Started out playing Hashtag Games, wanted an image of a cartoon lemur for one of my entries, and though I settled on King Julien the 13th from Madagascar, up came the lemurs from the movie #Flow , and that's when I went down that particular rabbit hole because since it won an Oscar and has been shown several times to wide audiences between then and now, there's a ton of reviews/analyses out there, many of which tried to explain this event or that regarding multiple scenes that were, quite frankly, wide open for interpretation. I know each time I watched the movie, my interpretation changed.
Each time I saw something I hadn't noticed previously, and so when I read about the strange case of the ending, regarding the Secretary Bird in particular, there were also multiple off-base interpretations where the analyst read entirely too much of his own making into the story....and so here I sit, reading all these reviews which add so many different things into the movie that weren't there. Wow.
Flow is a trippy movie even when you're stone cold sober, so I can only imagine what it might be to a heavily inebriated person...like...completely mind-blowing.
#MovieReview
Tom Grzybow likes this.
Radio Free Trumpistan
in reply to Radio Free Trumpistan • •Reading the reviews of what other people saw in #Flow is trippy in its own right--they come in a wide variety of interpretations. In a sense, Flow was a movie-making game-changer in the context of what aspiring filmmakers learn in any given workshop presented at any given small-ish film festival. If one of them had turned in a work like Flow in response to a homework assignment on transition techniques, he'd flunk. Also would pull maybe a C+ in a Foley class.
Multiple transitions in Flow were starkly abrupt without any flow in context, but that's just the thing that left the film so wiiiiiiiiiiide open for personal interpretation, despite being so jerky. It does something else other filmmakers just don't do at all is focus on the detail of the surroundings, not the actors. It's widely said that it's the cat that's the protagonist, but sorry, folks--the star of the film is the water. Sure, you could call the water the antagonist--however, while there's character development in how changes occur in the 4 animals
... show moreReading the reviews of what other people saw in #Flow is trippy in its own right--they come in a wide variety of interpretations. In a sense, Flow was a movie-making game-changer in the context of what aspiring filmmakers learn in any given workshop presented at any given small-ish film festival. If one of them had turned in a work like Flow in response to a homework assignment on transition techniques, he'd flunk. Also would pull maybe a C+ in a Foley class.
Multiple transitions in Flow were starkly abrupt without any flow in context, but that's just the thing that left the film so wiiiiiiiiiiide open for personal interpretation, despite being so jerky. It does something else other filmmakers just don't do at all is focus on the detail of the surroundings, not the actors. It's widely said that it's the cat that's the protagonist, but sorry, folks--the star of the film is the water. Sure, you could call the water the antagonist--however, while there's character development in how changes occur in the 4 animals that remain together in the end, it's the water that experiences character development as the giver of life. While it carries with it mighty epic destruction, it also carries with it its own mighty marvelous life.
And the key to surviving epic disasters is learning something new AND pitching in on the survival of others.
Tom Grzybow likes this.