to kill him.

2. I then thought he was the father and Ken was the loving uncle. They were ruthless gangsters and Harry was a real bad father.He only used his son from a previous marriage to do dirty jobs for him.He couldn't care less.

3. But then one day I watched it again and realized ,this is my own opinion; three orphans ,two older and one very young,live a hard life.They are friends but they are ruthless.Harry is the leader and he provides for them.Look outs for them.They become young thugs and then later gangsters in this hard live.This life took a toll on Ray the young boy and scared him for what is about to come.

With that in mind have a look at this and why In Bruge is actually a unique film. They have sympathy and great respect for children,especially Harry who holds them in high regards as he himself lost his childhood.He has children of his own. But he needs Ray dead.He killed an innocent child.But is this film only about correcting what was wrong with violence and therefor it is right?

Ray is not just a killer pained with guilt.He is a grown man with the mind of a child.He has arrested development. I was shocked when I realized it's not a metaphor in the film.Harry and Ken often refer to Ray as the boy. Ray's mannerisms are both exciting and annoying.(dragging his feet at historical places and getting really excited to go play 'outside' on his own.) But Ray is good at fighting. Agile and vigilant.

Ken and Ray trade stories on a bench like it's everyday work which it was. The metaphor to a lollipop man come up and startles Ray... Look how Ray touches his own boyish face before he goes out in an earlier scene.How he tells people off.Like the funny fat man.How he is fascinated with 'the midget'. Three particular scenes that stand out that proves Ray is not normal.Look how he pokes 'the midget' (sorry don't know character's name) in the head while he is kissing a hooker,trying to get is attention like a child.It really is authentic. When he searches through Chloe's belongings.He finds bullets and drugs in auspicious places.As if he knows where to look.The drugs and bullets might as well have been candy.

The scene when Ray and Ken views painting.Look how disgusted Ray is and Ken finds it artful and intriguing,yet when Ray sees a painting depicting children's book-like objects, animals, shoes, bunnies, pots, pans, mushrooms, colorful display of creatures playing hide and seek (Judgment day) he is fascinated by it. There are many scenes like this through out the film. How Ken and Harry discuss the boy's fate at a table with great concern. They know he is not normal. How Harry is interested if Ray enjoys Bruges with the phone call between him and Ken,he might not be as selfish as he seems. Ken gets annoyed with Harry's immature go-check-if-Rays-gone game and his obsessive swearing.When tower ticket seller pokes Harry in the fore head, like as if he is a naughty child was unique.Harry disapproves of this buy beating the man.

Might Harry and Ray once been to Bruges with there family.The older Harry remembering fond memories and Ray just clinging on the death of his parents and emotional destruction of his mind.I often ask myself unnecessary questions like these, but this films just gives to many subtle clues to be an ordinary film about guilt. The self-sacrifice of Ken to save a boy, because he knows and Harry knows what needs to be done.

Think I'll have to watch it again.

[flyonthewall2983]

Still holds up. I laugh when the little person collects his drinks, Yuri the chatty arms deal (“dum dums”) and when Ralph Fiennes finally appears on screen. The new 4K from Kino Lorber makes it almost a sightseeing trip on its own with how vivid and “fairytale” the city and European countryside looks.

Gleeson and Farrell were a nice comedic pair on SNL last week btw

[thirtyframesasecond]

It's a great film, very funny, shades of Pinter (especially The Dumb Waiter) in its use of language and menace.