Comments | mrdooz: (без темы)

mrdooz

(Untitled)

Jan 24, 2006 10:43

finally watched grizzly man sunday night. big disappointment. at the risk of sounding really insensitive, i have to say it would have been more interesting to watch a documentary character study about that closet case. clearly i don't know the guy, but the film did not portray him positively at all. it made him out to be a complete joke. he ( Read more... )

Comments 9

gruebleen January 24 2006, 16:03:53 UTC

My initial reaction was also "What a fucking idiot! I am so glad a bear ate him." But then I thought more about it. The movie is in line with Herzog's other movies: it is about the madness, naivete and obsession of some men. I don't think it was a freak show. Herzog was extremely harsh on him, so you ask yourself, why did he make that movie? What was so gripping about the story? It is about the depth of madness. The man was singularly determined to live this fantasy life. Not unlike the search of El Dorado by the Spainards which Herzog also made a film about. Grizzly Man was an eerie movie like watching clouds gather.

mrdooz January 24 2006, 17:40:29 UTC

i can see where you're coming from, but i think i would have appreciated the eeriness more had it not been so punctuated by hilariously awkward ruminations by and exchanges between treadwell's friends. that actor guy was killing me: "if it don't scare the cows, then so what? tim never scared the cows, so so what?" jesus h.

tiffster_666 January 24 2006, 23:36:28 UTC

I totally agree with your interpretation of this film, random person :) Although this guy was crazy, I almost admired him because he did what he wanted; he lived his fantasy life. I don't really think he was so much of an idiot; I just think he was very troubled....those are the vibes I got from the movie, I guess, rather than he was just this dumb ass who got eaten by a bear.

cosby_sweater January 25 2006, 00:28:50 UTC

The more I think about it, the more I understand what Herzog was trying to do with the movie. I can't blame him for the dipshits he interviewed. They just happened to be the dipshits that other dipshit knew. Things seemed too staged, like they were all auditioning for future roles. He pieced together something better than the subject deserved, who really was just some failed actor trying to make a name for himself. It has to stand for something when actual professionals are dogging him on camera. Plus, one guy called him retarded. Hysterical.

kates_00 January 25 2006, 22:36:41 UTC

I don't know if you remember me (Julie's graduation party), but I'm gonna comment anyway. I, too, saw the documentary. I actually thought he was biologist until I saw the movie. He really was a whack job and I am kinda glad that he was eaten by bears (sucks for his girlfriend) because he was doing more harm than good.

mrdooz January 26 2006, 00:18:01 UTC

hey of course i remember you. i'm not going to say i'm happy the bear ate the guy, but i just felt like he was so, uh... *troubled* that i didn't feel sorry for him like i was expecting. i found myself laughing more often than being shocked/horrified.

Bears and Berries los_tartist February 4 2006, 20:48:50 UTC

Man, my 'rents were telling me all about that flick yestereday, I really want to see it. I think it sounds awesome, 'cuz bears are scary. I think I'm most scared of bears right after sharks. Which brings us to an interesting debate: In a fight between a bear and a shark, who would win? Go.

And hey, I totally feel you on the disassociation of man and land. Wendell Berry is an incredible writer.

Re: Bears and Berries mrdooz February 4 2006, 22:30:09 UTC

you are so in luck, discovery channel is playing grizzly man tonight at 8.

and see if you can follow my reasoning on the bear vs. shark question. sharks can't leave the water, but bears can enter the water. so this throwdown would have to take place in the water. sharks' skin is made of the same stuff as their teeth, and while bears are godless killing machines (Colbert, 2006), they lose all coordination once they're in the water. and even if we took it to the land, that would mean the shark would have to have, like, a jetpack or something and that just wins it for the shark right there. advantage shark.

Re: Bears and Berries los_tartist February 7 2006, 00:15:20 UTC

Of course! But then I thought, "What if you put the bear in a good 5, 6 feet of water?" With the shark obviously, but then I think it'd be pretty evenly matched. Shark would have the tougher skin and sharper more numerous teeth, but for Bear, he'd have the advantage of years of practice swatting at salmon as well as less resistence from water for momentum. What say you?

And OMG, Tubby Smith totally just came into the coffee shop. Times like this I wish I liked sports.