Artcore

[MovieBob]

Artcore

A drama, 3 ½ hours in length, with the vast majority of that time filled by small groups of characters deep in conversation about relationships, romance, art, literature and philosophy. The entertainment press has elected to promote it in the manner of a carnival peep show. Why?

Read Full Article

 

[hentropy]

Not even a passing reference to Water Lilies? That's probably my favorite movie of this genre, though it's not quite as, er, explicit as the others.

 

[shogunblade]

I have been hearing a lot about this movie for months, but I didn't know it was NC-17 or that it was 3 and a half hours long. I imagine this being on Netflix Instant very soon, where I will be very interested in watching it, since there is nary a theater around that will play it, which is sad, but true, otherwise I would go see it.

I do get a bit annoyed when movies like this get the wrong audience who are only in it 'for the Boobiez!', but I suppose any notoriety is better than the movie fading into obscurity, even around a taboo that is slowly becoming realized less as a taboo and more of a reality, I think.

As far as my opinion is worth, It looks like it could be a very good movie, one that now has me intrigued more so than I was previously for it.

 

[Chris Mosher]

I saw this movie at a film festival last month. It was too long for one sitting in my opinion. I like the story of a young woman discovering herself and since the french title indicates that there are meant to be two chapters I think that the films was designed to be shown over two sittings. There is a time shift that signals a tonal shift as well that I feel must have been where it was written to be split and the film would have been more watchable if I myself had been able to leave the theatre and come back later to finish the film. As for the infamous sex scene, it was overlong to the point where it becomes almost self parody. I am no prude but cutting these NC 17 scenes would have moved up the pace of the film.

 

[ShadowHamster]

I'm going to take a slightly different stance on this. Bring on the clueless teenagers, insecure parents, and others who will check this out EXPLICITLY for the sex scene, but please, take away their ability to fast forward. I've read the comic and it very VERY well captures the concept of love, and not necessarily in a good light, but in an obsessive rollercoaster ride of life light. It is easily one of the best arguments against "gay love isn't real love" I've seen. I'd put it up with Brokeback Mountain.(which also had a love making scene, but because "DUDES!!!" it made some cringe)

In stories like this, the love is truly forbidden, for the right reasons. You are suddenly caught in the middle of a situtation that is too private, you are locked in what connects two people and makes them come together. I think more of this is good for...society.

 

[Kahani]

Plain, shy, middle-class, unlucky-in-love teenager

I can't help noticing that this appears to be the standard Hollywood definition of "plain" that actually means "one of the hottest girls you will ever see". Which seems a bit odd given the subject of the article.

 

[WiseBass]

Lea Seydoux and her counterpart actress were interviewed and asked directly whether the sex scene was simulated, and they said it was. They made rubber/plastic/whatever moulds of their actual groins, and then wore them for the scene in question.

That's been done before. IIRC scenes with male genitalia are often done with moulded prosthetics instead of the real thing, both because of reticence on the part of the actor and because it ameliorates any potential "performance issues".

 

[Imre Csete]

Nice to know why it was featured that much in the media for a month (page 3). It got top headlines once every week, I was really tired of it.

 

[teamcharlie]

I don?t think the taboo is necessarily about sex as such. We actually got to see Black Swan and, apparently, Blue Angel. Lesbians do not seem to be as strong a trigger as we give them credit for.

No. What we cannot see, can basically never see on film outside of the circumstances in which you can watch hardcore pornography, is an erect penis physically interacting with anybody other than its owner in any context. You can touch boobs, you can touch a va-jay, but you cannot touch a hard dong. I am not in a position to make some sort of claim about the politics or history of this fact, but it does not seem to be changing with respect to time except possibly to be more rigorously forbidden.

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

Maybe it's just be, but I'm getting tired of every gay romance always being portrayed as this lofty, beautiful, uber-passionate, earth-shatteringly amazing power of the universe, a force no one can stop no matter what. But if the movie featured a straight couple with everything else exactly the same (the camera angles, the dialogue, the sex scenes, etc.) no one would bat an eyelash at it. And probably say it's a dumb, boring movie and point out immediately how the couple has no real chance because they're too different and how the "opposites attract" cliche has been done to death. While I do look forward to googling the scenes in question (because I'm not too up for watching a three hour romance movie, even if it was a straight couple), I get the sense that the sexuality of the protagonists is the only reason why anyone gives a damn about it. And I mean that in a social/political sense, not just because girl on girl is hot.

It's this strange not-taboo thing we have going on, where you always hear celebrities coming out and saying they're bi or gay, and the media fawns all over them, declaring them oh so very brave, but none one of them suffer any consequences for it. Granted, I don't think they shouldn't get work because they're gay, as what people do in the bedroom has nothing to do with their job. Yet everyone acts as if these celebrities (or movies like this one) are the next cancer cure because they have the (pardon me for this one) balls to pronounce their gayness. I mean, Neil Patrick Harris is an awesome actor, but nobody paid the poor guy any attention after his child career until he said he was gay. And celebs often use their sexuality to increase their popularity and make themselves critic-proof, because if you say something bad about their work, then you're just a homophobe.

 

[JamesBr]

I am reminded of the South Park episode where the independent film festival comes to town.

I'm not denigrating the film, it's not a genre I care about, I just find it amusing that people still think "Euro-art-house film about lesbians exploring their relationship" is worth talking about.

 

[Altorin]

I remember many fond memories of watching the bare tits scene in Doc Hollywood, my favorite NQNQP ;P

 

[AntiChrist]

In the days before all manner of deviancy and debauchery was just an InPrivate Browsing window away, curious teenagers had a few more hoops to jump through for procuring what we still somewhat cheekily call adult entertainment. Actual honest-to-Guccione pornography was by no means ha - er, difficult to procure, those deprived by fate of an irresponsible bachelor uncle to steal from would generally turn to so-called softcore (aka Cinemax) nudie-movies. But since even those might turn up in short supply depending on one's situation, the next best thing were the NQPs.

Speaking from experience, are we Bob?

I'm going to take a slightly different stance on this. Bring on the clueless teenagers, insecure parents, and others who will check this out EXPLICITLY for the sex scene, but please, take away their ability to fast forward. I've read the comic and it very VERY well captures the concept of love, and not necessarily in a good light, but in an obsessive rollercoaster ride of life light. It is easily one of the best arguments against "gay love isn't real love" I've seen. I'd put it up with Brokeback Mountain.(which also had a love making scene, but because "DUDES!!!" it made some cringe)

In stories like this, the love is truly forbidden, for the right reasons. You are suddenly caught in the middle of a situtation that is too private, you are locked in what connects two people and makes them come together. I think more of this is good for...society.

I have neither read the comic nor watched the film (yet), but if the movie portraits love as an obsessive rollercoaster, isn't that an argument against love in general and NOT just gay love?

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Ooh, a euro-arthouse drama about a lesbian relationship?

How utterly plebian.

Even the lure of girl on girl action won't work on me, because I'm one of those rare dudes who doesn't get his jollies from it.

It sounds like the only reason to watch it is for the one scene, and everything else is pure boredom, but in french.

 

[AntiChrist]

It sounds like the only reason to watch it is for the one scene, and everything else is pure boredom, but in french.

Well, according to Bob:

Still, it's a bit depressing to see such a good film (and yes, Blue is a very good film in its own right) arrive with this spectacle hovering over it

... the film might actually have some merit. We won't know for sure until we've watched it ourselves, now will we?

 

[Doopliss64]

The French... I like the way they think.

 

[Zydrate]

I am reminded of the South Park episode where the independent film festival comes to town.

I'm not denigrating the film, it's not a genre I care about, I just find it amusing that people still think "Euro-art-house film about lesbians exploring their relationship" is worth talking about.

Why not? It's a demographic that is vastly underrepresented in media. Right now our biggest problem is visibility, and if something comes along that doesn't turn homosexual characters as a fetish, that's a victory for a demographic.

I've yet to see Brokeback Mountain but it was treated as a big joke, and that breaks my damn heart.