THE GREY Post-Relese Discussion - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhp1608 

 

The tagline I've seen is "LIve or die on this day". Genuinely curious - why does the dropped "To" change the meaning so much? 
 

 

The line in the movie is "live and die on this day."  It's the "and" for the "or" that changes the meaning.
 

If this had subtitles and were directed by Tomas Alfredson from a recently-discovered script by Ingmar Bergman*, I think people would know what to make of it. (If it were marketed as something closer to that, people wouldn't leave disappointed at not getting to see Liam Neeson throat-punching a wolf.)

It's kind of like the Runaway Train of this generation. Existential brutal thrills with an emphasis on the hopelessness of the situation, with Neeson as Jon Voight and Frank Grillo as Eric Roberts, except not pronouncing "shoes" in a way never heard on planet Earth before. And it is absolutely closer to Bergman than to Luc Besson or, for that matter, David Mamet (The Edge). Somehow if Ottway's chat with God had subtitles, it wouldn't come off as ham-handed as some folks find it to be.

As I said in my review, I wasn't sorry when it was over — survival flicks have a tendency to make me wanna be the fuck outta there as much as the characters do — but it's been rattling around in my head a lot longer than I'd expected it to be. It's first-rate of its kind.

*Instead of, y'know, "The new film from the director and star of The A-Team! Liam Neeson loves it when a plan comes together, again!"

All I typically remember of Carnahan is Narc, so it's surprising to me that The Grey was directed by the same guy who made A Team and Smokin Aces, two movies I actively disliked. 

Carnahan is one of the more perplexing directors to me. I thought this was ok, but inconsistent, but it has a few genius-level sequences. And then The A-Team was total jorts, Smokin' Aces was Full Retard, and his first movie, Blood Guts Bullets And Octane, is borderline unwatchable. And then you have Narc, which is, in fits and starts, brilliant.

What are people trying to get at? Spielberg directed The Lost World and it's fucking garbage. It's somewhat perplexing that he fucked up that badly, but that film is not indicative of the entire breadth of his talent. Filmmakers (who like to switch-hit every now and again) do different stuff, show different sides of themselves, and sometimes they fuck up. Carnahan is no exception.

The Grey is made more by the guy who made Narc than A-Team or Smokin' Aces. Carnahan has, rather intelligently, gone on at length about his choices and his identity as a filmmaker, and I have a lot of respect for the guy, he's the real deal. If anything, when he's going for frivolity and pure entertainment, he's not as effective as when's being stone cold serious, but his authorship is highly detectable in everything he's done thusfar.

No, I think Carnahan sucks. I will say he's fairly consistent; he always takes his pulpy material far too seriously (see the downright laughable Smoking Aces, which doesn't seem to be aware of how overwrought it is. He's made one halfway decent movie. The Grey is a close second. In my opinion, none of his movies are very good, and a few of them are downright terrible. The Spielberg comparison is kind of unfair; a guy doesn't have to be on that level to be worthy. But is it too much to ask for some original ideas, or a capable direction style from an established film maker? I know plenty of people liked the Grey, but my god the action was terrible. I could never tell what was happening. I'm sure that's a choice meant to place us in the frame of mine of the characters, but as a storytelling device, it's terribly flawed. A good director would know when to alternate between frantic close-up and handheld action and a fucking master shot. Carnahan wouldn't know a master shot if it bit him in the ass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

If this had subtitles and were directed by Tomas Alfredson from a recently-discovered script by Ingmar Bergman

 

...there's a good chance it could be a better movie. 

But I think this kind of comparison is fatally condescending. Blame the audience for the directors inability to make a compelling movie? Sure. Obviously there's a problem with the audience who doesn't like it. Not the film. Not the filmmaker. Everyone falls in line and likes what they like based on the names attached. What are we, four?

 

So, please explain to me what's original about The Grey. And why the shaky-cam, frantic editing worked for you. And what's so incredible and distinctive about Carnahan as a director.

EDIT:

I don't have a problem with anyone liking this movie. I'm sure they have their reasons (and I like reading what those are). But when people roll out defensive excuses like"even Spielberg makes bombs" or "if so and so directed this from so and so's script..." those are some lazy, lazy arguments. And I'm going to call bullshit where I see it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

So, please explain to me what's original about The Grey. And why the shaky-cam, frantic editing worked for you. And what's so incredible and distinctive about Carnahan as a director.

 

EDIT:

I don't have a problem with anyone liking this movie. I'm sure they have their reasons (and I like reading what those are). But when people roll out defensive excuses like"even Spielberg makes bombs" or "if so and so directed this from so and so's script..." those are some lazy, lazy arguments. And I'm going to call bullshit where I see it. 

You know, I can be an unpleasant guy, but I'll go ahead and be a hypocrite and ask you, politely, not to come at me with that fucking attitude. It seems to be a thing with you sometimes, and it's fucking grating when it happens.

Anyway...

How many people have talked about how original The Grey is? There have been references to The Edge and Jaws, and names like Hemingway and London have been bandied about when discussing the picture's DNA. It's a film descended from a certain type of archetypal, masculine story. We know what it is, and many, including myself of course, feel it's successful at being that thing. Also, slamming Carnahan's perceived technical deficencies is such anal retentive, technocrat bullshit it's not even funny. General technical competence is a must, but understanding how to tell a story is key. When Carnahan is locked in and focused, he does this, and does it well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

This concept that everything, from story to a directors fucking style having to be original is such horse shit I'm almost speechless.  A simple story well told is 90 percent of all movies, and the even the movies with twists and quirky directional styles aren't ever original.  A good story well told should be what you're demanding, not something as vague as "originality." 

I do demand a simple story well told. The Grey was a simple story I've seen told better a thousand times. If you're going to do this story, you better do it fucking competently. Carnahan didn't. I'm glad it worked for you, but I can't say the same.

Having seen this and The Artist on the same day, I'm struck by how they're both steeped in old tropes.  But whereas The Artist wraps itself in silent movie trappings and then does little else besides sit back and ask you to tell it how charming you think it is, The Grey takes tried and true action-adventure beats and uses them to ask questions about life, death, and how we choose to face each of them.  So neither is 100% original, but at least The Grey has something to say.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Having seen this and The Artist on the same day, I'm struck by how they're both steeped in old tropes.  But whereas The Artist wraps itself in silent movie trappings and then does little else besides sit back and ask you to tell it how charming you think it is, The Grey takes tried and true action-adventure beats and uses them to ask questions about life, death, and how we choose to face each of them.  So neither is 100% original, but at least The Grey has something to say.  

An interesting comparison. I certainly didn't love the Artist and I agree that it's far too pleased with itself, but I at least found the performers engaging enough on their own to enjoy it more than The Grey. And I think The Grey is very pleased with itself too; pleased with how serious it takes itself, how important it takes whatever message it might have and how grim that message is. What exactly is the Grey saying that's so unique and worth telling, exactly? That's what I really struggle with. Just because something strives for (and achieves) a serious tone doesn't mean whatever it has to say is worth listening to, especially if what it has to say, at its core, is fairly simplistic. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

I just don't believe it man haha.  I have no problem with you not liking it and that's fine and all that, but calling this movie not competent is pretty unforgiving of a little bit of shaky cam and some tight shots to hide wolf puppets.

Wasn't this movie pretty cheap to make?  Open Road picked it up for $5M I believe.  I imagine they did the best they could with the wolves.  Hell, they still look spotty.

How were the audience reactions regarding the ending---I won't go into spoilers--- at each of your particular showings?

Boy, was my audience pissed; there was one guy who said 'Bullshit' loudly, and quite a few people grumbled around me the whole way out, along the lines of 'Well, that was a waste.'

I can understand it.   If the trailers promise one type of film, Taken with wolves, and you get another, with an ending that polarizes an audience, I see people's point.

As Uncle Roger says, a movie is not about what it is about but how it is about it, and I feel that how The Grey is about its subject sets it apart from previous whacks at this sort of material. It's been done before. Everything's been done before. This has an authentic despairing tone unusual in mainstream releases these days. I responded to that. I wasn't really looking at it in terms of the story's freshness or the directorial touches. 

It's just...

I dunno...

would it have killed them to have ONE wolf-punching?

We tried that once. I prefer what we got to Wolves On A Plane. Fuck the marketing.

Originally Posted by Freeman 

The problem comes in when the posters and trailers for the movie sell the prize fighter glass claws scene as the tent pole money shot.  It designs some unfortunate expectations coming in, even if the ending is great within the context of the flick.

Well, since the context of the flick itself is all there's going to be once this thing hits video, it really isn't much of a problem at all.

I find the discussion surrounding this film very interesting and can sort of wrap my head around all the different opinions, without being able to clearly, wholly side with one or another.  I've been following this thread since seeing it and was inspired to write this about it if anyone is interested.

http://shloggshorrorblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/grey.html

I think this film really announces its intentions once Flannery is killed.  We're introduced to him as this annoying but sincere guy on the plane.  He's the first guy Ottway rescues, and he's built up as a sympathetic character.  We're made to believe he's going to be around for the long haul, and in any other film of this kind, he'd be there until the end, the comic relief who makes it out alive to wrap things up with a one-liner, or to save the day with an unexpected show of courage.  And he's offed almost immediately after they set out from the crash site, in as brutal and hopeless a way as possible.  It's as if the film is telling you right then that you are not in for a typical adventure film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle 

Fucking awesome movie. It definitely carries more weight when you consider what happened to Neeson' wife in real life.
And the ending was perfect. We did not need to see Neeson punching a puppet / cgi wolf for 5 minutes. Sometimes our IMAGINATION works better than what we see on screen. Spielberg understands this, as does MONSTERS director Gareth Thomas. I spent the 20 minute walk home playing the fight out in my head. Those people who hate the ending should think about what the poem means.

OK, as one of the people who thinks this movie could have had one of the greatest endings of all time, but instead has a work-around that I don't totally think works, explain to me the reason the poem precludes wolf punching. I'm of the belief they could have had the exact same final conclusion and yet satisfy everyone completely.

I'm feeling it's more and more likely that they shot it and it looked like total ass. Which isn't ideal either, so maybe this was the better choice. But still, if they stuck the landing, this could have been something akin to Aguirre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

OK, as one of the people who thinks this movie could have had one of the greatest endings of all time, but instead has a work-around that I don't totally think works, explain to me the reason the poem precludes wolf punching. I'm of the belief they could have had the exact same final conclusion and yet satisfy everyone completely.

 

I'm feeling it's more and more likely that they shot it and it looked like total ass. Which isn't ideal either, so maybe this was the better choice. But still, if they stuck the landing, this could have been something akin to Aguirre.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you.  I feel that there should have been some creative, judicious way to utilize puppets, CGI and wolf trainers shot from behind to create a satisfying illusion.  It's not like those of us who feel the fight should have been shown wanted to see an Underworld from above shot of Neeson backflipping in slow motion as the wolf misses him with its charge 10 feet below on the ground.  We wanted something visceral, palpable and intense, which would have been in keeping with the tone of the rest of the film.  This felt like an instance to me where actions could have said far more than words, especially when those words were a simplistic, repetitive poem.  I still love the film and can't get it out of my head, I'm just at odds with that one creative decision.  Few pieces of art are perfect, even to their enthusiasts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

OK, as one of the people who thinks this movie could have had one of the greatest endings of all time, but instead has a work-around that I don't totally think works, explain to me the reason the poem precludes wolf punching.

Because the choice to fight at all is the victory.  Whether he wins or the wolf wins, he's made the choice to face his death on his feet, fighting, and not simply accepting it.  What happens after that is immaterial to the story.  He's gone from a man who had a gun in his mouth to a man who's going to fight for his life against impossible odds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shloggs 

I find the discussion surrounding this film very interesting and can sort of wrap my head around all the different opinions, without being able to clearly, wholly side with one or another.  I've been following this thread since seeing it and was inspired to write this about it if anyone is interested.

 

http://shloggshorrorblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/grey.html

 

 

 

That's a good article. Five days later, and this film's strengths and weaknesses are still rolling around in my head. Have to give it credit for that, considering most films evaporate an hour after seeing them. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Because the choice to fight at all is the victory.  Whether he wins or the wolf wins, he's made the choice to face his death on his feet, fighting, and not simply accepting it.  What happens after that is immaterial to the story.  He's gone from a man who had a gun in his mouth to a man who's going to fight for his life against impossible odds.

This is a well articulated and convincing argument for the ending as it stands. My only counter would be that the fact that Ottaway is fighting at all is established shortly after the plane crash.  He makes a clear decision to round up the men and lead them. He doesn't give up and lay down to die. That he has chosen to fight for the life he previously had forsaken is set up from the moment he starts mobilizing the troops, leading them to rescue and devising a way to combat the Wolves and the elements. His choice to fight the alpha is simply a continuation of his behavior throughout the film.

Sorta. His choice to keep going on after the plane crash is because now he had purpose, he had these men to take care of, he had his direction (south, as it were). When the last one drowns, he's almost pushed back to the beginning; a man with a metaphorical gun in his mouth, no real reason to keep going, he's defeated, wandering the woods in a daze. It's when he sees the alpha, remembers the poem, that's his moment of catharsis of fighting not for money, or glory, or power or others, but simply to fight alone because Liam Neeson don't go down like no bitch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

 

 

I have to admit, I did kind of make this face when I read that, and I love this movie. Oh, also, I'd like to acknowledge the severity of my reaction to Parker. I won't apologize for it all b/c it irritated the hell out of me and my reaction was natural, but I should have just taken a breath, ignored it and made my point.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Happenin 

Sorta. His choice to keep going on after the plane crash is because now he had purpose, he had these men to take care of, he had his direction (south, as it were). When the last one drowns, he's almost pushed back to the beginning; a man with a metaphorical gun in his mouth, no real reason to keep going, he's defeated, wandering the woods in a daze. It's when he sees the alpha, remembers the poem, that's his moment of catharsis of fighting not for money, or glory, or power or others, but simply to fight alone because Liam Neeson don't go down like no bitch.

Fair enough. This character has a remarkably fluid relationship with his mortality lol. I feel he could probably find something to fight for in any situation (needing to pick up laundry detergent, shoveling the driveway etc...) especially considering he stayed his hand before even getting on the plane.  Very good film to inspire so much discussion in any case!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Happenin 

Sorta. His choice to keep going on after the plane crash is because now he had purpose, he had these men to take care of, he had his direction (south, as it were). When the last one drowns, he's almost pushed back to the beginning; a man with a metaphorical gun in his mouth, no real reason to keep going, he's defeated, wandering the woods in a daze. It's when he sees the alpha, remembers the poem, that's his moment of catharsis of fighting not for money, or glory, or power or others, but simply to fight alone because Liam Neeson don't go down like no bitch.

Exactly.  Without the other men to take care of, he has nothing, and he's ready to cash in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Exactly.  Without the other men to take care of, he has nothing, and he's ready to cash in.

Yes, but I have to believe Ottaway understands Weyland Yutani will replace him, so him not commiting suicide early on because he heard a wolf howl doesn't hold water for me.  Despite his inner turmoil, Ottaway is clearly a survivor. To me, the film is about a man who will always fight to exist no matter the emotional or physical peril he faces. Him choosing to take the gun out of his mouth is the same as strapping on his Tong Po electrical tape gloves and charging into the fray. Therefore, I wanted to see this character do what he does, namely survive in a manly and forceful fashion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Because the choice to fight at all is the victory.  Whether he wins or the wolf wins, he's made the choice to face his death on his feet, fighting, and not simply accepting it.  What happens after that is immaterial to the story.  He's gone from a man who had a gun in his mouth to a man who's going to fight for his life against impossible odds.

But since he's essentially doing that from the moment that plane crashes onward, where's the growth? And isn't it kind of inexplicable how he goes from suicidal to balls-out fight for my life despite still being suicidal? Is he doing it for all of the other guys? Is Diaz supposed to represent the opposite reaction? Because I was on Team Diaz when it came to collecting all those fucking wallets. I didn't believe a guy like Neeson would give a fuck about the wallets. He'd be all taking only what they needed for survival and the wallets don't count for anything except extra weight. Where does the fight for life come from? The memory of his wife saying "don't be afraid?" Presumably he's had that memory since she said it, so what about that gets him to stand up and fight for whatever life he had left? I don't know, it just didn't ring that profound to me. To me, he doesn't go from one guy to the next but remains a flat line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

Oh, also, I'd like to acknowledge the severity of my reaction to Parker. I won't apologize for it all b/c it irritated the hell out of me and my reaction was natural, but I should have just taken a breath, ignored it and made my point.  

 

It's cool, yo. You should know that I meant no offense, I just disagreed with your point. People tend to think I act dickish online and I should probably work on that. You should know I'm responding directly to your argument, not you as a person. Long story short, my reaction was natural as yours. But I'll try to tone it down in general. 

Well, he doesn't kill himself. He thinks about it. Really thinks about it. But doesn't. 

And when the plane starts crashing, he tries to prepare himself to survive a bad crash. 

Is this inconsistent or unbelievable? I don't think so. 

You don't believe a guy like Neeson would collect the wallets? I mean, they basically go out of their way to paint Neeson as that exact person when he helps the mortally wounded man confront death. This is a soulful dude. And Diaz was taking money from a wallet, looting corpses - not collecting wallets.

Right, so goes from not killing himself and fighting for his life (the moment the plane is about to crash) to the exact same at the end. That's my point, there doesn't seem to be any growth. The movie has a bit of a problem because it needs to paint him as a gung-ho survivalist and suicidal at the same time, which it fails to do. He's fighting for his life from the get-go, so there's no sense of growth at the end when he stands up to death staring him in his face.

And no, I didn't buy the wallet thing. When I said I was on Team Diaz, I meant how he felt that collecting the wallets was a waste of time. The wallets seemed like a heavy handed symbol of clinging to the life you have left, of believing that life would be normal again and that you could somehow get back to it. I don't think Neeson's character believes that in the beginning. Maybe he does at the end, but it didn't seem to make sense that he'd behave that way originally (think of how he slips the note to his wife into the seat of the plane). What convinces him to keep that and then (subsequently) collect the wallets? Just that he finds the note again? I guess you could argue that the crash has given him a new lease on life, but that seems kinda thin to me.

He's not really gung ho though.  He doesn't get off on shooting wolves.  He does it because he's good at it and it keeps him fed, but that's about it.  I think that's why he takes so quickly to helping the survivors -- it's something that has real purpose and value.  And as they get picked off one by one despite his best efforts, we see him starting to crumble.

I just want to say there's always room for a photo of pissed-off Michael Ironside.

He's running the entire length of the movie. Even the bullet-spears (fucking boss, by the way) are just a means of surviving to the next obstacle and hopefully making it home. He's fighting for his life yes, but he's up against more than just wolves (nature, cold, weather). It's fighting in that he's actively trying to not die. At the end, he throws down and stops running but unlike Diaz, he's not going quietly into that good night, he's meeting it head on, with glass bottles strapped to his knuckles.

And you can see his confidence fading as the wolves keep thwarting them.  There's one point where he even describes what to do next and adds, "Hell, I don't know."  He's already struggling to keep control and it's slipping away from them.

And by the time Diaz decides he's ready to throw in the towel, Ottway doesn't even try to convince him otherwise.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Happenin 

He's running the entire length of the movie. Even the bullet-spears (fucking boss, by the way) are just a means of surviving to the next obstacle and hopefully making it home. He's fighting for his life yes, but he's up against more than just wolves (nature, cold, weather). It's fighting in that he's actively trying to not die. At the end, he throws down and stops running but unlike Diaz, he's not going quietly into that good night, he's meeting it head on, with glass bottles strapped to his knuckles.

I found it hilarious that they had like four of the makeshift bangsticks and subsequently used them all three minutes later on one wolf.  Way to conserve your ammo guys. 

Didn't know they cared about Diaz that much.

I liked that he had pragmatic and emotional reasons for leaving Diaz behind. One, Diaz was going to slow them down. Fact. Two, he didn't want to rob Diaz of his moment. Seems to me that both reasons were as equally important as the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Quote:

I found it hilarious that they had like four of the makeshift bangsticks and subsequently used them all three minutes later on one wolf.  Way to conserve your ammo guys. 

 

Didn't know they cared about Diaz that much.

nevermind.