Calvary (John McDonagh, director of The Guard)

Looper007

WatchWolf wrote: »

The whole

dog fiasco

reminded me of The Hunt.

Who do you think

Killed the Dog, I'm totally confused who would have done it or does it really matter

fro9etb8j5qsl2

Looper007 wrote: »

Who do you think

Killed the Dog, I'm totally confused who would have done it or does it really matter

I'd put my money on

pat shortt but I think they were just trying to illustrate the current general dislike of priests within the communitt, ie, it could have been any of a number of people who did it

MrStuffins

I went to see this at the weekend and, although there were some good scenes (I specifically liked the scene in the prison with Gleeson's son acting opposite him) and it was good in parts, it was not a good movie. It was long, it was boring in parts, it felt like it would've worked better as a play rather than a movie. Some of the scenes were overly long & boring.

There was a mish-mash of different stories involved that didn't quite go anywhere. Glaring misfires

try to dress up the dog debacle any way you want, it was a mistake

and some poor performances.

The more I see Aiden Gillen the more I dislike him. Loved him in The Wire but over the past few years i've been wondering whether i'm crazy or whether he's just a terrible actor. No matter what accent he uses, it's always a terrible one.

Miguel_Sanchez

Looper007 wrote: »

I agree I loved it, don't understand the dislike it got on here from the few who saw it at JIFF, many of them were snotty with the Guard too. I think maybe some Irish films just hit home harder and are a little to close to bone for some maybe I'm wrong but Irish films that get rave reviews usual get looked down upon on here.

I don't think anyone could class The Guard as 'hard-hitting'.

Addle

Millie Mealy Minefield wrote: »

I'd put my money on

pat shortt but I think they were just trying to illustrate the current general dislike of priests within the communitt, ie, it could have been any of a number of people who did it

A very simplistic opinion, but

I just took that incident, and the whole film, as showing that everyone is bad, not just some priests and the church.

Mickeroo

When Gleeson's character gets home near the start of the film

and gives the dog a hug my first thought was "There is no way that dog will survive this film"

e_e

Millie Mealy Minefield wrote: »

I'd put my money on

pat shortt but I think they were just trying to illustrate the current general dislike of priests within the communitt, ie, it could have been any of a number of people who did it

Addle wrote: »

A very simplistic opinion, but

I just took that incident, and the whole film, as showing that everyone is bad, not just some priests and the church.

Neither of those answers are particularly new or insightful which makes me question why such a scene is there in the first place. It's just a really cynical, cheap and manipulative thing to do in a movie. I really lost a lot of trust in McDonagh at that point. It really shows up his flippant and crude approach to his themes.

Looper007

Miguel_Sanchez wrote: »

I don't think anyone could class The Guard as 'hard-hitting'.

But it seemed to rub a lot of you on here up the wrong way, or am I wrong?

johnny_ultimate

Looper007 wrote: »

But it seemed to rub a lot of you on here up the wrong way, or am I wrong?

The Guard made me feel the same way any mediocre or underwhelming film makes me feel, TBH, don't know why my response should be any different just because it's Irish. Why do thinly veiled begrudgery arguments always threaten to derail discussions about Irish film on here? I for one don't alter my opinion of any given film based on its country of origin or international response, at least I hope I don't! Again, I'd really hope the discussion would focus on the film itself rather than the people who liked / dislike it.

If anything, my problem is that McDonagh's films do not feel hard hitting enough. They're not short on ambition, and he's largely unafraid to delve into darker subject mater. I also think this is more accomplished visually - The Guard to me only comes into its own aesthetically during the final minutes, where it takes the form of an oddball action film satire. But for whatever reason he always seems to pull his punches somewhat, leaving us with shallow philosophy, over wordy screenplays and tantalisingly under-explored themes. More than anything, he's playing to a whole lot of different beats, and none of them feel realised satisfactorily. His comedic instincts particularly are way too broad for my liking, and from scene to scene it can feel like I'm watching a completely different film than I had been mere moments before. He's lucky to have a collaborator like Gleeson, who as I said manages to add a weight and harmony to the material McDonagh's screenplays struggle to. I wrote after watching that Calvary is "an intriguing character study in search of a coherent film", and that sums up my response to it.

That said, I'm happy to see Calvary succeeding at the box office as definitively as it did this weekend. For all my personal concerns with the film, I can't deny it's an interesting effort, and pleased to see it overtake Hollywood fare commercially. Films like this are a step in the right direction for Irish film, and certainly can't 'begrudge' McDonagh for creating a film that is playing well to Irish and international audiences alike.

Miguel_Sanchez

Looper007 wrote: »

But it seemed to rub a lot of you on here up the wrong way, or am I wrong?

I can't speak for anyone else but personally I was just a bit disappointed with the film - it certainly wasn't because it was too hard-hitting or close to the bone.

It wouldn't have annoyed me in the manner that say something like Charlie Casanova did.

Radiosonde

Btw, did the film

mix up the nationalities of the couple involved in the car crash? I thought Gillen's character said they were French, but she said at the end she was taking his body home to Rome?

(In total nitpick mode, there was also a bit involving them where he spoke to the woman in what presumably was the hospital chapel, but it was clearly the interior of a church...)

Radiosonde

MrStuffins wrote: »

(I specifically liked the scene in the prison with Gleeson's son acting opposite him)

That was one of the worst parts. Gleeson's son was wrong for the part and

it jammed every filmic serial killer cliche imaginable in there....in one scene.

MrStuffins

Radiosonde wrote: »

That was one of the worst parts. Gleeson's son was wrong for the part and

it jammed every filmic serial killer cliche imaginable in there....in one scene.

All very true. I can't explain why I liked the part but I did. One of very few scenes I liked.

Radiosonde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Films like this are a step in the right direction for Irish film, and certainly can't 'begrudge' McDonagh for creating a film that is playing well to Irish and international audiences alike.

Hopefully it does something for the profile of Irish film and helps more interesting projects attain funding, but it will probably do a lot more for the profile of McDonagh, who I guess will be heading to Hollywood shortly (his Wikipedia page claims he's working on a two new films and a TV series, two of them set in the US.)

Insect Overlord

Radiosonde wrote: »

Btw, did the film

mix up the nationalities of the couple involved in the car crash? I thought Gillen's character said they were French, but she said at the end she was taking his body home to Rome?

Saw the film again last night and noticed that. I'd explain it either as the doctor

just assuming the husband was French as well after hearing the wife

or

his character being a jaded dick who didn't really care about the patient's personal story anyway

.

Davarus Walrus

Gleeson is a powerful actor.

1huge1

The movie was definitely not as I expected but really did enjoy it, especially as its been playing over in my mind since I seen it last night.

I think a lot of the unanswered questions have been dealt with well in this forum, but I am still at a loss as to what

was buried in the ground in the flashback as Gleeson and his daughter were walking through the countryside.

.

Anyone have any insight on that?

Rob094

1huge1 wrote: »

I think a lot of the unanswered questions have been dealt with well in this forum, but I am still at a loss as to what

was buried in the ground in the flashback as Gleeson and his daughter were walking through the countryside.

.

Anyone have any insight on that?

I've been to see it again and I was looking out for that scene in particular.

I'm pretty sure the unseen thing is a dead animal of some sort and Gleeson's character is dismissive of it. It's his dream so I think it's just an enforcement that death is on his mind despite his composed exterior.

1huge1

Rob094 wrote: »

I've been to see it again and I was looking out for that scene in particular.

I'm pretty sure the unseen thing is a dead animal of some sort and Gleeson's character is dismissive of it. It's his dream so I think it's just an enforcement that death is on his mind despite his composed exterior.

Interesting interpretation. I agree

Thanks for the reply.

WatchWolf

MrStuffins wrote: »

All very true. I can't explain why I liked the part but I did. One of very few scenes I liked.

I liked it too.

Domhnall Gleeson is intense and the reverse angle/close-up thing was nice. Very Jonathon Demme-esqu.

Looper007

I read in a recent interview with Gleeson and McDonagh, they are planning on a third film together about a wheelchair bound Ex cop, who's foul mouthed and hates everyone around him, who comes out of retirement after his ex partner is killed to find the murder with the help of a younger cop. could be a load of old hat but a Gleeson father/son team up could be awesome.

TCDStudent1

I went into this film with very high expectations. I was impressed by the trailer and am a long-time fan of Gleeson. However, it disappointed me. In the trailer, you see all of the funny lines. The film adds very little else, although I enjoyed Milo's full interaction with the priest in the church "What you mean, like Sligo town?" was a well delivered line!

I did find myself bored for large chunks of the film however. The whole daughter storyline didnt do anything for me. Also, I was disappointed that it didnt actually go into his reasons for becoming a priest - he was married, he had a child, his wife died and he became a priest. But I dont think the film made any attempt to tell us why he decided to do this.

I wasn't a fan of "The Guard" either. I grew up in west of Ireland and have lived there all my life. I have to say that the west of Ireland I see is very different to the west of Ireland that McDonagh sees. I guess different eyes see different things.

I liked the IT crowd and I love Moone Boy. However, that last sequence on the beach with Chris O'Dowd really shocked me. It was easily the best part of the film and I didn't think ODowd was capable of acting like that. That may be why I didnt think he was going to be the killer. But he was absolutely outstanding in those few scenes, fantastic.

John Mason

Seen this last night, didnt know much about it, hadnt seen any trailers. i was blown away.

Fantastic acting and then there was Aiden Gillin

I was dreaming about it last night, and it is still playing on my mind today, and i think i will for a long time.

Penny 4 Thoughts

e_e wrote: »

Neither of those answers are particularly new or insightful which makes me question why such a scene is there in the first place. It's just a really cynical, cheap and manipulative thing to do in a movie. I really lost a lot of trust in McDonagh at that point. It really shows up his flippant and crude approach to his themes.

I would disagree completely, I think what is going on in the film is very layered and complex. My initial take on it after seeing it this evening (big spoilers if you haven't see it obviously)

First off everyone is dead. They are in a form of purgatory or hell unable to move on from the pain and anger they are trapped in. That is why it seems odd that the same few characters show up over and over in the same spots. At the end of the movie during the credits it shows the locations from the movie, such as the restaurant in Silgo town and the beach empty, as if the characters were never really there. Also at the start the child painting the scene on the beach puts in two men that aren't there, and mumbles something about ghosts.

All the people in the movie are lost and angry and are unable to make peace with what they have done in their lives and what has happened to them. The landlord has no business, his pub is constantly empty and the bank are coming to take it. The butcher's wife tries to cover her pain with increasingly abusive sexual thrills. The man from the Ivory Coast feels anger at the life he grew up in, mentioning the abuse the Christian missionaries brought. The butcher was sexually abused by a priest. The other priest is confused and has no real vocation for being a priest. The daughter is angry that her father left and is depressed (and probably really did commit suicide). The doctor is angry at God and at how cruel the world is, he finds no meaning in existence only suffering. The boy cannot escape witnessing a murder. The Italian woman does not understand why her husband was randomly take away from her. The banker is stuck in a state of finding no pleasure from anything.

The "good people" are not around. The Italian man who was killed in the car is described as a good man, but he is gone. His wife is her until she can forgive his death and understand that it was just one of these things. The bankers wife and children have left and he is alone in his despair and confusion.

Everyone is trapped. They are trapped in their own sadness, living for the moment but unable to see beyond their sadness. When they can forgive they leave. Gleeson's daughter forgives her father and leaves. The Italian woman forgives God for the death of her husband. The rest are stuck and they all direct their anger and frustration at Gleeson who represents both the Church that has do so much wrong but also at a more fundamental level represents the the resurrection story, a Jesus who takes the hatred of the world upon himself. He initially battles it, gets angry in response to their anger. But at the end he accepts it.

Which comes to the name of the movie. Gleeson on the beach takes the anger and the pain that O'Dowd feels upon himself. He goes to his death willing to be a vessel that the pain and anger of the world. He is Jesus on the cross.

Forgiveness is the theme of the movie. The people are trapped because they are unable to forgive and move passed what they see around them. They are consumed by what has happened to them.

e_e

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I quite liked the film and agree with a good few of those interpretations. What I specifically took umbrage with is the cliché of

killing an animal just to rile up the audience and force empathy for the character, which was already there in the first place.

It's a very heavy-handed, ham-fisted way of gathering sympathy from the audience imo. That and the tonal/pacing issues are why I'd hazard to call it a great film, but it is an interesting one full of worthy themes I'll give you that.

funkey_monkey

I've read through most of the reviews here and although Gillens accent was strange, I thought his monologue in the pub was very powerful. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie, and although there were comedic lines, I certainly would not have billed it as a a black comedy.

NoCrackHaving

Am I the only one who found the film a little too bleak? I know it isn't supposed to be a 'feel good' movie but the lack of any 'good' characters or even any re deeming positive features just seemed a bit off. The relentlessness negative portrayl of everyone bar Gleeson himself (his daughter and Scott's character are slightly different) is just too simplistic.

Penny 4 Thoughts

e_e wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I quite liked the film and agree with a good few of those interpretations. What I specifically took umbrage with is the cliché of

killing an animal just to rile up the audience and force empathy for the character, which was already there in the first place.

It's a very heavy-handed, ham-fisted way of gathering sympathy from the audience imo. That and the tonal/pacing issues are why I'd hazard to call it a great film, but it is an interesting one full of worthy themes I'll give you that.

I was disagreeing that he is flippant with his themes and I would highly doubt that was why

the dog was killed. Given how every other aspect of the story has a place and purpose I would say the death of the dog did too

e_e

Its "purpose" was obvious and completely predictable to me. That's my problem, we already get that the film is about a society that's turned against its church (in sometimes completely irrational ways, as the film says) and that scene didn't serve anything to me other than a redundant piling on of what had already been established. It's a complete cheap shot and I feel that a writer/director with more experience would have resisted something so forced and manipulative.

DermotMurphy1

Can anyone tell me the title of the song that's played as Brendan Gleeson's character is driving towards the airport near the end of the film? Thanks.