The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

[Milburn Stone]

@paramitch: 1. I too have a friend who loved the movie because it was "hilarious." When I saw it, my main thought regarding his reaction was: "What movie were you watching!?!?" Polarization not only exists between those who loved the movie and those hated it; it also exists within the subset of those who loved it, between those who found it hilarious and those who don't know what the hell was so funny! (I smiled at the wit on offer, at the performances of the leads, and also the folk-tale quality; I do think the tone of the movie was gently comic mixed with the seriousness of the sadness that life can be--like a Sholom Aleichem story, as I commented earlier.) 2. Thank you also for mentioning some Carter Burwell scores with which I'm unfamiliar (having not seen the movies they were written for). From his scores with which I am familiar, I put him in the very small category of composers who can do no wrong. 3. And also for the summary of his activities on behalf of all film composers. 4. And also for the link to the Vanity Fair article about composers who farm out their work to anonymous toilers. In the article's list at the top of estimable film composers (implicitly ones who don't farm out their work), it names Hans Zimmer, but I wonder if it did so as a misdirect. (Based on what I've heard/read about his methods. But hey, what do I know?) 

[StatisticalOutlier]

6 hours ago, paramitch said:

Respectfully, this (and the accompanying thread) takes things a little far for me. I didn't watch Banshees (or anything else) on my phone, so I don't dislike it because I'm missing details or too impatient to allow immersion. I also didn't dislike it because I didn't pay attention to it fully nor because I didn't understand it (and this has been a slightly repeated implication in this thread, which is really frustrating for me at this point).

Then you don't fall into the category I described: "When people say they didn't like a movie and it's clear they had not made a decision not to multitask (like, for example, posting their opinion while they're still watching the movie)," or the category I was responding to:  "But often those are not viewers who would have sought out those projects on their own."

Obviously there are many reasons a person might dislike a given movie.  But these two factors in particular--watching current movies other than in a theater, and hearing a lot about a movie a person might not have sought out on their own--are relatively recent developments because of streaming and social media.  So they're supplementing the myriad other reasons someone might not like a movie, not replacing them.

Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it seems to me like the people participating in the discussion here aren't the ones who wouldn't normally seek out this sort of fare.

(And not that it matters, but I've liked and even loved lots of movies I didn't understand.  The Hong Kong crime and wu xia movies from the 1990s and 2000s--I never understand the plots and I can't keep anybody straight and I love them anyway.  So I would be the last person to assume someone's dislike of a movie had anything to do with whether they understood it.)

[Simon Boccanegra]

Just to prolong the Carter Burwell lovefest a bit, how about this beautiful piece? This Coens film has one of his lightest scores, in the sense that there isn't a lot of original music in it. Most of what we hear is '40s pop songs and Beethoven sonatas (Scarlett Johansson's character is an amateur pianist). But when they gave him an opportunity, he made the most of it. Lead actor Billy Bob Thornton said he can't hear this without tearing up. 

 

16 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

And not that it matters, but I've liked and even loved lots of movies I didn't understand. 

Which reminds me that I have an Inland Empire Criterion Blu-ray waiting for me. 

[StatisticalOutlier]

4 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

Which reminds me that I have an Inland Empire Criterion Blu-ray waiting for me. 

Good luck!  I never even attempted that one because I vetted it after hearing about it, and it didn't sound like it would have much fighting or running on the tops of wheat to get me through.

[Suzn]

On 3/19/2023 at 3:33 PM, millennium said:

The image of a little pet donkey choking to death on severed human fingers was repulsive.   I could find no symbolism or message in that scene to justify or mitigate the loathsome, lifelong memory it bestowed upon me.

Yes, this.😕

On 3/20/2023 at 2:26 AM, paramitch said:

As it is, this sense of sameness contributed to the unrelenting dreariness of the film tonally for me. 

No kidding. I just felt like the death of Paddy's beloved little donkey (which I read about -- I didn't watch it) is such a middle finger to the audience. It's just unnecessarily cruel to me, and a shallow ploy to add "depth" and "meaning.

I hated him too. What he does is cruel, and he handles it in the cruelest possible way on top of that. 

To me it feels more like social media can be a breeding ground and amplifier for polarization. Not that it causes it, but that it grows and enhances it, and gives its more extreme/toxic edges places to flourish. People pile on and are cruel in ways they would not be in everyday life. (See also the ridiculously extremist, toxic SM reactions to The Last Jedi.)

Respectfully, this (and the accompanying thread) takes things a little far for me. I didn't watch Banshees (or anything else) on my phone, so I don't dislike it because I'm missing details or too impatient to allow immersion. I also didn't dislike it because I didn't pay attention to it fully nor because I didn't understand it (and this has been a slightly repeated implication in this thread, which is really frustrating for me at this point).

 

I selected only a few points to quote but the entire post was excellent. Thanks!  

[paramitch]

First off, thank you to those who have been so willing to discuss and engage with me despite our differing opinions on the movie! I've truly appreciated the dialogue.

On 3/20/2023 at 6:38 AM, Milburn Stone said:

@paramitch: 1. I too have a friend who loved the movie because it was "hilarious." When I saw it, my main thought regarding his reaction was: "What movie were you watching!?!?" Polarization not only exists between those who loved the movie and those hated it; it also exists within the subset of those who loved it, between those who found it hilarious and those who don't know what the hell was so funny! (I smiled at the wit on offer, at the performances of the leads, and also the folk-tale quality; I do think the tone of the movie was gently comic mixed with the seriousness of the sadness that life can be--like a Sholom Aleichem story, as I commented earlier.) 2. Thank you also for mentioning some Carter Burwell scores with which I'm unfamiliar (having not seen the movies they were written for). From his scores with which I am familiar, I put him in the very small category of composers who can do no wrong. 3. And also for the summary of his activities on behalf of all film composers. 4. And also for the link to the Vanity Fair article about composers who farm out their work to anonymous toilers. In the article's list at the top of estimable film composers (implicitly ones who don't farm out their work), it names Hans Zimmer, but I wonder if it did so as a misdirect. (Based on what I've heard/read about his methods. But hey, what do I know?) 

Thank you, @Milburn Stone! Yeah, I definitely know several who found it hilarious too, but at least among my own friends, it seems like all of them saw it in the theatre, so I really think here, in most cases, the humor was on a certain quiet wavelength, but once the audience caught it, they just kept on laughing at every little subtly funny moment all the way through. I've seen this happen before, and it's very cool. The movie definitely has some very witty wordplay despite the overall sadness (for me, dreariness) of the atmosphere, so I can see that contributing to a jollier experience for some.

On Hans Zimmer, I thought the Vanity Fair piece was pretty eviscerating in a justified kind of way -- that he hasn't written even some of his most famous motifs in many cases for years now, the work is being done by uncredited, underpaid stable composers, etc. Some famous people came up under Zimmer's studio doing this stuff -- I know John Powell (who I adore) was one of those.

You're very welcome on Carter Burwell -- I'm with you on how talented he is. This is one of my favorite pieces by him -- it's just so lovely, and the evolution and build of it is so beautiful. It's the fruition of a theme we only hear building in snippets throughout the film previously, so the final full theme and crescendo is really satisfying here.

The entire score is really good -- it's very eclectic -- jazzy, funky, and playful, but with a lot of lush beautifully orchestrated lyrical moments. (He also transitions between those moments with these very high thin sustained strings, so several of the score's excerpts start sort of "mid-track" as continuations of the previous.)

 

On 3/21/2023 at 5:09 PM, StatisticalOutlier said:

Then you don't fall into the category I described: "When people say they didn't like a movie and it's clear they had not made a decision not to multitask (like, for example, posting their opinion while they're still watching the movie)," or the category I was responding to:  "But often those are not viewers who would have sought out those projects on their own."

Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it seems to me like the people participating in the discussion here aren't the ones who wouldn't normally seek out this sort of fare.

That's fair. I was also addressing the "people who don't like it don't get it" implication from several posts, so I didn't mean to be so harsh at you, directly. Apologies!

And I definitely sought this film out! I couldn't wait to watch it. I was definitely surprised and dismayed not to love it.

On 3/22/2023 at 9:57 AM, Simon Boccanegra said:

Just to prolong the Carter Burwell lovefest a bit, how about this beautiful piece? This Coens film has one of his lightest scores, in the sense that there isn't a lot of original music in it. Most of what we hear is '40s pop songs and Beethoven sonatas (Scarlett Johansson's character is an amateur pianist). But when they gave him an opportunity, he made the most of it. Lead actor Billy Bob Thornton said he can't hear this without tearing up. 

 

Which reminds me that I have an Inland Empire Criterion Blu-ray waiting for me. 

That's a beautiful piece, and so melancholy and meditative! Carter is so good.

14 hours ago, Suzn said:

I selected only a few points to quote but the entire post was excellent. Thanks!  

Thank you! I'm so happy I wasn't alone.

And can I just add that the film's cutesy PR pieces on the adorable Jenny the Donkey just made me feel WORSE? I mean, sheesh, it's like salt in the wound, like "let's watch some adorable shots of Old Yeller playing catch in the sunshine!" (I get it, I know the REAL donkey didn't die, but still, I'm too wimpy for this stuff.)

[Shannon L.]

On 3/20/2023 at 12:26 AM, paramitch said:

Respectfully, this (and the accompanying thread) takes things a little far for me. I didn't watch Banshees (or anything else) on my phone, so I don't dislike it because I'm missing details or too impatient to allow immersion. I also didn't dislike it because I didn't pay attention to it fully nor because I didn't understand it (and this has been a slightly repeated implication in this thread, which is really frustrating for me at this point).

I missed this the first time through the thread.  While I know there are people who didn't get it (as I said, my friend's response was "What the hell what that all about?"), to say that that was the reason they didn't like it is an argument that never settled well with me.  The reason it amuses me in this case is because I've seen at least 3 different reviews where each authors' explanation of what the movie was about was different and each one made sense.  The theme of this movie wasn't as straight forward as EEAAO.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

I am happy to see such meaningful discussion about this film.  I looked forward to it, and saw it in the theatre.  I left with very mixed feelings. 

It was extremely well acted.  The performances were excellent across the board.  The scenery was beautiful and the cinematography capitalized on the beauty and did the great shots to show the isolation both in the sweeping expanse of ocean surrounding the island and small interior spaces. The score was excellent and worked so well within the film. 

I did find that the marketing led me to expect more of an overt comedy based on a sad theme.  The movie got to a level of darkness I was not expecting.  Had I known it was this dark, I likely would have waited to see it because I was  not in the best headspace to be taken into depths of despair and loneliness.  Everyone who said bleak nailed it for me. 

I caught the humor but it was not enough to soften the overall tone to make it less of a sledgehammer to my psyche.  There were some truly witty comments.  They were overtaken by the general despair.  If any one layer of the film had been lightened up, the comedy may have hit better for me.  However, as it was, I could appreciate it, but did not find the fun in the comedic moments. 

As a work of art it is effective in that it certainly raised deep emotions.  However, I will not watch this again, and I cannot recommend it to people.  Yes, there are those great positives.  Those do not outweigh the concerns of how someone may receive the film with it's ongoing despair, bleakness, and overt cruelty.  At the same time, I will share with folks how I experienced it and leave it to them to decide. 

So I am not a "it was the greatest film ever!", nor "burn it with fire!".  It's a middle ground.  There is much to praise but the overall did not work for me. 

There will always be films that will engender controversy.  I see why this one is so controversial. That is not a bad thing.  

[FilmTVGeek80]

On 3/20/2023 at 3:26 AM, paramitch said:

No kidding. I just felt like the death of Paddy's beloved little donkey (which I read about -- I didn't watch it) is such a middle finger to the audience. It's just unnecessarily cruel to me, and a shallow ploy to add "depth" and "meaning."

I'm a huge animal lover, and there are movies with animal deaths that I can't watch again (or at least have a hard time with), like Marley & Me, but as sad as Jenny's death was, it didn't feel like an unnecessary moment or unnecessarily cruel. I felt the whole point of it was to get Paddy to absolute rock bottom. His sister leaving wasn't going to do it. Plus, the fact that it was Colm's finger that caused her death obliterated the friendship and got Paddy to the point he was to burn Colm's house down. Could the movie have gotten there through other means? Probably, but from a writer's standpoint, I understand why it happened.

On 3/20/2023 at 9:38 AM, Milburn Stone said:

1. I too have a friend who loved the movie because it was "hilarious." When I saw it, my main thought regarding his reaction was: "What movie were you watching!?!?" Polarization not only exists between those who loved the movie and those hated it; it also exists within the subset of those who loved it, between those who found it hilarious and those who don't know what the hell was so funny! (I smiled at the wit on offer, at the performances of the leads, and also the folk-tale quality; I do think the tone of the movie was gently comic mixed with the seriousness of the sadness that life can be--like a Sholom Aleichem story, as I commented earlier.)

My first time reading responses online about this movie was on the Golden Globes forum here where a few people talked about this being in the comedy category as category fraud. I had that in the back of my mind while watching it. By like the first hour of watching it, I completely disagreed with the category fraud opinion. I think this movie is perfectly described as a dark comedy. Maybe until he cuts off the next batch of fingers, I laughed quite often. Like that moment where Colm tells the guy that his dad was hit by a bread van, and the guy ends up revealing that his mother died after getting hit by a bread van, and if it were the same van, he'd kill them. 

I know that the movie obviously has its bleak moments, and it doesn't end on the happiest note, but I'm still a bit taken aback to see the movie being described like it's Sophie's Choice or Schindler's List. I've seen far more depressing movies. And this is coming from someone who generally loathes movies or stories with unhappy endings.

[SlovakPrincess]

I don't even know how I feel about this movie after finally watching it.  I loved the performances, and the humor -- for some reason I laughed myself silly when he responded to his sister's letter with "obviously, I don't know what ensconced means."  Colin Farrell's line delivery - both tragic and hilarious - absolutely killed me, he's fantastic.

But ... wow.  I feel like I'm going to have to think about this for a while and whether the folktale symbolism they were going for really worked for me.  

I was sympathetic to Colm realizing he can't piss away the rest of his time on this earth doing things he doesn't find meaningful just to be polite.  And I assume a lot of what was driving this was the "despair" he noted to the priest at one point ... he's basically Vincent Van Gogh, cutting off body parts  because he's having a mental health crisis in an era where there's no adequate treatment for it.  Perhaps he actually follows through on mutilating the hand he needs to play the fiddle because, deep down, the music doesn't bring him joy or meaning anymore, either.  Maybe by the end he realized "wasting time" with Paidraic was not his problem.  But of course now it's too late ... feuds and hurt feelings tend to take on a terrifying life of their own.