The Song Fight Bulletin Board

i watched this for the umpteenth time last night. man, i love this movie. it's one of those movies i can watch over and over and never get sick of it. great cast. great writing and directing. but the ending leaves me baffled as ever. i'm starting to think the whole enid on the bus is a metaphor for enid killing herself. any thoughts?

oh, and the final scene after the credits is priceless. and i love that middle eastern rocking tune they play over the credits but i haven't been able to figure out what song it is. really good movie.

Mohammed Rafi.

Also: Most of his stuff is much more somber, or, at least, mellow.

And: I loved this movie when I first saw it, mostly due to its spot-on translation of the comic.

But

When I watched it again, I just wanted every character in the movie to smash Enid's face in.

Once the shock/joy of the "good comic movie" wore off, I mostly just hated the character.

I am being redundant, and furthermore, repetetive.

Also: I have noticed I am kind of saying the same thing more than once.

Furthermore: I have a couple mohammed rafi mp3's on my work computer. I will put them in you.

I liked this movie, enough to buy it, then I graduated high school and I really liked it. I don't think Enid leaving via bus at the end is metaphorical for a suicide. I think it's just her accepting her fate, accepting that life changes a lot once you leave high school, that life is change. Dunno.

Yeah, the rest of film doesn't read that way (for the suicide ending) - it's hyperreal anyway (well, not really, but I can't think of the right word this early in the morning so hyperreal will have to do) - as a man in a big suit once suggested, Stop Making Sense.

Good movie.

j$

I saw this a while back and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I haven't seen this movie, so I'm trying my best to read this thread without finding out about busses and suicides and endings and plot points. Obviously I haven't done a very good job. All I know is director Terry Zwigoff directed Crumb, which is awesome, and Bad Santa, which looked... less awesome. I plan on seeing this movie someday.

puce, the movie really doesn't resolve itself so all the talk about buses and suicide, don't worry about it. it's not like it leads up to some big ending. but you're right about zwigoff and crumb, and in fact the crumbs worked on this movie with him, and i'm pretty sure the sketches in enid's sketchbook were drawn by r. crumb's daughter i think (based on the credits). it's a movie worth seeing.

Phil. Redmon. wrote:
And: I loved this movie when I first saw it, mostly due to its spot-on translation of the comic.

Hahaha...One of the reasons that his movie got on my nerves was because it wasn't a spot-on translation of the comic....But maybe that's just because I had fallen in love with the comic to the point where no translation could do it justice. One of the things that felt weird was that Clowes inserted a lot ideas of from his other works into the film (Art School Confidential, Feldman, Gynecology). I mean, the entire Steve Buscemi character wasn't even in the original, and played such a big part in the movie...And its not like I don't enjoy the sentiment behind his character, I just feel like focusing on it distracted from what I thought was going to be the story of a relationship between two girls (Scarlett Johansson's character felt almost absent at times)...It was a pretty good movie, though....I can't wait for Art School Confidential

I'm also not sure if you're supposed to like Enid.

Saw it tonight. [Good]

The music is fantastic. Never have I seen a movie feature Skip James so prominently.

nicegeoff wrote:One of the reasons that his movie got on my nerves was because it wasn't a spot-on translation of the comic....

Ditto. Their sexual relationship in the movie turned it into just another old-guy-obsessed-with-teenage-girl thing for me. Which is lame, and oh so very done.

Y'know?

reve wrote:

nicegeoff wrote:One of the reasons that his movie got on my nerves was because it wasn't a spot-on translation of the comic....

Ditto. Their sexual relationship in the movie turned it into just another old-guy-obsessed-with-teenage-girl thing for me. Which is lame, and oh so very done.

Y'know?

i don't agree with this at all. seymour never shows any sexual interest at all in enid until the end of the movie, when she basically throws herself at him, more out of spite for her loneliness and frustration to find acceptance. seymour actually shows very little interest in enid at all until then. she's the one who suggests that she could move in, fills his head with a pipe dream, then mindfucks him back into therapy. i never read the comic but i agree the relationship between enid and rebecca is never really developed in the movie, instead focusing primarily on enid and seymour.

jack shite wrote: seymour never shows any sexual interest at all in enid until the end of the movie, when she basically throws herself at him,

Right. This is my point. In my brevity I failed to outline my point clearly.

This comic was written by a man. It was written by a guy who's pretty much like Seymour, actually. There have been lots of books, movies, etc. written about a middle aged guy (who's usuall shares an uncanny similarity to the author) who befriends a teenage girl and then they wind up humping. It doesn't work out in the long run because the teenage girl -- while always smart -- isn't as mature as she thinks she is, or as the guy is, depending on how you take it.

But however you take it, there's a weird lolita fantasy thing going on. Which is both creepy and weird. It's even more creepy and weird when you have the middle aged male author writing about how this teenage girl throws herself sexually on the middle aged male protagonist.

Now, when I say "old-guy-obsessed-with-teenage-girl thing," the guy I'm referring to I'm talking about the author of the work, not the male protagonist.

Ghost World the comic was unique because the old guy DIDN'T fuck the teenage girl -- usually they do. It was so well received by female critics (I thinK) in part because they DIDN'T hump. It was just an awkward tale from a third party observer.

But in the movie, they go down that road. And that really changes the whole story (and the point of teh story) for me.

Loved this movie. A+.

I don't think it's a metaphor for suicide at the end, especially b/c the rest of the movie is so straightforward. I think she just takes off. A common blues line is:

"If I feel tomorrow like I feel today,
I'm gonna pack my suitcase and make my getaway."

I think the movie was basically about the blues. And I think in some ways, they described it much better than that documentary on TV a couple years ago.

Bad Santa, BTW, is nowhere near as good as GW or Crumb. You can tell it wasn't a Zwigoff brainchild from the start. As for Louie Bluie, it doesn't seem to be too popular with video stores.

reve wrote:This comic was written by a man. It was written by a guy who's pretty much like Seymour, actually. There have been lots of books, movies, etc. written about a middle aged guy (who's usual shares an uncanny similarity to the author) who befriends a teenage girl and then they wind up fucking. But however you take it, there's a weird lolita fantasy thing going on. Which is both creepy and weird. It's even more creepy and weird when you have the middle aged male author writing about how this teenage girl throws herself sexually on the middle aged male protagonist. Now, when I say "old-guy-obsessed-with-teenage-girl thing," the guy I'm referring to I'm talking about the author of the work.

Oh I don't like that at all, and here’s why:

1. When I saw this movie I immediately compared it to Harold and Maude, which [Spoiler, I guess] features a much larger age difference. In both movies the two characters are eccentrics and equals who don’t conform to society’s expectations, instead finding comfort in each other. In both movies the sexual relationships are tastefully implied off screen. Both relationships are presented as ‘quirky’ and not exploitive. [/Spoilers]

2. The comparison to Nabokov’s novel is unfounded, as the sexual relationship between Humbert and Dolores is a) the focus of the book (and Kubrick’s film), and b) legally and morally taboo. In Ghost World their encounter is not the focus of the film. A sexual encounter between adults, it isn’t taboo or ‘creepy’ in the way you have described it. It certainly didn’t seem to have been added to titillate Clowes or Zwigoff (Terry made the film on his wife’s recommendation, NOT because he has a hard-on for younger girls).

3. Several things about the encounter I feel are important to note. One is when Seymour says “You must know how much I…”, but stops before he confesses his feelings. I think this is a good indication that the writers do not considered the encounter predominantly lustful. Also notice that although she found a kindred spirit in Seymour throughout the film, the only time she displayed sexual attraction was under the influence of alcohol. She is hardly “throwing herself” at Seymour or attempting to seduce him, which is the more common theme you refer to.

4. Lastly, damn, I thought I’d heard the last of the word ‘hump’ back in grade six.

In Conclusion: Although there is a sexual encounter between two adults with a large age difference, they are presented as equals (friends, even) throughout the film, and no seducing takes place. Therefore I think criticizing this film as a “creepy, weird lolita fantasy” is obtuse. I think Zwigoff and Clowes were wise to these types of criticisms. Remember the scene in which Seymour explains to Enid that Dana can’t understand how they can be friends because of their age difference so she suspects their relationship must be exploitive in nature? That’s how this argument looks to me, like the only thing the critic can see is the age difference so he jumps to conclusions about the filmmaker’s intentions.

Puce wrote:Oh I don't like that at all, and here’s why:

1. When I saw this movie I immediately compared it to Harold and Maude, which [Spoiler, I guess] features a much larger age difference. In both movies the two characters are eccentrics and equals who don’t conform to society’s expectations, instead finding comfort in each other. In both movies the sexual relationships are tastefully implied off screen. Both relationships are presented as ‘quirky’ and not exploitive. [/Spoilers]

2. The comparison to Nabokov’s novel is unfounded, as the sexual relationship between Humbert and Dolores is a) the focus of the book (and Kubrick’s film), and b) legally and morally taboo. In Ghost World their encounter is not the focus of the film. A sexual encounter between adults, it isn’t taboo or ‘creepy’ in the way you have described it. It certainly didn’t seem to have been added to titillate Clowes or Zwigoff (Terry made the film on his wife’s recommendation, NOT because he has a hard-on for younger girls).

3. Several things about the encounter I feel are important to note. One is when Seymour says “You must know how much I…”, but stops before he confesses his feelings. I think this is a good indication that the writers do not considered the encounter predominantly lustful. Also notice that although she found a kindred spirit in Seymour throughout the film, the only time she displayed sexual attraction was under the influence of alcohol. She is hardly “throwing herself” at Seymour or attempting to seduce him, which is the more common theme you refer to.

4. Lastly, damn, I thought I’d heard the last of the word ‘hump’ back in grade six.

In Conclusion: Although there is a sexual encounter between two adults with a large age difference, they are presented as equals (friends, even) throughout the film, and no seducing takes place. Therefore I think criticizing this film as a “creepy, weird lolita fantasy” is obtuse. I think Zwigoff and Clowes were wise to these types of criticisms. Remember the scene in which Seymour explains to Enid that Dana can’t understand how they can be friends because of their age difference so she suspects their relationship must be exploitive in nature? That’s how this argument looks to me, like the only thing the critic can see is the age difference so he jumps to conclusions about the filmmaker’s intentions.

I concur; that was well-spoken. One should also note that Zwigoff and Clowes cowrote the screenplay.

puce:

1. I wasn't attempting to make any comparisons to Nabakov. I was using the word loosely.

2. I read the comic when it was issued as a tpb and saw the movie when it came out. So my brain has had many years to forget the details.

3. Looking at said dates, I realize that would have been about the time I was doing a lot of writing on feminist theory. This mindset may have colored my impression somewhat.

4. I should probably watch it again. Remember the movie Singles? When I saw that thing I fucking hated it. For years I walked around harboring this feeling that Singles was like, the worst movie made, ever. Then (probably ten years later) I saw it again and was like, hey this isn't even a _bad_ movie, let alone the most terribly atrocity ever commited to celluloid.

So go figure.

[Light Spoilers about the Comic]

I just finished reading the comic. It's odd to compare and contrast it against the movie. For instance, many great aspects of the plot from the film (the art class, the graduation, Seymour) are missing in the comic. The comic does a much better job of fleshing out many characters, like John Ellis (who you really start to hate), the Satanists, and Rebecca.

I'm glad Zwigoff decided to make the changes he did, specifically by adding a plot to the story (the comic is episodic and predominantly plotless). I'm also glad he added Crumb/Himself to the story in the form of Seymour, and in doing so combined several male characters from the comic together. But one thing seriously missing from the comic is the character motivation. The movie doesn't explains Enid's actions (like [Spoilers] Why does she have a garage sale? Why does she stop hanging out with Rebecca? Why does she withdraw from Seymour? Why is she always changing her look? Why does she refuse to get / keep a job? [/Spoilers]) even close to as well as the comic does.

If anyone watches this movie and thinks "What was the point of that?" they should read the comic.

Puce wrote:[Light Spoilers about the Comic]
But one thing seriously missing from the comic is the character motivation. The movie doesn't explains Enid's actions (like [Spoilers] Why does she have a garage sale? Why does she stop hanging out with Rebecca? Why does she withdraw from Seymour? Why is she always changing her look? Why does she refuse to get / keep a job? [/Spoilers]) even close to as well as the comic does.

She has a garage sale to raise money to move out of her dad's house. She stops hanging out with Rebecca because she's a confused youth that just graduated from high school and she feels what's almost an existential crisis. She changes her look for the same reason. She refuses to get/keep a job for the same reason.

I just really interpreted the movie as one about the angst that follows graduation from high school and a meditation on the trials of life. It's, you know, the same story we all live and have lived for many generations. With that mindset everything comes together: even stuff that seems illogical or out of nowhere (like shunning Rebecca) is explained by virtue of Enid trying to come to terms with her existence.

mkilly wrote:

Puce wrote:[Light Spoilers about the Comic]
But one thing seriously missing from the comic is the character motivation. The movie doesn't explains Enid's actions even close to as well as the comic does.

She has a garage sale to raise money to move out of her dad's house. She stops hanging out with Rebecca because she's a confused youth that just graduated from high school and she feels what's almost an existential crisis. She changes her look for the same reason. She refuses to get/keep a job for the same reason.

[Yeah yeah, more comic spoilers]

Yes, that is how her motivations seem in the movie. I originally assumed the story was about how Enid reacted to being directionless after high school. In the comic she is hardly directionless (The comic is mostly about her getting ready to go to college). Instead it looks to her relationships with other people (specifically her and Rebecca, their friendship strained by competition and sexual tension) and her fantasy about disappearing as her prime motivators. She was still having an existential crisis, but her motivations had more depth, and her character was much less one dimensional. The ending of the comic is happier, even though it's exactly the same as the movie.

Crap, I have to go read this comic again. The more I think about it the more things tie together.

Puce wrote: [Yeah yeah, more comic spoilers]

Yes, that is how her motivations seem in the movie. I originally assumed the story was about how Enid reacted to being directionless after high school. In the comic she is hardly directionless (The comic is mostly about her getting ready to go to college). Instead it looks to her relationships with other people (specifically her and Rebecca, their friendship strained by competition and sexual tension) and her fantasy about disappearing as her prime motivators. She was still having an existential crisis, but her motivations had more depth, and her character was much less one dimensional. The ending of the comic is happier, even though it's exactly the same as the movie.

Crap, I have to go read this comic again. The more I think about it the more things tie together.

SPOILER WARNING: Why the hell are you reading this thread if you haven't seen the movie or read the comic, you piece of trash?

(that's why I haven't been putting spoiler warnings on my things)

anyway. If you mean to imply that the film is inferior to the comic insofar as providing depth to Enid's actions, I would disagree. I have the comic and I concur regarding the ending, but I think the film just leaned heavier towards that post-graduation ennui than the comic. I identified with the film quite a bit, so even if it was weak comparitively in motive--which I don't think is the case--I personally find that gratifying and more than makes up for any difference that exists.

It has to be said of Clowes, if you wanted to criticise it, is that one of his weaknesses is over-reliance on the post-modern cop-out. There's never an interesting plot development where a striking but ultimately inconsequential image will do. So the fault with the film is it is too faithful to the book, on some level.

Having said that, I like both, in different but essentially the same way, which to me makes it a very successful adaptation.

j$

Blah Blah Blah Spoilers

I like the movie more than the comic (it's more humorous and it has more style), but I wish they had included Enid's speech to Rebecca about how she hates herself and can't move on with her life as long as the two girls are together because to her Rebecca is like a time-capsule of her childhood (that was for the benifit of anyone who ignored my spoiler warning). Instead they kind of condensed it down to a little quirky conversation with Seymour, and I thought that neutered the climax of the comic.

So yeah, I thought the movie was better, but the comic is tighter. They are both quite different.