a very good movie, but visually ugly. I think that was obviously done on purpose. thoughts?
shareDirector Tucker explained he didn't want to use typical colors and angles in Hollywood movies that would distract the eye too much. He shot the entire movie with handheld cameras and different grade film.
shareYou are right and wrong; It was an ugly film, but it was trying to prove that a film can be visually ugly and still be so beautifully touching...
When the speeding melon hits the wall, it is Christmas for the crows...
What! You're not simple for thinking that. From reading the other posts, clearly the director had that intention in mind, very interesting! I actually thought this too, it had a slightly garish and surreal quality to it, I even wondered if it was set in the 80's. I think the explanation of finding the film touching despite this is beautiful and it definitely had a sense of natural chaos and unperfection, humanity.
shareWhat do you consider ugly about it?
For it's budget, I thought it looked pretty fine particularly the Kentucky scenes.
I thought it was quite visually beautiful. Aside from the story and acting, the look of the images themselves is one of the film's strengths.
The thing that I thought was not pretty was Bree's make-up, but automatically assumed it was done on purpose because not every man can simply apply make-up and look like a woman, and applying make-up is an art that even some women cannot master, or can't be bothered to. Bree looks very pale and certainly would have looked more like a woman if she had worn some eyeliner or mascara. She clearly was not wearing any, on purpose.
Only when she's settled in at her parent's house does she look better. And oddly enough, if the director didn't want the movie to look pretty for whatever reason, he certainly didn't apply that to the Austin scenes (or wherever Bree's parents live, can't remember now).