*** Official MONSTER'S BALL Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jason_Els]

Forgive me because I just finished watching this and I loathed every second of it. Yes Halle Berry was good, yes Billy Bob Thornton was surprisingly good, and so was Peter Boyle and Heath Ledger. The film is well-directed and told with sparing detail. I liked the mechanics of it. Afterward I even went to read Ebert to find out he gave it 4 stars because of its technical merit, not because it was a good movie.
What bothered me besides the morose mood and empty music was that when it was all over I couldn't care a whit about any of the people in it. Every adult throws away their children until these two people collapse on each other for no other reason than they happen to be at hand. Neither of these people are anyone I would care to know. Isn't there are rule in movie making to always make at least one character identifiable with the audience? To me this came off as a Bergmanesque study in desperate lives. It's like Iron Weed without the singing heroine.
It seemed to be an exercise in technical excellence without making any attempt to be entertaining or engrossing. Through the whole movie I was aware I was watching a movie. I had no desire to enter the world or feel anything for it.
Which leads me to wonder. At what point does film become merely an exercise in technique? Like figure skaters doing school figures you can see the talent but the artistry, the reason for the audience to be there, goes away. I have the disturbing feeling that Monster's Ball is an autopsy taking place in hall of Greek sculpture. It could exist in a box and fulfill its purpose because it doesn't appear to make any connection with the audience. Nothing is resolved, nothing is left to contemplate afterward, nothing is made to be relevant to our lives.
I wanted to like this film but it repulses me in so many ways (the gratuitous execution scene that doesn't add anything relevant to the plot) that I can't imagine it being enjoyable. I want to enjoy the cinematic experience whether the theme is comedy, tragedy, avant garde, or documentary in nature. Monster's Ball didn't accomplish any of those things for me and so, no matter how well-executed (yeah that's a pun), it failed as a source of entertainment.
It gets a 8 from me for technical merit but 0 on the movie quality scale.
Anyone else?

 

[DanaA]

I thought Monster's Ball was a very good, not great, movie. With regards to Ebert, I've seen him laud the movie several times and not just for technical merit. Because of Ebert's enthusiasm, I think I went in with too high expectations and was bound to be disappointed, which I was to a degree. I really need watch it again to judge it more fairly. I may just end up appreciating it a lot more, but, then again, my reaction might now change. I certainly can understand your view of the film, although a few of the scenes, such as those involving Halle and her son, the relationship that develops between Thornton and the father of the boys he goes after in the first part of the film, and Boyle's reaction to Halle, impacted me on an emotional level. I, while appreciating her effort, didn't think Halle deserved the Oscar. In my eyes, a certain young lady from Mulholland Drive did.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Isn't there are rule in movie making to always make at least one character identifiable with the audience?

I identified quite well with some elements (although certainly not all) of both Billy Bob's and Halle's characters, and those elements were quite touching to me.

DJ

 

[Edwin-S]

This movie was entirely boring. The pacing was so brutally slow that after awhile all you could think was....when does it end. I would like to know is there some unwritten rule for making relational dramas that states everything should crawl at a such a pace that it starts to feel like someone is dragging their fingernails across a chalkboard?

I was told that the "Sweet Hearafter" was a boring film. I took it out and watched it and to my surprise I found the film was actually quite good. The pacing of that movie was not particularly fast but at least it maintained enough momentum to keep a person interested. I cannot say the same for "Monster's Ball".

You have a guy who is so insensitive that he

watches his own son blow himself away without so much as flinching. He then demonstrates his contempt and dislike for his son at the funeral, which continues to show what an insensitive prick he really is.

Then later on just suddenly

changes his spots and becomes a shoulder to cry on for Berry's character when her son is killed in a hit and run.

Totally believable......yeah....right.

Then it is another totally believable thing that a mother

who has just lost her son is going to go home with Mr. "sensitive" and 10 min. later she has already forgotten her son and ends up F...ing Mr. "Sensitive".


Not only is it pathetic storytelling.....it's sick.

There was someone who mentioned that these two people change their lives. I did not see any evidence that these people actually change their lives. By the end of the movie all that happens is two entirely f'd up losers end up with each other due to circumstances and end up tolerating each other because they have nothing better to look forward to.

IMO, of course.

 

[LaMarcus]

Wow, that was brutal, lol.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The characters have disappeared into the mysteries of the heart. "Monster's Ball" demonstrates that to explain all its mysteries, a movie would have to limit itself to mysteries that can be explained. As for myself, as Leticia rejoined Hank in the last shot of the movie, I was thinking about her as deeply and urgently as about any movie character I can remember.

Ebert listed Monster's Ball as the best film of 2002, which should confirm that he found much more in it than technical merit. Comments in this thread confirm that many people found it moving and powerful. If you want to talk about purely "technical" exercises, there are many better examples in the Hollywood mainstream.
M.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Afterward I even went to read Ebert to find out he gave it 4 stars because of its technical merit, not because it was a good movie.

I was also puzzled by this comment as I hardly remember Ebert's review of this film as focusing on its technical merits at all. Therefore, I re-read it and I would have to agree with Michael that Ebert's review was anything but that.

The film's narrative and content far surpasses anything the film has to offer when it comes to technical merits.

~Edwin

 

[Damin J Toell]

Then it is another totally believable thing that a mother

That wasn't exactly romantic sex and she hadn't forgotten her son (or her husband) at all.

DJ

 

[Holadem]

Exactly. It is akin to that kiss in Gladiator that pissed me off so much. Only much later did I realise that romance was nowhere close to being the motivation in those action. They were made out of extreme loneliness and desperation.

She just "wants to feel good". Her universe which was already shaky, had just collapsed. Can't blame her...

--

Holadem

 

[Jason_Els]

As for myself, as Leticia rejoined Hank in the last shot of the movie, I was thinking about her as deeply and urgently as about any movie character I can remember.

-- Roger Ebert
Well yeah Roger, she sure was needy. Yup. Needy is what she was alright. But what does that say to me about my life? Where does that make me part of the process? What conclusions can I draw? Can I expect what would have happened and, more importantly, can I draw any lessons from it? I left the film not giving a whit about either of them and feeling deeply that this was so depressing it wasn't worth the rental fee. I nearly shut it off, I should have shut it off, I kept thinking, 'Ebert says it's great', stick with it. I even paused the film 2 minutes before the end to get some ice cream thinking it had to go on longer.
This isn't comedy, it's drama. I expect to see character development, not just study. I would say that if there was a climax it was when Leticia discovered the drawings in Sonny's room but it goes nowhere after that. It's only half a climax with no denouement.
I suspect Roger, and other viewers, did dismiss the past of Leticia and Hank. The film tries to make you forget who these people are and what they have done; tries to make you feel sympathy for them when their actions are so entirely heinous they can't even forgive themselves-- except at the end. After Leticia discovers the drawings she has a hissy fit but then seems to resolve that it makes little difference since they are both monsters they deserve each other. As they both sweep their own pasts under the rug so they begin to sweep each other's. When they cannot forgive themselves they have to forgive each other out of need, not love. Yet what will happen when Leticia find's out Hank's behavior during and after Sonny's death? What will Hank do when he discovers Letitia beat her son? When he learns Leticia had so little grace and compassion as to completely shut-out her husband at their final meeting? When Leticia learns Hank was/is a hard-core racist (this isn't resolved)? All of these things are unresolved and by not resolving them the film is saying they don't matter. And if they don't matter then responsibility, growth, compassion, atonement, and morality don't matter either. In supporting characters this doesn't usually matter much but in the two leads, in this case, it serves to make them repulsive. As their characters and their relationship goes nowhere so does the film.

 

[Edwin-S]

That wasn't exactly romantic sex and she hadn't forgotten her son (or her husband) at all.

------------------------------------------------------------

Well, in all fairness I never said that they had romantic sex. I just personally found it unbelievable that she would engage in sex at all.....romantic or otherwise. Nowhere in that sex scene did I see any indication that she was thinking of her son or her husband. To all intents and purposes, for me, she had "forgotten" that her son had just a few hours earlier been killed.

I have watched two people close to me die. I do not find it believable in any way, shape or form, that a person who watched someone close to them die would be in any mental condition to engage in sexual conduct......romantic or otherwise. This would be even more true of a parent who had just watched their child die.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I agree with him. Roger doesn't say though, where that empathy is supposed to come from. I didn't have it.

But obviously others did. The quotes from Ebert were offered merely to demonstrate that his favorable review wasn't based on technical merits, as you initially asserted. You no longer appear to be pressing that point.

One of the most interesting things about films that don't fit genre cliches and are primarily about character is the wide range of reactions they elicit. I suspect it's because, unlike a "formula" picture, such films depends very heavily on what each audience member brings to the movie in life experience and general orientation. You and I viewed the same images and heard the same dialogue, but it's obvious that we each experienced a very different film.

M.

 

[Robert Crawford]

That's hitting the nail on the head!
Crawdaddy

 

[Jason_Els]

As I read Roger's review that's what immediately struck me. There was next to nothing about the value of the film though he commented extensively on the plot, characters, camera work, and directing.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Perhaps you didn't see it that way because you don't share his view of the film. But when a reviewer says that a film has "the complexity of great fiction" and invokes comparisons to authors like Welty and Carver, it's clear he sees something more than mere technical merit.

M.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Funny, I did see the "complexity of great friction" in this film.

 

[Allen Hirsch]

I think that's exactly WHY she needed sex at that point - to "forget" temporarily the pain in her life of the deaths around her. Or, if you prefer, you could see it as a natural life-affirming act - like she needed to do something that let her know she was still alive, and at the same time be "lost" in it - to block out the pain of her loss.

I don't see her actions as unbelievable at all, if you view her actions as coming from either of those perspectives or motives.

 

[Richard Kim]

One thing that confuses me about this film:

Towards the end, when Leticia finds out that Hank was the prison guard that participated in her husband's execution, she's absolutely devestated, but we see earlier that she does not love him, and only visits him for here son's sake. Why such a reaction if she doesn't give a shit about him?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Towards the end, when Leticia finds out that Hank was the prison guard that participated in her husband's execution, she's absolutely devestated, but we see earlier that she does not love him, and only visits him for here son's sake. Why such a reaction if she doesn't give a shit about him?

Leticia's treatment of her husband during the prison visit might've been the result of years of preparing herself for the fact that he would be executed. This doesn't necessarily mean she didn't really love him, just that she learned to deal with what was coming. Seeing those drawings may have broken the barriers she had set up for herself.

DJ

 

[Jason_Els]

And the converse of that is true. The whole world isn't me either. I judge a movie solely on what it means to me. I paid my money to rent the thing and I like getting my money's worth. I don't feel I did. Some people got together, made a movie, and offered it for people to see hoping to please them. They're going to have accept the accolades and the raspberries as they come. I'm booing long and loudly. If the applause drowns out my boos then so be it. But don't tell me I'm not entitled to my opinion or that I shouldn't share it with others; that's what this forum is about.
I respect a great deal of Roger Ebert's opinions and I think he's probably the best living film reviewer. How and why he liked Monster's Ball I thought was poorly fleshed out as his review proclaimed how good the various parts were but neglected to say why he liked it-- if indeed he did like it. He admired the acting, direction, and script but didn't say why he liked it. I can admire the technology, efficiency, and astounding power of a nuclear missile but that doesn't mean I like the thing.