inverno55 (September 3, 2008 at 8:40 pm)

yuuuu i love the cat

ImDaMan1993 (September 2, 2008 at 12:32 pm)

Lucky Cat :/

Videovuelo (September 1, 2008 at 8:52 pm)

interesting...I love art

Jenkh (August 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm)

to bring this again on a lower level:wanna be the cat ;)

bellerofonte666 (August 25, 2008 at 1:39 pm)

I love Eva: she is perfect, tall, slim, intelligent, long hair. wanna find a clone to make children

SassyBelle (August 15, 2008 at 4:11 am)

It's entirely possible that Noé does do those things, but just not in this film in particular.Unless I'm very much mistaken, the movie's 'productional value' is included in the balance of its merits? (I could use a little clarification as to what you mean by that term, I guess.) I'm interested to hear you assess how this film is avant-garde in method? Its expression (of what I'm honestly mystified) is indeed simplistic, but not in any way that makes it controversial or artistic.

JarlenS (August 14, 2008 at 11:35 pm)

I disagree. Noé breaks the permutations of conventional film-production on the same level as von Trier and those alike. Although not as hypothetical, but much more corporeal and raw in it's depiction of aesthetics (or lack of) - which is why he is often regarded as controversial.You're not discussing this movie's merits, but its productional value, which is ironic, considering its avantgarde method and simplistic expression:) Or did I misunderstand you?

SassyBelle (August 14, 2008 at 1:43 am)

This is no more an exploration of where art meets sexuality than a Victoria's Secret ad. In fact, I think there are some of those that would qualify as art far more easily. (Recent La Perla Black Label ads, to name only one instance.) Noé doesn't break conventional norms here: he actually just replicates them pretty blatantly.Discussing the merits or shortcomings of this piece in no way assassinates its (lack of) artistic integrity: "art" stands up to criticism, this piece simply doesn't.

JarlenS (August 13, 2008 at 10:07 pm)

How can you call this sophomoric?Noé explores the line where art meets sexuality, and does so in a very simplistic form of expression. It touches a nerve, because it conveys a message through a visual language, that you can either agree or disagree with - nothing like child pornography! I, personally, applaud Noé for breaking the conventional norms.Boiling it down to something rational in an attempt to make an argument , assassinates the artistic integrity that this movie tries to sustain.

SassyBelle (August 13, 2008 at 4:24 am)

If the definition of art was simply something that produced a strong reaction, then videos of child molestation and human mutilation would also qualify. So would Two Girls One Cup.To make a film of a scantily clad woman rolling around on the floor with a kitten, edit it badly, and then use a couple of ham-handed fade tricks and then call it art is sophomoric at best. Just because it stars a famous walking skeleton, is filmed in half-light, and has a kitten in it doesn't make it good.