CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The Box- Post Release.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Box- Post Release.

post #1 of 56
10/30/09 at 4:34am
Thread Starter 
I liked it.
I never read the original short story so I have no idea how much of this is Matheson and how much is Kelly, but it most certainly feels like a film from the director of Donnie Darko and Southland Tales, if that makes sense. More coherent than Southland and nowhere near as good as Donnie Darko, it's curiously free of tension or any real urgency. Diaz and Marsden's plight never really grabbed me, and I hated their kid from the get go so didn't really give a shit about him, although the last scene with him in the bathtub was effective.

The sense of place and time were really effective, setting this in the 70's was a great idea, and the way the Viking Probe stuff was woven into the narrative I really dug, but I'm a sucker for NASA shit so I'm biased on that front.
I used to watch Twilight Zone and all that sort of thing when I was a kid, in the 70's, and this really felt like one of those and I loved that about it. I've also got a fondness for groups of people all being creepy at once, so I'm beginning to think I liked the details more than the entire end result.
Some of the reviews that came out down here made the ending and the explanation sound like utter shit, so I went in thinking it would suck. Lowered expectations on this thing are certainly a plus. Southland Tales was half a sorta-decent film but remembering how shit that effort could get is a good idea when walking into the cinema for this one.

Kelly definitely has a "Thing", some stuff in here that are more or less direct lifts from Donnie Darko, the Lightning Book with the diagrams being the most obvious, but it didn't feel too rehashed or crutchy, for me anyway.


Langella was awesome, as is the wallpaper in the family kitchen.

It's a weird film in that it's not really something I think will be much of a hit, but it's not singular and awesome enough to really garner much of a lasting appreciative "cult" audience outside of people who dig Donnie Darko a bit more than perhaps they should.

Enough with the water effect, though. Seriously.
Reply
post #2 of 56
11/6/09 at 4:51am
http://chud.com/articles/articles/21...THE/Page1.html
Reply
post #3 of 56
11/6/09 at 11:00am
I'd like to see the debt the plot owes to the Monkey's Paw acknowledged sometime.
Reply
post #4 of 56
11/6/09 at 12:27pm
It's nice to see that Kelly is sort of getting back on track, or that at the least he's genuinely got the foundation of some serious skills. Everybody I know who I shared Donnie Darko with really dug the hell out of it. I suppose I have the benefit of still not spending time with the Director's Cut and I picked up a copy of Southland Tales on the cheap ($3 or so) at Best Buy a while back, but haven't gotten around to it yet. I'm curious to see how much of a mess it really is though. But to get back to The Box, so much of it sounds so right. It's just too bad that the elements that deflate it a bit are there, but otherwise, I am eager to see it and once again have high hopes for future output from Richard Kelly. Great review Devin, thanks!
Reply
post #5 of 56
11/6/09 at 3:25pm
That review clinched it. I'm going to see this movie now, letdown 5 minutes be damned. Just sounds too intriguing.
Reply
post #6 of 56
11/7/09 at 1:25am
Ugh. I feel like either I'm missing something, or I put more thought into this movie than Kelley did.

Doesn't the fact that each button-pusher dies at the exact moment the NEXT person pushes the button eliminate the concept of free will and push the movie squarely into the predestination camp? In other words, Cameron HAD to die at that exact moment, because her successor had just pushed the button.

But if that's the case, it fucks up the entire central thesis of the film: namely, that the box is an experiment to judge whether humanity is worthy of salvation or extermination. Cameron had to push the button, because her predecessor had to be punished for pushing the button. Cameron's successor had to push the button, because it was Cameron's turn to be punished. Am I missing something? Because it seems like Kelley is contradicting himself at every turn.

It's a giant, disappointing mess of a movie, and every now and then it felt like the good was on the verge of outweighing the bad, but that final scene made the whole goddamn thing implode for me.
Reply
post #7 of 56
11/7/09 at 1:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater View Post
Doesn't the fact that each button-pusher dies at the exact moment the NEXT person pushes the button eliminate the concept of free will and push the movie squarely into the predestination camp? In other words, Cameron HAD to die at that exact moment, because her successor had just pushed the button.

But if that's the case, it fucks up the entire central thesis of the film: namely, that the box is an experiment to judge whether humanity is worthy of salvation or extermination. Cameron had to push the button, because her predecessor had to be punished for pushing the button. Cameron's successor had to push the button, because it was Cameron's turn to be punished. Am I missing something? Because it seems like Kelley is contradicting himself at every turn.
I haven't seen the movie yet but I had a feeling that this would end up being the case and asked myself the same question - the best answer I could come up with was that if Cameron DIDN'T push the button, then the predecessor got to live just that much longer and when Cameron's successor pushed the button, it would be her predecessor who bit it. Basically, the lineage would skip whomever didn't push the button.
Reply
post #8 of 56
11/7/09 at 1:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater View Post

Doesn't the fact that each button-pusher dies at the exact moment the NEXT person pushes the button eliminate the concept of free will and push the movie squarely into the predestination camp? In other words, Cameron HAD to die at that exact moment, because her successor had just pushed the button.

But if that's the case, it fucks up the entire central thesis of the film: namely, that the box is an experiment to judge whether humanity is worthy of salvation or extermination. Cameron had to push the button, because her predecessor had to be punished for pushing the button. Cameron's successor had to push the button, because it was Cameron's turn to be punished. Am I missing something? Because it seems like Kelley is contradicting himself at every turn.

It's a giant, disappointing mess of a movie, and every now and then it felt like the good was on the verge of outweighing the bad, but that final scene made the whole goddamn thing implode for me.
Yeah, this is what I was talking about in the review where the movie shits the bed in the last five minutes. Incredible that no one working on the film noticed this.

There are a lot of niggling problems that add up. Why do the aliens need NASA? Is there even a point to Marsden being an optical guy who designed the Viking camera? It seems like it was being set up as having a point - ANY point - but it doesn't ever come up. And why do the aliens need to have the box actually kill people? The test is essentially over once the button is or is not pushed - there's no need to really kill anybody.
Reply
post #9 of 56
11/7/09 at 1:50am
Even worse, the second test makes no narrative sense. When the stakes are so high, do the characters REALLY need any additional punishment for their greed? You would think being culpable for the (potential) DESTRUCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE would be enough of a slap on the wrist.

Plus, forcing Marsden to choose between his wife's life and his son's senses ISN'T a moral choice, since there's no "right" outcome. There's nothing for the aliens to gain or learn from watching someone choose the lesser of two evils. Which just makes them feel like intergalactic pricks who are hurting us for the fuck of it.
Reply
post #10 of 56
11/7/09 at 2:33am
Quote:
And why do the aliens need to have the box actually kill people? The test is essentially over once the button is or is not pushed - there's no need to really kill anybody.
I've not seen it the movie yet, but I can understand why there's reason to kill the button-pushers. If most people don't press it, it shows humanity is Acceptable (for lack of a better term). If most people press it, there's a lot less humans around to be an issue.
Reply
post #11 of 56
11/7/09 at 3:12am
I think that the predestination concern is a little wrong-headed. The narrative characterizes button pushers as women for a reason, not because all of these women are coincidentally "fated" to press the button, but because they all share the same practical concerns. They have free will, but that free will is nonetheless guided by their circumstances.

What I did find odd is that this project seemed to only target families with children, thus "rigging" the game, so to speak. Of course any family is more liable to push the button for money than someone who lacks any dependents. But I guess there lies the source of the story's dramatic tension.

My judgement echoes others: a far cry from "Donnie Darko," but a skip, leap and a jump better than "Southland Tales," may I never hear of it again.
Reply
post #12 of 56
11/7/09 at 3:36am
Lots of Southland Tales bashing around these parts, but i can't help love a film that puts Jon Lovitz and Dwayne Johnson together.
Reply
post #13 of 56
11/7/09 at 3:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadjimurad View Post
What I did find odd is that this project seemed to only target families with children, thus "rigging" the game, so to speak. Of course any family is more liable to push the button for money than someone who lacks any dependents. But I guess there lies the source of the story's dramatic tension.
Of course they're rigging the game. That's the same reason Diaz loses her tuition and Marsden gets rejected as an astronaut candidate: the aliens are stacking the deck to put them in a state of desperation. But even that begs the question: if you're really trying to judge humanity's worth, why stack the deck at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadjimurad View Post
I think that the predestination concern is a little wrong-headed. The narrative characterizes button pushers as women for a reason, not because all of these women are coincidentally "fated" to press the button, but because they all share the same practical concerns. They have free will, but that free will is nonetheless guided by their circumstances.
Nope, sorry. The film goes out of the way to show us (not once, but TWICE) that the test subjects are murdered at the exact moment their successor pushes the button. It's a narrative daisy chain: If Marsden doesn't shoot her at that exact moment, the box (and, by extrapolation, the alien's entire experiment) doesn't work. That's not coincidence and that's not being "guided," that's a direct cause and effect that HAD to happen.

In other words, free will can fuck off.
Reply
post #14 of 56
11/7/09 at 4:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater View Post
Of course they're rigging the game. That's the same reason Diaz loses her tuition and Marsden gets rejected as an astronaut candidate: the aliens are stacking the deck to put them in a state of desperation. But even that begs the question: if you're really trying to judge humanity's worth, why stack the deck at all?



Nope, sorry. The film goes out of the way to show us (not once, but TWICE) that the test subjects are murdered at the exact moment their successor pushes the button. It's a narrative daisy chain: If Marsden doesn't shoot her at that exact moment, the box (and, by extrapolation, the alien's entire experiment) doesn't work. That's not coincidence and that's not being "guided," that's a direct cause and effect that HAD to happen.

In other words, free will can fuck off.
Hmm, I see what you mean, but I still see their actions as resolving from personal choice. After all, they could've lived with a blind and deaf son, but didn't. Of course that choice sucks, but only because of an arbitrary adherence to morality, not "fate."

While the murder and button pushing coincides as it does, this is all due to similar conditions and situations placed on the button pushers and trigger pullers. I think it's fair to say that similar people placed in similar situations would act similarly. The coincidence of timing merely underscores humanity's predictable, mechanical nature.

The aliens time the box-giving and box-taking away exactly, so it isn't too hard to believe that they understand that these preset conditions generally render similar results.

The humans, on the other hand, view this cold, calculated experiment as "fate," or akin to religion. Remember Asimov's law? It was relentlessly pounded in the film that any advanced science was indistinguishable from magic. The humans don't understand they're just pawns in a game more reminiscent of an equation than anything else, so in the end they cling to their irrational religions for solace. This is why a rocket scientist, a man viewed as being at the height of contemporary scientific thought, finally requires concepts like hell, purgatory, and heaven to make sense of it all for himself in the end. Despite his education, he's still too simple-minded that he forgets that there is no such thing as magic, miracles, or fate.

Anyways, that's my take. Not a case of deities, fate, or predestination, but of humans acting predictably under identical conditions. Which is probably the "superior's sense of humor" that was being referred to. I thought it was all a little too obvious and heavy-handed, but I was a philosophy major, and Kelly's filmic creations generally only halfway satisfy me, although "Donnie Darko" was extremely entertaining.
Reply
post #15 of 56
11/7/09 at 4:04am
It's not a coincidence of timing. It happens at the exact same moment twice. We are shown that the wife pushing the button causes the death of the previous button pushing wife. It's down to the moment. That's not coincidence, especially in a movie where Arthur C Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology" quote is highlighted so blatantly.
Reply
post #16 of 56
11/7/09 at 4:09am
Okay, well you beat me to it. I didn't realize anyone was going to reply before i edited my post, but alas.

As the film showed, the button is nothing but a piece of metal and wood. The box is not the advanced science at play. The social experiment testing the predictability of people is what is causing the coincidental button-pushing and deaths. The timing is exact for this well, exact reason.

Additionally: yes, the people are being manipulated, but they're always given a choice. They always choose the easy way out.
Reply
post #17 of 56
11/7/09 at 5:21am
Of course the button is advanced science at play. It looks like nothing - ie it looks like magic - because the science is so advanced. Langella KNOWS that Diaz pushed the button when he comes back. The other husband kills his wife AT THE SAME MOMENT. I mean, this is the text of the movie.
Reply
post #18 of 56
11/7/09 at 6:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater View Post
But even that begs the question: if you're really trying to judge humanity's worth, why stack the deck at all?
In this respect, I would argue that "stacking the deck" is exactly the point. The aliens don't want to see what a well-to-do single person would do with the button, they want to see the down-on-their-luck family will do.

It's a test of character through temptation. One in which they've set it up for you to fail. So when / if a subject succeeds and does the Right Thing, it is an even greater joy than normal.
Reply
post #19 of 56
11/7/09 at 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Of course the button is advanced science at play. It looks like nothing - ie it looks like magic - because the science is so advanced. Langella KNOWS that Diaz pushed the button when he comes back. The other husband kills his wife AT THE SAME MOMENT. I mean, this is the text of the movie.
Eh, there's a reason Langella's character says that the house is a box, the body is a box. He treats all of these things as forms of control that provide the mechanical predictability to the experiment. But "THE BOX" is just that, a box. Not the bit of super-technology that we've imbued it with.

For better or worse, I'm not going to shake this theory easily.
Reply
post #20 of 56
11/7/09 at 2:50pm
I liked this a lot. I'm a big fan of Southland Tales and kind of meh on Donnie Darko.

This really seems to me like Kelly is coming into his own. I think the writing is quite good as well, except for the whole God/damnation/salvation/whatever-type stuff. That was a little lame and same-y for Kelly, but the whole thing was fantastic I thought. And yes, the score is amazing.

I must say though, there is a lot of really subtle humor I found in it. A lot of dialogue had me laughing at its' very subtle tongue-in-cheekness. My friends and I talked about it afterward, and we all felt that in some odd way, this was Kelly's The Happening. (Although, The Box is far more serious and less B-movie.)

The thing I enjoyed the most about the movie, though, is the layer after layer that he builds of just what the fuck is going on!?-ness. For a very large chunk of time in the middle of the movie, weird and crazy shit keeps happening and I was completely confused, but completely intrigued. On top of this, at the end, it's not explained in an over-the-top fashion. Yes, as Devin said, it's got that moment of HERE'S WHAT IT ALL MEANT AND WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING, but there's so many layers of WTF and confusion, Kelly wisely doesn't waste his time explaining every little detail and ruining the movie completely. He gives us a general, sweeping explanation from several different characters and it feels less expository.
Reply
post #21 of 56
11/7/09 at 5:50pm
For the record, I liked it (if had some similar problems as Devin did), but it's official:

This got an ' F ' rating from Cinemascore (samplings of audiences polled nationwide last night). Guess we can count on an 80% drop next weekend?
Reply
post #22 of 56
11/7/09 at 5:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadjimurad View Post
Eh, there's a reason Langella's character says that the house is a box, the body is a box. He treats all of these things as forms of control that provide the mechanical predictability to the experiment. But "THE BOX" is just that, a box. Not the bit of super-technology that we've imbued it with.

For better or worse, I'm not going to shake this theory easily.
Did you black out during certain parts of the movie? There's no question about it. It is super-technology. This is repetitively spelled out to the audience multiple times. Hence, the Arthur C. Clarke quote/banner.

In regards to the rest of the movie, I liked most of it. And I do think Kelly has a nice visual touch and can one day make a great movie if he teams up with a producer that will crack the whip on him (and either stops writing his own screenplays).

But the ending of the movie is horrible. Like Devin said in his review, the attempted gut-punch did not affect me as I could have really given a crap if Diaz died. On the other hand, I would have been disappointed if Marsden's character was killed off. The ending just seemed uninspired.

Which brings me to my second big issue with the movie: the library scene. At first it was interesting and mysterious. Then came the resolution to it with Marsden travelling through the liquid wormhole. This whole scene served absolutely no purpose except to indicate there was a nice lil afterlife waiting for the family. Also, if Marsden would have chosen either the first or third gateway/wormhole, would his eventual fate of shooting Diaz have still been possible? I can't think of any reason to include this scene other than Kelly wanting to film some "weird" stuff.

After the film wrapped up I thought for a few minutes that I actually appreciated "Southland Tales" more than "The Box," just because it goes balls out and is crazy throughout the entire movie. The unnecessary tonal shifts in "The Box" were that disappointing. But then I realized there was at least a coherent story in "The Box."
Reply
post #23 of 56
11/7/09 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody Wanker View Post
Did you black out during certain parts of the movie? There's no question about it. It is super-technology. This is repetitively spelled out to the audience multiple times. Hence, the Arthur C. Clarke quote/banner.
Nope, no blacking out. I just saw that the mystery had nothing to do with "The Box" –unless the "Box" we're referring to is the "boxes" of humanity, the house or the body, as Langella's character points out. I'm pretty sure that the only actual super technology was the mind control of "The Employees," although as was shown this alien mind control technology wasn't flawless, as we saw with the nosebleeds.

As was stated in the text of the film itself, the "Test Subjects" were to be treated differently than the employees, and the "Test Subjects" were never subjected to mind control.

The only controls being exerted upon the family were social ones (poverty, the family dynamic) and the element of time, which was enforced rigorously, up to an exact moment (the giving and taking of the box, the visits from Langella's character). Even with these concerns, which aren't completely "crushing," they still have the power of free will. The fact that the "box" experiment, or the "family" experiment is so predictable is because the controls are always the same. Human beings, for better or worse, pretty much act alike under similar circumstances. Everyone wants the money, no one wants their child to grow up blind and deaf. Those are, to the aliens, mathematical probabilities, not the consequences of fate.

That said, I thought the movie lacked drama in the end. There was no love lost for Diaz's character –I pitied her miserable deformity, but didn't sympathize with her as a character. But as you said, if they'd killed off Marsden's character the movie would have completely deflated.

I'm also still wondering about the 360º camera? anyone have ideas on that?
Reply
post #24 of 56
11/7/09 at 8:17pm
So how did Langella know Diaz was the person to push the button, and in fact did know she DID push the button? Was this all an assumption by a clever alien fellow based on human nature, or was there alien technology in the box? The same type of alien technology that allowed for an entire city to be controlled?

I mean, seriously...you're stating that the box didn't have the technology to send a signal because it was empty...when an elevator of water transports someone from a library - with a stopover at the afterlife - back to his home?
Reply
post #25 of 56
11/7/09 at 8:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody Wanker View Post
So how did Langella know Diaz was the person to push the button, and in fact did know she DID push the button? Was this all an assumption by a clever alien fellow based on human nature, or was there alien technology in the box? The same type of alien technology that allowed for an entire city to be controlled?

I mean, seriously...you're stating that the box didn't have the technology to send a signal because it was empty...when an elevator of water transports someone from a library - with a stopover at the afterlife - back to his home?
Yes, exactly. Langella's understanding of humanity is so encompassing that he can predict who and when specific people will press the button. That said, he's also a bit of a manipulator. He seems to target families, and especially the wives, because he knows that they are more practical and less prone to moralizing and idealism. He was also responsible for the principal telling Diaz's character that she would no longer have a tuition reduction for her son, as demonstrated by his nosebleed. He enforces specific controls in order to give his tests uniformity, and thus, the outcome a level of predictability.

When Marsden posits his theory to Langella at the end of the film, concerning Hell, Purgatory and the Heaven, it's important to note that Langella says NOTHING. They interpret his "look" affirmatively, but that's it. They've simply tricked themselves into believing in something. Marsden has also been manipulated into thinking that he's seen heaven so it would be easier for him to shoot his wife, thinking that that is where she's going.

What Langella's playing is a bit of a con game on these folks, a very calculated one, and as in all con games, you make your mark do what you want, and make him want to do what you want. While this is highly manipulative, it is never restricting Marsden's or Diaz's characters' free will.

That said, it's all pretty devious and not a very fair test, which is, as Langella stated, his supervisor has a sense of humor.
Reply
post #26 of 56
11/8/09 at 1:54pm
If you read Kelly's Human resource exloitation manual (you can download it) then you get an explanation how the button works:
"Sub-atomic data transmission occurs upon depression of button by mother or father only. Button unit mechanism becomes inactive after single push of button. Surface memory of button collects sub-atomic data. Data transmission occurs upon spring release by anodized aluminum button collar."
Reply
post #27 of 56
11/8/09 at 3:21pm
Oh, so per Kelly the button does work? Does that convince you Hadjimurad?
Reply
post #28 of 56
11/8/09 at 5:45pm
I had no idea members of Arcade Fire had composed the score until after I saw the film. But I noticed the score immediately while I was watching. I want it to be released officially. Sounds like some of Arcade Fire's best work to date.

As for the film itself, not as memorable--but I enjoyed it for the most part. The look and cinematography of the film had me in awe from the very beginning. It's a visual marvel. Diaz and Marsden's performances were solid. I can't remember liking Diaz this much in a film in a long, long time.
Reply
post #29 of 56
11/8/09 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
There are a lot of niggling problems that add up. Why do the aliens need NASA? Is there even a point to Marsden being an optical guy who designed the Viking camera? It seems like it was being set up as having a point - ANY point - but it doesn't ever come up.
Saw the flick yesterday and still am in a nebulose over some aspects of it -flawed movie be damned, I'll definitely watch it again- but would this have something to do with the fact that Arlington Steward himself worked for NASA too? I mean, would the test have started relatively recently and Marsden & Diaz be, say, Test Subjects #3 since the previous guy was also a technician there? Or to further clarify: the movie makes a point about it all being set in Langley, VA "because this is where they all are and is easier to control them: NASA, NSA, CIA, etc." Or would that be just for the main protagonist to engage on an investigation, further advancing the plot, once it is found out that Langella worked in his same line of work?

That said, I fear we may be reading too much into the movie. Just like with so many Twilight Zone episodes (extended or not), there's an element of fantasy that doesn't resist scrutiny and which the audience has to forcefully embrace, in this case the coincidence of button-pushing/ death. Now I'm not advocating for Implausibility or Deus Ex Machina elements just for the fuck of it, but unless we all enjoy toppling houses of cards, I think the key word in this flick is that (alien) "Magic" us humans can't seem to comprehend.
Reply
post #30 of 56
11/8/09 at 8:52pm
The guy who killed his wife when Diaz pressed the button tells Marsden that Arlington is perfect for the martians because it gives them the NSA, the FBI and NASA. He never says what they want with those agencies.
Reply
post #31 of 56
11/8/09 at 8:53pm
After the accident with the Santa standing in the middle of the street, the next time you see the father he is coming out of the facility that is surrounded by police/military. Did I blink and miss how/why he was there?

I thought that with all of the references to Sartre and No Exit the film was trying to be really high minded--the person who will die that "you don't know" is, ultimately, you. Then, I realized that I was putting way too much thought into it.
Reply
post #32 of 56
11/8/09 at 9:09pm
Maybe they just don't want people -or these very same agencies- snooping around their tests? Personally, I find it rather evocative that the aliens might be doing field experiments in cahoots with (or not - neither James Rebhorn nor that NSA guy felt pretty comfortable) the same very guys in charge of protecting us. I think that was one of the reasons of setting the movie in the 70's, an era when paranoia ran rampant.

But then again, I think it's more a thing of style vs. substance (not exactly balanced in the movie right from frame one - using Sartre as a reference can indeed be a double-edged sword). Just like that kitchen wallpaper mentioned above, it doesn't add up to much, but damn if it doesn't feel creepy.
Reply
post #33 of 56
11/9/09 at 4:36am
They want the CIA, NSA, etc because they're working together in this. Humanity has no choice but to play by the rules of this outside force, if they want the human race to not go extinct that is. If any American organization is going to be involved in this sort of plot it's going to be NASA and the Intelligence Community. These are also the organizations that made first contact.

Overall, I thought it was an interesting failure. Anyone else also get sort of a Phatasm vibe? I guess that's obvious with the old man possessed by an sinister alien force similarity. The music was also pretty excellent too, I'm still humming a few of the more foreboding pieces.
Reply
post #34 of 56
11/9/09 at 9:30am
More Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the Sutherland version) than Phantasm, I'd say. It may be a bit too obvious, but I got a similar case of the creeps when that Brion James-lookalike showed up at Diaz's window.
Reply
post #35 of 56
11/9/09 at 11:00am
I got a 'Thing' vibe, more than anything. Diaz/Marsden both did a pretty great job, though the movie fell apart at the end. And what's with women having to push the button? Was it that way in the short story, or just "by accident"?
Reply
post #36 of 56
11/9/09 at 12:40pm
Because the men are too rational to believe it's real?

Anyway, there are the same funny complaints about the references this makes as there were in DD and Southland Tales. When you call using Sartre a double-edged sword in terms of style vs. substance it sounds like you don't really know anything about Sartre except the idea of an existentialist French philosopher who said stuff like "hell is other people" just sounds pretentious.

Even a cursory familiarity with Sartre yields some insight into why he is used here. The idea being that all of the circumstances surrounding the subjects of the experiment are Sartrian "facticity". His concept of free will is important to this film. In Sartre, you can make free choices no matter your facticity, because you can choose how to react to the circumstances of your life. The Lewis' could have made other choices in spite of their circumstances, or how the "deck is stacked".

I agree with the people who say Langella's exposition to the CIA fella (?) in his SECRET LAB was a bit much. I also would have agreed with Hadjimurad about the boxes not being magic and people who question how anyone could know they were used and when and by who seem to forget that the subjects seemed to be under constant surveillance from multiple angles by the "employees". But then, Richard Kelly shows us a book. However, the book may be a red herring in that it's a manual for the human accomplices, maybe the NASA scientists' attempt to understand what Steward is doing.

While everyone is comfortable tossing away the religious/spiritual references and blaming "aliens" or "martians", I think this movie is hinting at a God is an astronaut scenario.
Reply
post #37 of 56
11/9/09 at 1:03pm
OK, since my button just got pushed, I'll concede you that, yes, I know very little about Sartre other than what two long-forgotten years at high school brought. What I remembered, however, were indeed those concepts about Hell being other people and Free Will, but I never said it was pretentious for Kelly to use them in his movie.

Much on the contrary, I applaud filmmakers for using other people's work or theories to illustrate their point, but in this case, I thought hitting us in the head with these ideas -and Arthur C.Clarke's posit- could be dangerous in the case of over-analyzing what I see is just a bit more than a glorified Twilight Zone episode (ie. a work of fiction where not everything has to be explained or just isn't "rational" in the long term). Magnificently shot, no doubt; well-acted, indeed; but definitely overwritten when it comes to filling 115 minutes for a story that could've been told in less. I applaud the intentions, not the results, even if this is a flick I sure will watch again multiple times just to see if it all holds water or just cause I (sorta) enjoyed it the 1st time around.
Reply
post #38 of 56
11/10/09 at 2:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody Wanker View Post
Oh, so per Kelly the button does work? Does that convince you Hadjimurad?
Yeah, I guess Kelly wasn't aiming as high as I thought he was. That's too bad, because I didn't really think too much of the film besides this speculated-upon plot. Thanks for solving the mystery, though, man.
Reply
post #39 of 56
11/10/09 at 3:02am
Kelly could have been spitballing anyway. I don't see why people are so hung up on the box being ZOMG FUTURE SCIENCE.

And Psyche, I didn't say you think the use is pretentious. I said maybe you think Sartre is pretentious. To say that these ideas cause the movie to seem overwritten is really confusing especially when it comes on the heels of a claim that you appreciate these kinds of references.

The inclusion of Sartre, far more so than Clarke, is integral to the themes of the film. The constant referring to Clarke is just a reminder to the audience that this is technology we're seeing. I'm actually not sure why Kelly thought it was so important to beat us over the head with the concept as it's pretty easy to understand. A little more time spent on Sartre would have been time better spent, I think. That said, the Sartre stuff isn't essential to enjoyment of the movie whereas perhaps the Clarke stuff is for its expository value. I don't think you need to know much about Sartre to enjoy this movie or understand what is happening. It's just that a little extra knowledge is rewarding in terms of the subtext.
Reply
post #40 of 56
11/11/09 at 3:00am
Just came out of this and found that it felt like the sum of my feelings about LOST as an entire series. Starts out fantastically, building mystery upon mystery until eventually kinda crumbling on itself where I don't really care much about the characters any longer and only finish watching it out of a sense of obligation.

Dramatically, the film was totally inert. Somehow, I can't bring myself to empathize all that much for the financial woes of a couple that live in a pretty nice home with a nice midlife-crisis-mobile while being sad for having to send their son to a public school and not being an astronaut. Their son shows up in the movie here and there but the movie doesn't make much effort to make me care when he's deaf and blind.

Had the same thought about the deaths coinciding with the pressing of the next button as Slater and Devin did.

The Lewis' wallpaper mostly just reminded me of OLDBOY, albeit not as present throughout the entire film. The score was quite awesome and made me take note of it several times throughout the movie. I don't know if that's good or bad sometimes.
Reply
post #41 of 56
11/11/09 at 3:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion View Post
Kelly could have been spitballing anyway. I don't see why people are so hung up on the box being ZOMG FUTURE SCIENCE.
.
Probably because the text of the movie makes such a huge, repeated deal of it.
Reply
post #42 of 56
11/11/09 at 2:14pm
If I hadn't eventually come to the conclusion that R. Kelly was just a troglodyte, as opposed to a writer with something clever to say about humanity, then I might venture to guess that the whole "indistinguishable from magic" element may have been a red herring, something we were supposed to follow because *that's what the characters will eventually come to believe*, which doesn't mean that they're not just idiots, which they are. Like "Vertigo."

Argh, just vast amounts of frustration at this movie. I agree that it has some quantifiably "good" directing, but the script just sucks. It's like R. Kelly only learned one half of the lesson that was "Southland Tales."
Reply
post #43 of 56
11/11/09 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion View Post
And Psyche, I didn't say you think the use is pretentious. I said maybe you think Sartre is pretentious. To say that these ideas cause the movie to seem overwritten is really confusing especially when it comes on the heels of a claim that you appreciate these kinds of references.

The inclusion of Sartre, far more so than Clarke, is integral to the themes of the film. The constant referring to Clarke is just a reminder to the audience that this is technology we're seeing. I'm actually not sure why Kelly thought it was so important to beat us over the head with the concept as it's pretty easy to understand. A little more time spent on Sartre would have been time better spent, I think. That said, the Sartre stuff isn't essential to enjoyment of the movie whereas perhaps the Clarke stuff is for its expository value. I don't think you need to know much about Sartre to enjoy this movie or understand what is happening. It's just that a little extra knowledge is rewarding in terms of the subtext.
Ah, no. God, no. Maybe you misunderstood me -english and second language and that. Also: I'm a bit of a retard too- but I'd never think Sartre is pretentious*. What I mean is basically what Devin implies a bit further down my post too: that the fact that hitting us in the head with such author or his theories may lead the audience to think there's more in there than just what it should only be there. I do appreciate these kinds of references, but not at the cost of showing off when, in fact, you may have very little to say in a movie that, without the subtext, could almost be categorized as a B-Movie in terms of plot or characterization. I agree with you that extra knowledge is always rewarding, but you also gotta be careful as a writer to overdo your stuff to the point of confusing your audience, whoever that may be (oft-mentioned example: do we fucking need the instructions book? Or even if from sources outside the movie: do we need to know how the button actually works? Call it the Prequels Syndrome).

That said, and since you definitely know more about Sartre than I do, I'll go with you in saying that we only needed fewer references to Clarke and probably more about free will, since it's the characters and not the functioning of the machine what's supposed to interest us.

* That dumbass Darwin though, hmmm...
Reply
post #44 of 56
11/14/09 at 1:13pm
The soundtrack was outstanding, reminding me of '50s sci-fi in addition to Herrmann.

Cameron Diaz's accent was not good. James Mardsen is one of my favorite actors, so of course I enjoyed him here. The jerk student who insults her foot was annoying and how did he connect with the story and the mythos-stuff anyways?

The tension and mystery do build excellently, working like a feature-length Twilight Zone very well, better than Shymalan.

The last scene was incredibly dumb. How this didn't at least go into CONTACT, if not THE ARRIVAL territory baffles me.
Reply
post #45 of 56
11/15/09 at 2:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetManX View Post
The jerk student who insults her foot was annoying and how did he connect with the story and the mythos-stuff anyways?
He was being controlled to get at Diaz I guess. Bring her disfigurement into the forefront so that later she would have that conversation with Langella. Langella was using all of his employees to "push their buttons" (haharhar) so that eventually they would crumble when given the choice.
Reply
post #46 of 56
11/21/09 at 6:00am
This is the year's disappointment for me. Somewhere in The Box is a film which is reminiscent of Hitchcock, yet contains Richard Kelly's fascinations and plot devices as seen in the original cut of Donnie Darko; these disparate elements forming a unique, thought-provoking suspense movie. But we only see glimpses of this in the actual film. For a Hollywood thriller, it's better than anything M. Night Shyamalan has made since The Sixth Sense, but that's saying very little.

So many of the details in The Box are neat but don't add up. So many ideas, even a character or two, who are unfortunately mere sketches, rendered meaningless as the film changes its focus to more intricate details it'll soon abandon. There's a great movie in here...somewhere.
Reply
post #47 of 56
2/16/10 at 12:02pm
Visually interesting, 75% good, shits the end terribly.

What the hell is up with Kelly and his inability to do a straight forward story without any metaphysical or spiritual nonsense behind it?

He's really turning into the new M Night. He's a good director, but gets totally lost on his scripts.
Reply
post #48 of 56
2/18/10 at 10:25pm
The Box was one of the best movies of the last year. All the complaints or supposed inconsistencies mentioned in this thread can be cleared up if you make the effort to watch the movie carefully
Reply
post #49 of 56
2/19/10 at 3:34am
Thank you for that thorough and well-supported addition to the discussion Swanson; this movie really does make a world of consistent sense now that you've cleared things up.

Oh, wait..

This movie really lost me on the water portals in the library (unless we're supposed to freeze-frame the dvd and read the stupid manual about it). So he had to make a choice between 3 seemingly identical pillars of water.. why? They babble about eternal damnation for the wrong choice, but was the 'purgatory' Marsden mentions later signifying he made the wrong choice? Or did the glimpse of "heaven" he mentions signify a correct choice, or what?

Then again, the movie itself doesn't back the idea of a heaven or anything, like others mentioned before the repeated "advanced science = magic" text and influencing Marsden's decision to kill his wife thinking a wonderful afterlife awaits her, so what difference did any of them make? A friend thought the # of the box would alter how many senses his son would inevitably lose, but that doesn't really tie in with the right/wrong choice explanation, and why would all the 'employees' signal him 2? The asshole student with the foot fetish is the first to do this if I recall, and I don't remember his nose bleeding during that moment or anything, so it wasn't that his "trance" was broken and he was trying to help out Marsden like some of the others do later.. but looking back I guess noses were just bleeding up a storm and it didn't really imply they were being helpful or not, just that they were employees.

I guess I just didn't watch carefully enough.

(That is so coming back to bite me in the ass)
Reply
post #50 of 56
2/24/10 at 4:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trejo View Post
Thank you for that thorough and well-supported addition to the discussion Swanson; this movie really does make a world of consistent sense now that you've cleared things up.

Oh, wait..

This movie really lost me on the water portals in the library (unless we're supposed to freeze-frame the dvd and read the stupid manual about it). So he had to make a choice between 3 seemingly identical pillars of water.. why? They babble about eternal damnation for the wrong choice, but was the 'purgatory' Marsden mentions later signifying he made the wrong choice? Or did the glimpse of "heaven" he mentions signify a correct choice, or what?
The water portals were a sort of analysis/test to determine what the fate of the individual in the couplewho did not push the button is (James Marsden in this case) . The results of the the water cube analysis will determine what happens to James Marsden after he is taken away at the end of the film. I don't know what you mean by "correct" or "wrong" choice. He believes it was a glimpse of the afterlife, the movie does not say that
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The Box- Post Release.