The Sea Inside

A splendid film. I don't believe that it is the death aspect that irritated many people but the euthanasia theme. Actually, I'm surprised there wasn't even more antagonism toward the film from that aspect. I was surprised to see many of the "pro- lifers" supporting the film- even O'reilly.

Now that I think about it, O'reilly also supported "Million Dollar Baby". What they had in common and what probably sold O'reilly was the fact that the pro and con views on euthanasia were shown.

Yes, I see what you are saying, flyboy. I suppose it's the requesting to die part that has the critics in a bit of a tail-spin. Javier Bardem was so fantastic in the part. I'd seen him before in other films but didn't recognize him until they had the flashback scene in the water.

I loved it. I was a little scared when I was going to the theatre because of the theme shown.
The film was excellenty managed to make choice the main aspect of the movie and I would say as optimistic as the theme allows it to be.
Bardem does an excellent work of making us see the person in the character and not his discapacities.

This film made me not like Million Dollar Baby, the same dilemma is shown much better in 'Mar Adentro'.

If you liked Bardem in this role, try Bardem in "Before Night Falls" (which also has Johnny Depp in an outrageously campy cameo). He portrays a well known Cuban writer who manages to escape to NYC where his fate is written in a similar framework as "The Sea Inside." He was also very effective in "Collateral." Here's his filmography;

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000849/

I felt the film did get a bit melodramatic and was not a perfect effort. Still powerful, however.

I was thinking that a European film would handle something like euthanasia in a more subtle way than a Hollywood film. I know everyone makes a big fuss over Clint Eastwood, but I'm not a fan of his movies.

I saw "Before Night Falls", but wasn't particularly convinced by the film. I think part of the problem was Julian Shnabel directed it, and he's at the top of the pyramid when it comes to being pretentious and full of himself.

Hard for me to pass that kind of judgement as this was only his second film, the first "Basquiat" not being particularly successful with the critics. I didn't find the film pretentious but episodic which let the storyline lag from time to time. It needed some judicious editing which is a typical mistake of a new directors (leave in scenes they just can't bear to leave out even though it could ultimately make it a much better film). Bardem's introspective performance was definitely the high point of the movie despite its other problems.

Yes, Bardem's performance in the film was good. I just think Shnabel should stick with painting. I made the error of prejudging the film because he directed it. Not a good thing to do, I know, but I don't care. Also, the movie was so depressing, and it dragged in places as you have said. I realize saying a movie is depressing is a statement that doesn't fit into the film talk circles, but I don't care either.

One more thing, I am yet to see a movie, a serious one that deals effectively with homosexuality. I had the same problem with the movie "The Hours", I thought that was tedium. Then again, I haven't seen too many movies that deal with the subject, so I am not one to talk. I did, however, find the first "La Cage au Folles" to be hilarious. Then again, that was preAids, when the world was more innocent.

Schnabel is a better painter than a director but I didn't found the movie saddening, not depressing. It showed to what extent homosexuality was dealt with in other countries. You could say that's depressing considering the advances made in free countries in recent years.

To me and without any doubt, HBO's "Angels in America" is the finest effort to date on the subject, even over "Philadelphia."

We've yet to see "Brokeback Mountain." "The Wedding Banquet" certainly qualifies as one of the best.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/

You're way more generous than I am about Julian Shnabel's painting. I meant, he needed to stick with the one thing he was most famous for. Then again, I suspect his talents lie in the selling of Julian Shnabel.

Not nearly as overtly a marketing strategy as, say, Mark Kostabi or on the other end of the art spectrum, Thomas Kinkade. Every artist has to find a way to sell themselves -- the work doesn't leap off the easel into the gallery. Both Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg were showing art in department store window displays before Castelli discovered them. Not that I'm personally enamoured of Julian Schnabel's art, especially when it became too repetative without many signs of evolution. Two films do not a director make -- he's possibly got the potential and I saw it in "Before Night Falls." He is now working on a new film project.

I think Shnabel hit it big with painting and grew tired of it. Looking over some of his paintings, he definitely has something going, but in a sense, it's a mono-theme. I see his influences, ie. Picasso, Phillip Guston and how he has cleverly, boldly stole from them. I think he's got big appetites that fluctuate, hence, the filmaking. I'm not a fan of Jasper John's but the point is, as with painters of the olden days is they painted and developed the painting their whole lives. for example, Mark Rothko, a true studio painter.

When Shnabel first hit it big, I read an interview with him and he was discussing the depths of his eternal love for his wife, he named her name, but I forget it. I don't remeber how long afterwards, he suddenly had a different woman in his life, not the one he's mentioned in the interview. Big appetite, I tell you, and he's famous enough so he can write his own ticket. More the pity for the truly talented people who will never get 1/10th of a shot at that kind of success.

It doesn't even compare and few could match the soap opera life of, say, Frank Lloyd Wright, so artists having eccentric love lives is just typical with few exceptions. As far as artists "stealing" -- in our era the genre is pluralism and there's rarely anything new under the sun. Oh, to be able to time travel back to the Armory Show.

This is off track to the discussion of "The Sea Inside" which again contains a powerful central performance that buoys an otherwise rather routine script for this type of film. I really, again, brought up "Before Night Falls" for that reason.

Amenabar, BTW, also wrote and directed the dismal rip-off of "The Sixth Sense" (which I also was never impressed with), "The Others." "Downfall" should have won the Oscar for the foreign film instead of "The Sea Inside" which also contains an unbelivable central performance.

I don't have a problem with getting off track of the original discussion if it's intelligent. Artists steal, it's a given. I also don't think Shnabel's life is particularly interesting, and my comment about his switching loyalties after swearing his undying love for one woman was not a commentary on the dishier gossipy aspects of his life. Rather, I was commenting on his phoniness.

As for F. Lloyd Wright, all is forgiven because his work had depth and grace.

Despite the fact that I've seen the film once and got was somewhat put off by the script problems linking the episodes of the film, I do agree with many critics who liked "Before Night Falls," particularly one I can usually agree with, Kenneth Turan of the LA Times:

"Redolent of atmosphere and rapturously cinematic, Before Night Falls has a gift for creating visual mood that's so strong you'd swear it couldn't last -- but you'd be wrong."

I just added the film to my NetFlix queue as there have been times when I've seen a film like this when I was either tired or perhaps tipped too many glasses of Merlot.

I've always found Kenneth Turan to over reach. Too flowery a writer for my taste, too pat in his remarks.

Pick a critic -- most of them gave "Before Night Falls" very good reviews. Not that that is the end criteria for each individual. I just happen to agree that it is a good film but not a masterpiece.