What Movie Did You Just Watch

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

As someone who got burned out on Nolan's movies post-The Dark Knight, I actually found Dunkirk to be quite a refreshing change of pace for him.

It's cool to see a genre-bending film like Get Out among the nominees, but to be fair every year seems to have at least one oddball pick among its nominees. It has no chance of actually winning, but it's great to at least see it get acknowledged by the Academy.

Part of me was really keeping my fingers crossed that Logan would get a nomination, but as expected, the Academy still has an irritating phobia of giving out any nominations to superhero flicks in any of the major categories (sans Ledger winning one for his Joker performance, which was nearly a decade ago, anyways). It'll probably get nominated for some technical awards at best.

[Avaitor]

It's cool to see a genre-bending film like Get Out among the nominees, but to be fair every year seems to have at least one oddball pick among its nominees. It has no chance of actually winning, but it's great to at least see it get acknowledged by the Academy.

It probably won't win, but I think the fact that Get Out was remembered despite being out for almost a year now shows that it's no slouch.

This is an interesting awards season, since there doesn't seem to be anything close to a consensus winner. It's not even like 2 years ago when it was a seemingly three-way tie between Big Short, Revenant, and Spotlight. Three Billboards, Shape of Water (itself a genre film that may have not had a chance before now), and Lady Bird all seem like very real possibilities. I think The Post has a shot too in case these all cancel each other out, given how Oscarbaity it looks, and how much everyone loves everyone involved in it. Get Out and Dunkirk also seem like wild horses, given how well they've been sticking out award season and the high followings both have.

Part of me was really keeping my fingers crossed that Logan would get a nomination, but as expected, the Academy still has an irritating phobia of giving out any nominations to superhero flicks in any of the major categories (sans Ledger winning one for his Joker performance, which was nearly a decade ago, anyways). It'll probably get nominated for some technical awards at best.

What? Logan was very definitely nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.

You're right that the Academy is still iffy about giving super hero films major nominations, but this did happen, and it's a big deal IMO.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Oh, did it? My bad, I missed that. Great to see it get a writing nomination in that case, which it really deserves. Still, having seen some of the films nominated for Best Picture myself, I'd argue that Logan is of that caliber. Not as good as say, Three Billboards, but easily on par with the likes of Dunkirk and Get Out, IMO

[Avaitor]

I ended up seeing The Post on Tuesday night (it was better than I was expecting, but still not a favorite), so I may as well complete the bracket.

I actually thought about seeing Dunkirk after work tomorrow night, since the AMC at Disney Springs brought it back, but now they don't accept MoviePass anymore. I might look up other theaters to see if it they brought it back, since it's not really the kind of movie that I think I should watch here. Living in a house full of autistic people (myself included), some of my roommates are sensitive to hearing, and from what I understand, this is a film where you want to keep the full sound experience.

[Avaitor]

I finally got around to seeing all nine Best Picture nominees, and I can safely share my rankings.

9- Darkest Hour- A snoozefest that only plays on some of Churchill's faults with a (relative) weight lifted, and almost never directs itself towards his constant xenophobia. I wasn't even impressed by Oldman, who I thought never seemed to find the right tone for Churchill and just relied on a so-so impression. I don't know why this one received so many nominations.

8- The Post- There's a solid feminist story here that I wish Spielberg explored more. Graham has a legitimate arc and method for her madness that sold its best scenes, and Sarah Paulson was also hinting at something more with the little bit she got. If we got less of Ben Bradlee, it might have appealed to me more, but his material did the least for me and I particularly thought that Tom Hanks was poorly casted. I will admit that this had an uphill battle for me to begin with, as journalism movies don't really impress me, and this was no exception. And I still hate the ending.

7- Dunkirk- Part of me regrets not seeing it in 70mm, because when the best material hits, it really soars. But I'm in the camp who doesn't like how much the film lacks character, and found it hard to connect with on the whole. There's enough strong moments where I'm right with it, but not enough for it to fully resonate with me.

6- Lady Bird- I'm just going to come out and say that I don't connect or relate to this one enough. But I'll also admit that it's not for me, and I'm glad that Gerwig made this movie to stand out among other high school movies. It is a little smarter than the lot of them, and I really like how Lucas Hedges' character was handled. And if Lesley Manville didn't get a surprising but deserved nomination, I would be all for Laurie Metcalf taking it.

5- The Shape of Water- I did mostly enjoy this one, but I don't think that I fully bought the hype. My biggest problem with the film is that its attempt at 50's satire feels confused, like it tries to tackle everything all at once despite not being a subject del Toro relates to enough to make it work. That, and the Michael Shannon character has been done much better with Videl. But credit where credit is due, in that this finds a strong human core in an otherworldly plot. It's not my personal favorite, but I do like the idea of it winning BP since it's so unlike usual winners.

4- Call Me By Your Name- While the age gap is definitely notable and creepy, I felt that Elio was mature and capable enough for his age to be in command of the relationship, while Oliver wisely keeps enough distance to know their place. I really enjoyed watching it through, and of course, the ending is everything. Honestly though, it just makes me want to go to Italy even more.

3- Get Out- Even though I stand by its ranking here, I do want this to win just to blow minds. A fantastic horror movie that uses satire and symbolism brilliantly, I'm on the camp who thinks this is the start of something new.

2- Phantom Thread- This makes up for Inherent Vice being a confusing, if entertaining, work of bullshit. It has three of the best performances of the year, as well as some of the sharpest dialogue. I think that I enjoyed this more than any movie from last year, all things considered

1- Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri- Yes, it's a mess. The few POC characters are treated poorly, McDonagh is a little glib with his word choice, and the ending seems confused. At the end of the day, I think this needed another draft or two, and maybe some work with the lighting. But this might just be the right kind of messy we need right now. The characters are incredibly well defined as well as complimented by their actors. And at its best, the dialogue and pacing deserves the Oscar its probably going to win. The backlash hit this one strong, but I'm in its favor.

But away from the Academy, I finally saw John Wick, and it totally deserves its hype. Chapter 2 went right up to my queue.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I've only managed to see three nominees this year, but I do agree with you about Three Billboards being the best (I even liked it enough to buy the blu-ray). I'd also argue that not adhering to a rigid three-act structure is one of its strengths.

But away from the Academy, I finally saw John Wick, and it totally deserves its hype. Chapter 2 went right up to my queue.

The only sentence that matters.

[LumRanmaYasha]

This is the first year I've seen all Best Picture nominees before the Oscars myself. I generally agree with most of your assessments Avaitor, with some exceptions. Here's my rankings:

9: Darkest Hour - A sanitized depiction of history that tries to characterize Churchill as a heroic figure who refused to surrender to the Nazis on moral grounds when in reality Churchill was a white supremacist who committed horrific war crimes, delighted in genocide, and desired ethnic cleansing. The scene where Churchill was treating a black citizen on the train respectfully makes my skin crawl for the whitewashing of his racism. I do think Gary Oldman was good in the role, but this is historical revisionism at its most irresponsibly propagandistic and I loathe its attempts to depict a monster as a hero.

8: The Post - A mastubatory look at how great The Post was for standing up to the big bad government in the name of justice. Oh wow Hollywood you're soooo relevant. Too bad the film doesn't have anything interesting to say about fighting censorship. No matter how the movie tries to imply otherwise, The Washington Post doesn't really break the story because its the right thing to do but because it'd be an eye-grabbing headline to make people buy the paper and increase their notoriety. The story is still interesting, but I never connected with Graham's arc, and what should've been a strong feminist story is instead merely her being pressured to make a decision in the heat of a moment, not for justice or moral reasons, but as a do-or-die risk for her company, which is fine but hard to sympathize with considering she's so wealthy and well-connected it's hard to imagine she couldn't have survived just fine even if the Washington Post had to shut down. That and Tom Hanks had way more screentime than her that she didn't even feel like the main character of the film. I found the ending hilariously cartoonish and honestly do hope a make a sequel about Watergate just to pay off on it.

7: Dunkirk - Never saw it in IMAX so I missed out on the "proper" way to experience it, but I still can't imagine I'd connect with it anymore considering how devoid of characters it is. It's an interestingly made film and the sound mixing is really effective, but since I wasn't invested in most of the characters and didn't even know their names most of the time it was hard to latch on to anything that happened. Tom Hardy's plotline was probably the most interesting and I have to wonder if it might've been better if the entire film was about film.

6: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - I understand why people like it, but I just don't think it handles its themes or messages well at all. It is often funny and refreshingly raw and I do think there is something good in there about its messages about guilt, grief, and closure. But Dixon's arc, while well-intentioned, infuriated me for trying to take a monster of a person and try to present him as having redeemed himself at the end. The forced way they tried to do it, having the two black people in the movie witness him trying to do the right thing and come to his aid, as if that has forgiven him for his racism and brutalizing an eight year old boy, is such a hackneyed way to try and show he's redeemed himself when in reality he's done nothing to apologize or make amends for what he had done to the black community in Ebbing. Considering how prevalent racist cops are and the horrible tragedies that result when they abuse their power, it doesn't sit right with me that the movie tries to say he's a good person for helping to solve the murder case when he's still a racist and implied murderer of black folks himself.

5: Get Out - Really fun and smart take on racism in the guise of a horror story, especially how it depicts the supposedly well-meaning types of racists and the uncomfortable situations and prejudices that black folks have to deal with every day. Really funny and creepy story grounded in something very real, making for a solid modern horror flick that I really enjoyed all around.

4: Lady Bird - Unlike Avaitor, I really connected with Lady Bird's experiences and definitely saw a lot of myself at that age in her. Her dynamic with her parents is great, especially when she realizes how ignorant she's been of their problems and how she's made them feel, which also hit close to home. The subplot with her becoming friends with the rich kids is pretty cliche and the lamest part of the movie, but it's done as well as you can do with those tropes. What really sticks with me about the film is the ending, when she moves to New York for school and is all alone for the first time and does a bunch of irresponsible things and just doesn't know what she should be doing anymore, realizing just how much she loved the home and family she took for granted all her life. As someone who went through that exact arc in their own life...yeah, that hit home pretty hard.

3: Call Me By Your Name - Beautifully shot film where every scene expressed such a powerful emotion it totally immersed me, even when it was being slow. The age-gap is honestly important if only to emphasize that Elio is still a child and this is him first exploring things he's not maturely able to deal with yet. The relationship between Elio and Oliver is as fascinating as it is tragic, and both the scene where Elio's father tells him he should treasure how strongly he loved Oliver and of course the final scene where he quietly cries over the end credits really affected me emotionally.

2: Phantom Thread - A fascinating character study that depicts a disturbing, unusual love story in a really gripping way. This was probably the movie that most surprised me this year, as I could never predict where it was going or had a firm grip on what its characters were thinking right up until the very end.

1: The Shape of Water - The film that captivated me the most out of all the Oscar nominees. Loved its aesthetic and 50s nostalgia. The main heroine is really interesting to watch as a mute woman who can only communicate through gestures and the way she befriends and falls in love with the creature is fascinating to watch, and I totally love how the movie depicts female sexuality and presents her relationship with the creature through a female gaze - as in, she's the one who is sexualizing and desiring him as opposed to the other way around. I also found its criticism of toxic masculinty being masked as traditional all-american values and how destructive and oppressive that is really satisfying. It's no coincidence that the protagonists of this movie are a mute woman, a gay man, a black woman, and a monster from another country and the villain thinks of himself as the all-american white man (and who, of course, is the real monster of the film).

While I enjoyed most of this year's BP nominees, none of them are actually in my top 10 for this year, which is probably to be expected considering my tastes. Though I really wish I, Tonya got a BP nomination more than any of the bottom half of this list in particular.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I haven't bothered to try and watch every Best Picture nominee in a year since 2014 when I ended up being nearly bored to death by half of the picks, and after a boring-ass Oscar-bait flick like Spotlight won the next year, I almost completely stopped putting stock in the Academy's picks.

As for Dunkirk, the reason I view it differently from the both of you is because to me, film as a medium does not have to he limited to the common narrative tropes of story-telling that we often project on it. Dunkirk was intentionally made to give you no backstory on characters, and little dialogue, instead opting to present the conflict of various characters and who they are specifically in those key defining moments of life or death. While I do agree with YMS's thoughts that this film would likely work better as a series of short films as opposed to Nolan's ususal non-linear narrative, the actual strength of the technical film-making on display here is nothing short of masterful, IMO.

As for Three Billboards:

Spoiler

While I'm all for open interpretations on film in general, I really don't see eye-to-eye with Lum on Dixon's arc, not so much on the fact that he's a terrible person, but on what the arc itself actually means. You see, as someone who is a sucker for good redemption arcs, I can tell you that from my point of view, Dixon definitively does NOT undergo a redemptive arc, or rather, he undergoes the deconstruction of one. Dixon IS a terrible person, as the film makes a clear point of, and by the end of it, he still isn't really a better person. If the film actually wanted you to identify him as a better person by the end, it wouldn't feature him ending his story going off to murder a guy in cold-blood who may or may not be a rapist (of which he has no proof for).

To bring up your point about the two black people witnessing his beating, I never interpreted it as a way to redeem him as a racist for two reasons: one being that his goal doesn't have anything to do with race in that scene, but that he's trying to get that guy's DNA to submit towards Angie's case; the other reason being there's no way that he could have planned for their to be black witnesses there, but rather the point of them being there and witnessing his beating is a case of role reversal in which he is the one who is subject to violence (of which he brought upon himself) emphasizing the hypocrisy of his outlook on the black community.

To further signify that this is not a redemptive arc, though, we learn shortly after this that the guy he pegged is in fact not the same guy who raped and murdered Angie. He effectively accomplishes nothing by his actions, which the film makes a point of, and his response is to go and murder that man anyways because he thinks that will make him in the right all the same. You see, a key staple of a redemption arc is that the character in question has to come face to face with who they were on the past and show regret for it and a willingness to better themselves. The reason I call this a deconstruction of a redemptive arc is because a clear point is made of Dixon not undergoing those meaningful reflective beats that define such a narrative, but rather that he thinks he's being a better person. Him apologizing to Red (the man that he brutally beat) is the closest he comes as he does genuinely show regret for his actions there, but it doesn't mean that he has redeemed himself or that the film paints him in any more of a positive light simply for doing just that.

If you were to ask me, his arc fits in to reinforce the key theme of the film, which is a study of how people do terrible and destructive things yet believe themselves to be in the right or have good reasons for doing what they do. It rinds me of something that I once heard in a George R. R. Martin interview in that he believes there to be plenty of bad people in the world, but does not believe that any one person ever wakes up in the morning telling themselves "well, I can't wait to be evil today." Three Billboards is a film about people who believe they are in the right despite their actions constantly having negative repercussions. Mildred isn't depicted as a heroine either, as other films might opt to do. She puts up those billboards as a way to achieve some form of justice for her daughter's murder (who we specifically see and learn was being driven away by her mother's behavior even before it happened) while in doing so ignores how her behavior affects her son who is also still grieving and only suffers more for her actions. She's just as broken and destructive as Dixon despite being on the opposing side of the conflict (another way of saying that no one is in the right in this film), which is symbolized by them driving off together at the end. They are both literally and figuratively riding the same path (which again, will most likely end in violence given their destination; but the film tactfully chooses to leave that last part open and undecided). This is reinforced by the "three" letters that Chief Willoughby has sent after his suicide: One to his wife justifying his act yet we still see the negative effect it has on her despite his "good" intentions, a second being sent to Mildred ultimately acknowledging why she puts up those billboards and expressing that he hopes she will find peace even though he knows full well that the billboards will only worsen her problems, and a third being sent to Dixon saying that he sees the good in him but also that he will never live up to it if he is fixated on his hatred that festered after his mother was left to raise him once his father died (and he still hasn't overcome this by the end of the film, as I've already pointed out).

At any rate, that's just my two cents on the whole thing. Whereas I can understand your interpretation of the movie and what it means,
I personally never saw it that way myself. To me, it's a lot more complex and morally grey than "Dixon's a bad guy but it's all OK by the end because he's good now." To me, his character arc, along with Mildred's, is about trying to do what you think is right despite all outward signs showing you that it isn't. And especially in Dixon's case, he's perhaps attempting to have a redemptive arc, but ultimately he fails at it, and the movie is making that a focal point. It does allow you to sympathize with him in some regard, which may bother you since being a racist and biggoted monster should mean that you can only have bad intentions, but I see it as the filmmaker saying that even terrible people are still human beings and thus we are left with far less clear-cut good or evil characters. Chief Willoughby is probably the closest we come to seeing someone who may be depicted as being morally in the right, but as I've also stated, a point is made that even one of his decisions is brought into question in the narrative.

[close]

Obviously, though, it all comes down to opinions. So just take that for what you will.

[LumRanmaYasha]

I agree Dunkirk is a really well-made film with incredible cinematography and excellent editing, and is arguably groundbreaking in how it chooses to depict war and how viscerally it communicates the feeling of being in various types of life-or-death situations. There's a lot I can respect about it, but as entertainment, it didn't click with me on an emotional level because I never cared about the characters. That wasn't its priority, so the film still did what it wanted to do really well, but it just wasn't an experience that stuck with me.

As for Three Billboards:

Spoiler

I understand where you're coming from in your interpretation of Dixon's arc in Three Billboards, but I don't think the movie was intentionally deconstructing the idea of redemption arc. If they were, they handled it clumsily. Many people that I've seen praise the movie and Dixon as a character have framed it as a straightforward redemption arc, and while they may have misinterpreted it as something it was not, when that seems to be the prevailing perspective on the character from audiences I do think the movie is at fault for poorly communicating its message.

Dixon never tries to redeem himself for his racism, yes. But I think the filmmakers intentionally chose to have two of its few black characters in the movie witness him trying to solve Angie's murder case and get beat for it for an explicit purpose. To me, that came across as a way to say that he's redeeming himself by having the people who most detested him see him doing a good thing and come to his aid after the beating. If the point was to communicate a role reversal and emphasize the hypocrisy of his violence, they needed to be more explicit by making the parallels clear or having characters directly comment on it in that manner.

The comments you've made about how Dixon's arc doesn't line up with a traditional redemption arc and doesn't go through meaningful reflective beats are valid, but that comes across to me as poor writing rather than purposefully done. The film does make it explicitly clear that none of its characters are good people and that they are no heroes in this story, and I like that aspect of it, but it still came across like Dixon was redeeming himself in his actions by helping Mildred and the other characters too easily accepted and were uncritical of that. If Dixon's redemption was supposed to be hypocritical and half-assed, I think the film needed to do a better job at calling him out on that instead of making him more sympathetic in the eyes of both the audience and the other characters in the film.

I've never believed in black-and-white morality and love morally gray stories and characters. And I was loving Three Billboards for the first 2/3rds of its run for that very reason, for showing these characters who thought they were doing the right thing but ignoring the destructive effects their actions had on the people around them. There were no heroes, no villains, and no resolutions - just an unsatisfying cycle of violence and misery for everybody involved. I really wanted to love the movie because of that. But the way it handled Dixon's arc and themes of racism don't still well with me because this movie doesn't exist in a vacuum. Racist cops getting away with horrible violence and murder is a systemic problem with many victims. Did the perpetrators of those crimes think they were good people? Did they do good things in their life? Perhaps. But that doesn't excuse what they did, the system that conspires to keep them from being punished for it, and is certainly no relief to their victims. Dixon is a fictional character, but he represents a very real kind of person who commits very real crimes with very real victims, and that needed to be addressed more directly without any room for misinterpretation. I don't think the movie challenges his hypocracies enough to show that he's still a bad person in the eyes of his community and the audience. Yes, he and Mildred are going off to murder a man at the end of the film, and while I do feel like the movie is presenting that as pointless act of violence that will only perpetuate the cycle, it's hard to gauge if that really registers as a bad thing in the minds of audiences raised on films where people are presented as heroic for killing bad guys. I have a problem with the film not being critical enough of Dixon nor being explicit enough in emphasizing he's a bad person and his redemption arc is bullshit, to the point that I have trouble trusting that they weren't playing it straight. If McDonagh comes out and says that was his intent, that's great, but even then I still think they executed it poorly considering how many people have interpreted Dixon's arc as a straightfoward redemption.

And E-K, your implication that I think that a "racist and biggoted monster should mean that you can only have bad intentions" is insulting. I believe all people are nuanced and informed by their experiences, have their own moral code and sense of justice, and are equally capable of doing good and evil things in their lives. However, as a victim of someone like Officer Dixon in real life, I want to see that sort of character depicted in a way that explicitly makes audiences understand that he cannot be forgiven for what he did and that his redemption is bullshit. That did not come across to me, and it doesn't seem to have come across to most people I've seen embrace the film. And that makes me uncomfortable and rightfully upset when Dixon reflects a real-world problem with daily victims.

[close]

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Dunkirk:

Well, I think we can both agree that this one comes down to a: "either it works for you or it doesn't" sort of deal. So yeah, I do get your viewpoint, but just feel differently myself.

Though, can we also at least agree that:

Dunkirk Nolan (almost no exposition and heavy reliance on the language of film) > Interstellar Nolan ("Love is quantifiable" and I'm going to force-feed the themes of my film down your throat)

Three Billboards:

Spoiler

-That's not the prevailing interpretation though. I've seen other people that interpret the film this way as well (I can't remember if it was YMS or some other internet critic that did a short piece on it; maybe I'll try to find it later). The film isn't even that old yet, so I'm not quite sure how any given consensus could have formed and be the prevailing interpretation of it as of yet. Not that my own interpretation was influenced by any one else's, however I've always detested the argument: "well if other people interpret it this way then that means it's not well done." (To be clear I'm referring to the argument in question, not you). On the contrary, many classic films have been wildly misinterpreted when they first came out only for those stances to change over time. Go look up some of the old reviews for 2001: A Space Odyssey from when it came out compared to more recently to see my point on that.

-Two problems with your stance on the two black witnesses being about his redemption: 1) When you mention them witnessing him doing a good deed by trying to collect evidence, they don't actually know what he's doing. They are seeing the scene out of context. All they saw was him scratch a guy and get beaten for it. We are specifically shown that his motive was to collect DNA in the scene AFTER this one. The guy trying to stop the fight is just trying to break up the violence. Secondly, you mentioned that the only way to make the role reversal clear was to have characters specifically comment on it, but part of good filmmaking is in being able to communicate ideas without the need for blatant exposition. Also the fact that the film doesn't have black characters outright comment on Dixon's actions kind of supports the point that he is not being portrayed as a redeemed man in their eyes. The film DOES address his stance towards people of color to an extent in the scene where Dixon himself savagely beats Red while having an African American witness, the new chief officer (though of course that isn't revealed at the time). What's particularly clever about this, though, is in how it's not a mere case of him beating up a black person and then being beaten by a person of color later on (it's also made a point that we don't see this ever happen in the movie). Rather, in both cases he treats clear witnesses, all of whom are African American, like they aren't really there or real people while being the oppressor of violence in one case and the receiver in another.

-Third Paragraph: It's not poorly written. The film sets up expectations of Dixon to redeem himself but instead has him make multiple attempts which don't lead his character in a clear cut direction of fully good or bad. That's what makes it a deconstruction, in that it takes the principles of what we identify as a redemption arc but applies a more real-world logic to the formula which ends up going against most of its tropes. These points are then backed up with various scenes that play out as motifs, some of which I've already talked about. Again, it's fine if you and others choose to interpret it differently, but I've pointed out and cited specific examples from the film in which the themes and narrative both make sense and line up. So no, I don't consider that poor writing, myself.

-As for your fourth paragraph, that just goes more into the interpretation of the film. While I agree with everything you said regarding real world racism, there isn't a point in me responding to that since clearly the main point of debate here is whether the film handled these themes well or not, which is what I've addressed my side of the argument on in my other responses.

-Last paragraph: Firstly, chill out. I figured that you'd know me well enough by now to know that I would never intentionally try to insult you or your viewpoint on anything. Granted, if it came off that way, then I sincerely apologize as that wasn't my intention. I wouldn't have responded to your point in the first place if I didn't find any value in your opinion or stance on the movie.

Again, where you call the redemption of Dixon bull-shit, while I agree that his redemption would be bull-shit, as we've already discussed at length, I never interpreted his arc as achieving redemption, myself, and I don't really intend to keep at arguing that point more than I already have. At this point, it's based on each of our own personal viewpoints. While I can respect yours, mine is ultimately different.

I am sorry to hear that you've had to deal with real-life racism before. While I myself was lucky enough to not have been subjected to anything more than the school bullying level (which sucked, but that's something that I got over when I got older), I do have stories from my father about the way he was treated by some people when he first came over to America, so it is still an issue that I take very seriously. Granted, the elders in my family have always been very religious, and as a result I was raised to not hold onto feelings of hatred or animosity no matter what. That ISN'T to say that I believe anyone should just be forgiven for anything, especially acts of racism and brutality. In the case of a character like Dixon, though, he's explicitly not "forgiven" for his racism. He doesn't conveniently get his job back or have his life set in order for his actions. Mildred forgives him for something unrelated to his racism, but that's someone just as messed up and broken as he is.

[close]

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Though, on the subject of Three Billboards, I'm curious to here Avaitor's stance on its themes and how it conveys them, being that he's the only person besides me on this board who liked it.

[LumRanmaYasha]

Though, can we also at least agree that:

Dunkirk Nolan (almost no exposition and heavy reliance on the language of film) > Interstellar Nolan ("Love is quantifiable" and I'm going to force-feed the themes of my film down your throat)

EASILY. 

Your defense of Dixon's arc in Three Billboards is strong, and it fits in line with what the rest of the movie was doing narratively and thematically. It didn't come across to me that way when I watched the film, and the people I talked to and critics I saw talk about whose perspectives tend to line up with mine like Brad Jones and Mumkey Jones praised Dixon's arc as a redemption arc and not a deconstruction of one, so today was the first time I've heard that argument. Your evidence for the case makes sense, so I would like to rewatch the film sometime to see if I can see it that way. I have seen the film be embraced and misinterpreted by unsavory people, which I do find uncomfortable and dangerous, but I'm willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt that it's criticizing those people and not validating them. I legitimately really enjoyed the movie right up until the aftermath of Dixon's interrogation of the rapist, so I do want to give it more credit when it comes to how it handles racial violence and police corruption, which are problems I feel very strongly about.

And I'm sorry for misinterpreting that comment - I should've given you more credit to not talk down to me considering how many passionate and lengthy conversations we've had in the past. 

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

No problems man. It's always good to have little debates like this from time to time.

While I am aware that your interpretation of what the film is saying is shared by many (and I'm definitely not saying that it's invalid by any means), I also feel that it's left open enough to not be definitive to any one viewpoint, which is something that I love about fiction in general. I mean, unless McDonagh comes out and says otherwise, in which case I suppose I'd look like quite the fool, wouldn't I? 

Keep in mind, though, I coincidentally happened to re-watch the film last night, so I had a second viewing and more refined memory of it along with more time to ponder my thoughts of it. While I can't guarantee that a second viewing would at all he able to change your stance on it, I am really impressed with how open-minded you are to even be willing to reconsider it in the first place. Whatever your thoughts are, though, it is great to discuss this sort of stuff with you whenever you drop by, just like we used to do more frequently a couple of years ago when we both had more free time on our hands (though in my case it was more because I was a lazy bum who couldn't find a job).

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

So, interestingly enough The Shape of Water is the Oscar-contender that I wanted to see the most but never got a chance to because of an abrupt change in plans in my schedule (and also because the only nearby theater wasn't actually playing it like I thought it would).

That said, I'll definitely catch it when it comes out on Blu-Ray, but I'm really glad to hear that Guillermo Del Toro finally got his due and won best Director and Best Picture for this. Granted, I feel that he deserved that way back for Pan's Labyrinth, but I'm still glad that he got it all the same.

What I've always admired about Del Toro most is that he puts passion into whatever he's making and commits to the feel of that film without any pretentious mentality to go with it (unlike a certain colleague of his). He's the same type of guy who can do an Oscar-caliber film while also giving us a fun Summer Blockbuster tribute to mecha anime and Kaiju films with Pacific Rim or really unique and entertaining comic book movies such as Blade II or the Hellboy films. Come to think of it, he's about the only director I can think of who wasn't afraid to let his comic book movies be as weird as they could be back when most of Hollywood was trying to scale back on the less grounded elements of reality in their comic book adaptations. I've always respected him for that, and the diversity of projects that he has taken on in general.

[Avaitor]

I was going to share my thoughts on the Dixon arc, but I think EK addressed a lot of it better than I could. That said, I do think Three Billboards is due for a rewatch on my end regardless. I was able to catch it a bit before the backlash, and I want to see how I think of it now after seeing a bunch of solid arguments on both ends.

As for Shape of Water, I have to admit that I like its win more for being a sci-fi victory than out of my own personal enjoyment of the film. Although while I'd also say that I'm not a huge del Toro fan, I have nothing but respect for his scope and love of film and storytelling all across the board. This is one of his better works to me, and it's a triumphant love story, even if it's not among my personal favorites of the year.