THE GREY Post-Relese Discussion - Page 6

And honestly, "the wolves aren't realistic!" doesn't exactly provide a framework for a compelling discussion.

Who said there is no God? Neeson was conflicted about whether he wanted to live or die. He spends the movie coming to terms with his beliefs and moves on when he's ready.

 

I thought that goofy scene where Liam Neeson yells at the sky establishes that this is indeed an existential universe. Which would negate the idea that he's been dead since the beginning of the movie and this is some sort of afterlife he's wandering around aimlessly in.

The thing is, this could all be taking place in his mind in the fleeting seconds between sustaining the injuries that kill him and his actual death.  It may be his subconscious mind working out that he's indeed dying, and letting go.  Which is sort of emphasized by the scene where he comforts the dying man and goes about it very matter of factly.  There's a part of him that knows what's going on, but he isn't ready to accept it yet, so it's projected onto another person.

Interesting hypothetical, but man would I be bummed if Carnahan came out and said that's what's really going on.

I don't think that is his interpretation, but it helps me like the film more.

 

I wouldn't be thrilled if Carnahan also came right out and supported the "they're all dead" theory, but whether he means us to interpret the film one way or another, we can just cry "death of the author" and see it how we want to see it. I'm not fond of the idea that the entire film is just the fever dream of Ottway's dying subconscious, but I think if that was the "intended" reading I'd still like the movie a whole lot.

Yeah, I think I prefer that interpretation as metaphorical rather than literal.

The photography was beautiful, the action was exciting and well shot, and the acting was for the most part strong. It was also over maudlin, and predicated on some hugely illogical character decisions. There was no reason for them to abandon that plane. There was no reason not to use all the sturdy metal scraps to fortify part of the hull against wolf attack, and use the rest to make sharp clubs and axes. Neeson would have known that, if he really was Mr Wilderness Survival. They had all the food, water and shelter right there already, and the plane was their last best chance to get found. But that is the path the movie took and once they set out on their journey I was on board for the duration. The aggressiveness of the wolves flew in the face of science, but that's the kind of thing I'm essentially willing to let slide in a movie like this. They were an effective menace, and Carnahan managed to make them pretty intimidating. I was disappointed that I never actually got to see Neeson punch a wolf with those broken bottles taped to his hands, but that's a failure of marketing, not the fault of the film. The ending was obnoxiously sentimental, but I liked the note it closed on with Neeson ready to fight to the death.

 

I'm going to give this movie a 5.5 out of 10.
 

Edited by Dr Harford - 6/6/12 at 5:50pm

Goddamn, the minute analysis of absurd potentialities is silly. Maybe these are just some badass fucking wolves! You gonna stereotype all wolves as weaksauce pussies who won't maraud and murder a tasteful troop of Canadians? Have you met every wolfpack there is? And maybe WE are the ones who are actually dead, and our entire synaptic experience is just an illusion crafted by an angry God who is pissed off at our meritocratic interpertation of faith?!

But in all seriousness, this is a very solid movie with a bullshit ending. The only two arguments I think I've seen are 

A) the ending is fine, the point of the movie is already made

 

and

 

B) you gotta have glassknuckles vs. insanity wolf fight to the death, otherwise its a fucking scam.

 

Even if the effects turned out subpar and shitty, they still should have split the difference and at least have him get a couple GLASSKNUCKLE shots in on wolf-growl before fading to black. Seriously, like 10 seconds more of solid footage and the takeaway from that scene shifts dramatically. Instead of "hey, that was a good movie and the ending is open to debate, that makes it artistic!!" , the way its cut is "LETS DO THIS, no wait NEVERMIND THE END, FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU"

Even one wolf-punch would have somewhat addressed this incongruity while in no way compromising the legitimate argument that the story can end at that point and maintain thematic integrity. 
 

JUST ONE GODDAMN GLASSKNUCKLE WOLF PUNCH.

 

Everyone holding mastershop class on the shitty decisions being made by the characters in this movie can right piss off. People don't always make the best tactical decision, even Champion Outdoorsmen or whatever. People fuck up, that creates conflict, and without conflict there's not a whole hell of a lot to talk about, so bitching about people not making the textbook correct decision is churlish.

 

This is the only thing you've said I disagree with. Forget about whether or not seeing the alpha and Ottway battle is the point of the film, ending The Grey with subpar and shitty effects means ending The Grey on a subpar and shitty note. Given how good the rest of the film is, it would have been incredibly silly to end the film with ten seconds of horrible CGI. Backed by a really, really good FX studio, I kind of like the idea of a moment of visible struggle cut abruptly to black, but only with a really, really good FX studio.

 

I suggested earlier in the thread that Carnahan may have tried to shoot footage of Ottway fighting the wolf, and it didn't work out. Honestly, the trailer-- which shows him running toward the thing-- seems to support that idea. If the footage is shit, leave it on the cutting room floor.

 

Other than that, I'm with you 100%. The amount of weird anti-analysis being directed at this thing is a bit head-scratching to me. The Grey doesn't purport to portray wolf behavior with complete realism. That is most definitely not "the point" here. So I don't buy people getting hung up on the wolves acting in ways that aren't supported by Wikipedia's entry on wolves.

Exactly. Who cares if the Wolves' behaviour is unrealistically portrayed? It's not a nature doc.

And I don't think the ending is 'obnoxiously sentimental'. Neeson being rescued just before the fight and realising the guy in the river is alive and hugging him, that would be sentimental. Personally I thought the ending was quite powerful and affecting. Reciting a poem doesn't equal sentimentality.

Man, that whale in Moby Dick is just so unrealistic.

The Edge.

Bullshit.

Winter is coming, Bart the Bear is hungry, and it's established to be a man eater. Stalking it's prey and hunting down humans at that point would be a grizzly's MO.

 

Except that none of this has anything to do with how bears actually act in the wild. It just has to do with how Bart the Bear-- who, by the way, happens to be a Kodiak bear-- acts in the film, which is antithetical to how I'm told most bears tend to react to people in the wild barring situations like, say, territorial trespassing. 

 

But if we accept that, then we can apply the same logic to what happens in The Grey. There's a big storm. Food is scarce. The wolves are hungry, and they're established to be man-eaters. At that point, stalking their prey and hunting down humans would be the wolves' joint MO...right?

Don't you start that shit when it's time to start a "Dinosaurs versus Aliens" thread. Mama T-Rexes defend their baby T-Rexes ferociously when threatened with flying saucers, alright?

They just. Fucking. Do.

The bear in The Edge tracks them over a mountain and across two rivers. It's every bit as magical as the wolves in The Edge; both serve a thematic purpose perfectly, and that, truly, is all the fucking matters.

 

Except for the fact that Treadwell and his girlfriend ran into the thing and it killed and ate them. It didn't stalk them all over creation like a big, furry Jason Voorhees. You could maybe argue that the beast followed Treadwell at least a little bit-- he does spot the very bear who would go on to kill him and, in the film, mention that he feels uncomfortable around it-- but I think equating Treadwell's death with the events of The Edge is stretching reality. And besides, the fatal encounter by all means sounds very coincidental as opposed to premeditated by the bear. (I can't believe I just wrote that sentence.)

 

Also, Treadwell was killed by a grizzly bear. Not a kodiak bear. Again, big difference from what I understand.

 

 

See, this. I don't get why this is so difficult for people to accept. Neither film intends to portray the behaviors of its chosen Antagonist Animals with a dedication to realism, because that's not the point.

Besides, nobody blinks at about a dozen men surviving that plane crash, but it's the WOLVES that break the suspension of disbelief for you.

If a bear becomes a man-eater, it begins to think of people as food and treats them as any other prey. In most other cases, yes bears would rather not have anything to do with people, but the point of the bear in the Edge was that it was a man-eater and was not going to leave them alone.

 

That is why bears that kill people are often shot by park services, because they'll do it again.

 

As for tracking them over rivers, Bart probably knew his way around, and could smell blood for hundreds of miles. Who says he crossed that river? He could have just taken a shortcut unknown to our heroes.

 

How about Ghost and the Darkness? That's based on a true story of a pair of lions that ate over 200 people. One day they just realized "hey, unarmed Africans make easy prey".

Call it synchronicity, but while you gents have been discussing this, science has weighed in on whether menstruation attracts bears.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Man, I don't know what to believe anymore.

Right. The wolves are too much to swallow, but Bart the Bear pulling out GrizzlyMaps and finding another route around a river, then resuming his hunt of two men over dozens of miles is perfectly within reason.

The behavior of those wolves was truly absurd, but if you scroll up to where I posted my thoughts, I said it didn't effect my opinion of the film. I'm even one of those people OK with the movie ending without a wolf punch.

 

Just so you know though, bears have been known to stalk prey for hundreds of miles.

Also, The Ghost and the Darkness is a fictionalized account of an already exaggerated story. Modern research shows that the real number of workers was much lower--probably 35 men. And it wasn't "the taste of blood" that did it, however romantic that might seem--it was much more likely that the first lion had an abscessed tooth that made hunting normal prey too difficult, and was going for easier, more tender meat. 

They have those lions in the Chicago Field Museum. Should be easy enough to check on that tooth business. For whatever reason, and whether it was 35 or 200, we do know those two lions one day decided they were done chasing gazelle.

They did check on the tooth business--that's why it was researched, published, and then even peer reviewed.

God I am so glad I don't watch movies worrying about how real wolves behave, or what would be the best way to survive a zombie apocalypse, or why spaceships make sound in the vacuum of space or whatever.

Normally I wouldn't care about wolf behavior, and I let it slide in this instance, but Timber Wolves are endangered, and wolf hunting is a ballot measure in many states. I understand the argument this movie poisons public opinion against the species unfairly. Wolves running up to groups of humans to attack them in broad daylight, and all that.

Nice, thanks for that information. I've always found that story fascinating.

 

I can match your vaguely factual conjecture with my own, though. Wolves tend to leave people the fuck alone, but what Neeson says about territorial tendencies is by all accounts true. If you run into a wolf far outside the scope of its territory, it'll probably fuck along away from you. If you run into a wolf on its territory, much less near its den, it'll be more inclined to treat you as a threat and react accordingly. So when a bunch of humans crash-land really damn close to the pack's territory, their lives are pretty much forfeit. 

 

See, this sort of stuff can be used to justify the actions of the wolves in The Grey as much as it can be used to justify the actions of Bart the Bear in The Edge. But you're still relying on a ton of "probably" statements. I don't think that's a good way to establish the latter being more realistic than the former.

 

 

GrizzlyMaps? Must be an app on his iPawed. (Thanks in advance, I'll be here all week.)

 

I was going to ask why you were pursuing the argument despite the fact that it "didn't ruin your enjoyment of the movie", but this answers that question. But if I can be blunt-- that's a terrible argument. Should we decry Jaws for pushing specism against great white sharks? Or The Lion King for its stereotypical portrayal of hyenas? I appreciate the notion of there being dialogue about the reality of wolf behavior and the very serious plight timber wolves face in this country, but neither has any bearing on the movie itself. The movie is a work of fiction. 

 

You're right, it works within the context of the movie. That opening scene with the kamakazi wolf running at the oil crew might have been sort of silly, and it gets you thinking about wolf behavior when you probably shouldn't be for a movie like this. Other than that though the wolves are quite scary in this movie, and that's all they needed to be. They're used more effectively as antagonists than they were in Frozen, so I think Carnahan nailed it.

 

 

He who puns would pick a pocket.

 

 

Carnahan's only reponsibility was to his movie. It's not his job to promote a better understanding of wolves. I hear you about Jaws, but in America at least unlike sharks wolf hunting is an ongoing issue, and not everyone can tell what is fiction and what isn't. Neeson gets up there sounding athoratative and spouting wolf facts, and some people in those wolf hunting states might think he's despensing expertise and not lines in an action script. Did it bother me enough to change my opinion of the film in any way? Not in the slightest. It was in the back of my mind though, thats all I was saying.

 

Yeah, exactly. I'm definitely not arguing that the wolves behave the way they would in the wild, but rather that they behave in a way that makes sense in the context of the movie. I kind of agree with the wolf rushing toward the crew at the start of the film-- before the crash-- is a bit odd, but I like the way it resonates thematically within the film, and besides, it looks great even if it's pretty far outside wolf behavior.

 

     Quote:

 

I know, I know. That pun was pretty bad. I admit, I'm a bit embearassed to have made it.

 

 

 

Hey, fair points. I get what you mean. But in the end it's on the audience members who think Ottway's rattling off Awesome True Wolf Facts. I hope that The Grey doesn't trick people into thinking they're wolf experts or having any tangible impact on rampant/illegal wolf hunting, but the truth is, people are scared enough of wolves without needing a movie to warp their perceptions of them any further.

I observe that the "re-release in October" talk was horseshit.

A damn shame. Neeson's performance is worth at least a nomination.

Ditto.

This remains one of my favorite movies in a good year.

Sill wouldn't have minded a wolf punch at the end though.

Yeah I rewatched it recently and it definitely holds up.  The meditative moments can be damn hamfisted but the movie is very effective and harrowing.

I liked it a lot. It always struck me that showing the wolfpunching would work against the existential core of the film, and that the point of the end wasn't OMGGLASSKNUCKLEWOLFCOCKPUNCHBADASSBADASSBADASS!!! but an image that crystallized the need to face the dying of the light, and rage against it anyway. Neeson is a man who's dead inside and can only defy it with every breath; the crash and wolf-hunt are just a physical externalization of that struggle.

 

The ending wasn't bullshit - the trailer was, for implying that that was anything but the last shot. It's frustrating on first viewing to be sure, but as an ending it works perfectly well.

For me, it's not that it isn't a strong ending, it's that if they pulled the fight off properly, it could have been one of the greatest endings ever. In my mind I can see it, and its just the best possible combination of Hemingway and cheese possible.

It's a great fight precisely because it's in your mind. Better than anything they could film.

That's the genius of the ending: it stimulates your imagination.

Wow, where the hell did this come from?  I knew not to expect what the trailer implied but damn;  it starts grim and it's all down hill from there.  A truly amazing ride however.

This is supposed to have French Foreign Legionnaires  in it, or guys hiking from a gulag or something.  This is a fairly major Hollywood movie,  with big names (well one) and a "dependable" action director (faint praise I'm told he deserves, not that I've seen anything else of his).  Imagine if Zack Snyder's personal projects were this good?

The direction is very impressive.  Something this extreme and relentless could so easily tip over into exploitation or corn.  A lot of nameless characters put forward distinct personalities with subtle scripting and performances.  The music is beautiful and of course Neeson the agonisingly wounded anchor to the whole thing.  It's understated when it could be huge just by accident.  It's the low key stuff running through the huge goings on. The film is not afraid of its own emotional core and wants you to take its humanity for what it is, just like its manly 'message' if you will. 

It sounds a bit of a meta-wank perhaps, but that sheer sincerity from a film like this today is shocking. The ending is the right one.  The one Hollywood is never supposed to choose. I don't think I'll ever forget it.  (comparisons to The Edge abound, but really what is that film about except that reading is good and any bond in extreme circumstances will soon be tossed aside for the chance to fuck Elle McPherson, so watch your back).

 

I wasn't that worried about the wolves.  I could buy that they might try to drive weak humans out of some area of theirs if they saw the chance.  I had more trouble with the survival stuff:  Ottway at least should know to watch for stragglers in a hike, especially in high wind where you can't hear them when they drop back  (I learned this in high school.  And here in Aus, wild dogs and Dingos are known to attack the weak and children.  Which actually would have been a good tidbit for the film; for whatever reason the wolves were starving.  Desperate animals get aggressive and risk blind.  But they weren't starving so whatever).  Leaving the crash site was probably a mistake they wouldn't make, but I can go with it.  Climbing down the cliff really didn't seem like the only option left by that point

 

There's a lot of this stuff that part of some following the leader, right or wrong thing - I think .  But I have to admit that Ottway's status as a good leader isn't really dealt with one way or the other.  Which is a bit of a shame.  But again I have to admire its focus on something so particular as that existential journey.  Which is something it does so well I can forgive it a few stray threads.

And yeah, Neeson should have got a nom.

I give the movie all the credit in the world for putting that moment in the trailer.  It was almost like a challenge from Carnahan: "I'm going to show you Liam Neeson taping mini bottles to his hands in order to fight a wolf hand to... paw, and by the time you actually see the scene, you're not going to think it's the most ridiculous thing since Taken."  And he pulled it off!  Really everything else aboutthe movie is secondary.  Good job, Joe!

 

Well, he does lead them, ultimately, straight into the wolf's den. And they all die. Which is just staggeringly dark, in truth. I actually can't point to another survival yarn that ends with a Total Party Kill.

To me, it's irrelevant whether Ottway's leadership can be described as "good" or "bad". What matters ultimately is the fact that he chooses to lead at all. That decision is almost as important as his decision to not commit suicide or his decision to fight the alpha wolf.

Any failures of Ottoway as a leader is built into the premise... it's a tale of utterly doomed men.  There was no chance of salvation, only survival for as long as possible (and finding a personal reason to keep up struggle.)  I don't think the movie is emphasizing any mistakes Ottoway may make as anything other than bitterly ironic twists of fate.  He doesn't end up in the wolf's den because he can't tell his elbow from his asshole.  It's because he's fucked no matter which direction he goes.

All I'm talking about is that, whatever we decide the film ultimately says about Ottway's leadership it's not really dealt with in the text itself.  The only person who questions his leadership is the idiot toughguy, whose challenge he quickly puts down (in parallel with the wolves).  But there are others in the party who are shown to be pretty smart sensitive fellows and the relationship is more respectful, rather than outright authority (which Diaz comes around to in the end as well).  Given that it comes up time and again the strange actions they sometimes take (like leaving the wreck, jumping off a cliff etc), I think even discussion or acknowledgement of doubts or regrets over certain actions would have made it that much stronger. 

I hate everybody in this thread.

 

I thought the movie was beautiful.  I'm sad I didn't get to experience it in a theater. 

 

I should acknowledge that I was already well aware of how the film would end because of this thread, so I watched the film with a sense of inevitability.  Don't have any guarantee of how I would've reacted had I gone in cold, but I'd like to think that I would've loved it as is.