robertmfreeman
abr 2006 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Calificaciones562
Clasificación de robertmfreeman
Reseñas13
Clasificación de robertmfreeman
As far as I can see, it's that simple. 'Rabbits' is a sitcom. It's not a sitcom in the traditional sense, or any normal sense for that matter, but it's a sitcom from David Lynch's point of view.
One recurring theme in all David Lynch movies is that he has a very uncompromising vision. Whatever he wants on the screen is what's ultimately on the screen, regardless of whether it's commercially viable or not.
'Rabbits' is simply what David Lynch sees when he watches a sitcom. He sees animals placed in predetermined roles, forced to forgo any passion or meaning, instead focusing on hollow, meaningless lines of dialog, and cyclical patterns of behavior.
Why does the laugh track play when nothing funny happens? Perhaps David Lynch is asking the same question. He watches a sitcom, and after a character says something that didn't seem funny at all, the audience erupts with laughter. The humor and situation are forced onto the characters and setting. It wasn't a joke because it was funny, it was a joke because the laugh track played.
So what's the meaning? I don't think there is one, and that's the point. In order for there to be meaning, the rabbits would need to have some sort of freedom, or control over their situation, and they have none. They're in a situational comedy, and thus enslaved by their 'situation'.
One recurring theme in all David Lynch movies is that he has a very uncompromising vision. Whatever he wants on the screen is what's ultimately on the screen, regardless of whether it's commercially viable or not.
'Rabbits' is simply what David Lynch sees when he watches a sitcom. He sees animals placed in predetermined roles, forced to forgo any passion or meaning, instead focusing on hollow, meaningless lines of dialog, and cyclical patterns of behavior.
Why does the laugh track play when nothing funny happens? Perhaps David Lynch is asking the same question. He watches a sitcom, and after a character says something that didn't seem funny at all, the audience erupts with laughter. The humor and situation are forced onto the characters and setting. It wasn't a joke because it was funny, it was a joke because the laugh track played.
So what's the meaning? I don't think there is one, and that's the point. In order for there to be meaning, the rabbits would need to have some sort of freedom, or control over their situation, and they have none. They're in a situational comedy, and thus enslaved by their 'situation'.
Without giving anything away, I felt 'The Good Son' was a very effective and subtle psychological thriller. It was very interesting to see a modern thriller that felt more like a classic Hitchcock tale than 'Die Hard'.
The Good Son has very little violence directly on the screen, and is far more interested in implying danger and violence, which is ultimately far more effective. No matter how graphic a scene is, it's never quite as scary or thrilling as what 'could' be. By merely implying the violence, and hiding it away from the audience, we feel just as trapped and helpless as the main star.
In the end, The Good Son was quite impressive, and although it's not always realistic, neither was Psycho, and when you consider the fact that all the main actors are children, it's downright impressive how good a performance each of them brought to this competent thriller.
The Good Son has very little violence directly on the screen, and is far more interested in implying danger and violence, which is ultimately far more effective. No matter how graphic a scene is, it's never quite as scary or thrilling as what 'could' be. By merely implying the violence, and hiding it away from the audience, we feel just as trapped and helpless as the main star.
In the end, The Good Son was quite impressive, and although it's not always realistic, neither was Psycho, and when you consider the fact that all the main actors are children, it's downright impressive how good a performance each of them brought to this competent thriller.