Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by egan thomas penney on July 31, 2011 at 7:04pm

the director has said his intention was to show that atheists can be good people. if there's anything this film did not portray, it was that. i liked it a lot, but it was way off the mark if that's what he was trying to convey.

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on October 15, 2011 at 1:10am

I just finished viewing The Ledge (2011) and I really enjoyed (unfortunate wording as it may be) it. It does exemplify how ALL humans have flaws. One thing I often complain about in films is that when they have a pretence of trying to get deep into thought and emotions and realities and philosophical questionings, often directors get lazy and take the easy way out, all is fine and peachy. I would say this film took the opposite route, never did it take the easy way out, and both story lines, though the second much smaller, were interestingly presented.

 

It trumped up only 6.6/10 (oct.2011), only 11% on the tomatometer and Ebert didn't even bother reviewing it. Yet it was in the Sundance Festival's dramatic category competition. Dramatic it certainly was. Being that the world is 95% religious, I'm not too surprised that general audiences didn't like it much. Though it shows all three characters being heavily flawed, from the philosophical standpoint, the focus is certainly on the sheer silliness of religion, and this is not pleasing to the masses.

 

Mostly, I thought the acting was superb by all three leading characters, with my only annoyance being Liv's little girl voice used in the first half of the film.

 

This could do well as a play also. It's very much in the "one-room" style of cinematography, though the areal shots in the film are very well chosen, there is altogether not much interesting camera work, and there was an odd choice of placing debating protagonists in contrasting light. The Christian in white cold light from below and behind, whereas the atheist was generally portrayed with warm yellow light on the face. This reminds me of gimmicks in old Hollywood movies, where the ladies were shot in subdued fuzzy light, and the 'males' in harsher light, with finer resolution.

 

Overall though a very satisfactory movie.
My rating: 8.0/10

 

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on October 15, 2011 at 9:58am

oh and I forgot... the sex was if not pretty steamy, certainly nicely steamy :)

Though Liv was directed to overdo the child voice, I found her character interesting, as though she'd been removed from the living by being with her domineering husband, then was awakened and found a new freedom through her affair. Watching her eyes as she rediscovered her body's sensations was pretty well done.

At the same time, I felt the main character borrowed a lot from the character of Valmont, from  Dangerous Liaisons (1988), Valmont (1989),  Cruel Intentions (1999); and borrowed well.

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on October 15, 2011 at 10:53am

Writer/director Matthew Chapman certainly has an interesting pedigree :)

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . father
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cecil Chapman
                                                                                   

Francis Cornford . . . . . . . Frances Cornford (née Darwin) . . . . . . . . Sydney Chapman
philosophy prof & author . . . . . . poet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .physicist and astronomer

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles Darwin

 

And his filmography, though not stellar, has been interesting to me... usually with strong undertones of intellectual sexuality, which always attracted me. Also his writing has attracted some of the USA's most interesting actors.