Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
NoVaNY
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:05 pm

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#76 Post by NoVaNY » Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:50 pm

I would add that Chiron's process of acceptance and self-love is visualized in the film's final moments, with a visual turning back of sorts: 1st you see Chiron leaning on Kevin's shoulders (reminiscent of the beach scene in film's 2nd chapter); and lastly you see Chiron as he looked in the 1st chapter, but with head held high & eyes strongly gazing at us. These images suggest that the path of self-discovery is a shedding process, where you become sort of child-like, experiencing life anew. Kevin is a conduit that would help Chiron in this path of acceptance (we all need a shoulder to lean on), but it was Chiron who selected Kevin as this conduit -- Chiron felt he could trust Kevin in serving this conduit role. Hope this makes sense.


User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#78 Post by hearthesilence » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:14 pm

Not going to happen, but states like this should consider tailoring these tax breaks so that they encourage locally produced art. The idea that tax cuts like these will economically benefit their respective states is highly controversial - it's similar to what happens when professional sports teams get massive tax breaks to build stadiums - but as seen with Moonlight and potentially other smaller indie productions (rather than massive big studio shows), they can be incredibly beneficial as an arts support initiative. Rewriting the law accordingly may make more sense.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#79 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:02 am

This has gotten to the point where it's all I want to watch. The colors and textures and romance of Barry Jenkins' film have given me the experience that some describe having with In the Mood for Love. Really, I think about that shot of André Holland looking into the camera often, just as sort of ovals and triangles that please some deep and unjustifiable level of my cerebrum - and how much it makes me feel like Jenkins is going to provide many more of these experiences in my lifetime. One of the best films of the decade, and of all time - I hope the tightly wound spring of tension that is Moonlight never loosens for Jenkins, even if, you know, of course if will.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#80 Post by domino harvey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:17 am

I think many of the criticisms lobbed at the film in this thread miss their mark, but I suspect the film's extreme elisions and stylistic ellipses are responsible for the "lack" being felt by some here. I thought this was well-made and acted, but it didn't add up to much else for me. I do appreciate that a film this subdued walked away with Best Picture, doubling down on the subtlety of the previous year's winner! I won't pretend I "get" the effusive responses like the above, but I don't begrudge the fans their masterpiece

User avatar
dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#81 Post by dda1996a » Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:44 am

I'm somewhere in between. I don't think the screenplay itself is all that great, as there are a lot of instances of forced writing (like how a scene after Chiron and Kevin first got intimate, Kevin unwillingly needs to beat him up) but the acting, cinematography and how the subdued emotion gets through the barriers into my skin made what otherwise could have been so many things that in lesser hands would become something sickly and ugly into a beautiful film. I do think Jenkins is great at composition (as seen from his short films, haven't seen Medicine for Melancholy) but slightly less adapt at moving the camera. But I did think this was rather wonderful and the entire last part has stayed with me since I saw it in theaters (that final embrace, wow). I still need to rewatch Arrival to see which film is my definite choice for best film (even though Toni Erdmann and Everybody Wants Some are also up there) but I'm happy this film won only I hope this doesn't turn it into the Artist sort of backlash it doesn't deserve. I think not being the front runner the entire time made its win a lot less susceptible to the usual backlash the front runner receives.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#82 Post by Black Hat » Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:36 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:The colors and textures and romance of Barry Jenkins' film have given me the experience that some describe having with In the Mood for Love. Really, I think about that shot of André Holland looking into the camera often, just as sort of ovals and triangles that please some deep and unjustifiable level of my cerebrum - and how much it makes me feel like Jenkins is going to provide many more of these experiences in my lifetime. One of the best films of the decade, and of all time - I hope the tightly wound spring of tension that is Moonlight never loosens for Jenkins, even if, you know, of course if will.
Until now I haven't been able to make the connection between this and In the Mood for Love, but you articulated it well here so thank you that.

The film has grown on me somewhat in the months since I saw it. It's possible this is as much due to my utter disdain and absolute contempt for La La Land than anything else, but I'd like to think it's due to how genuinely touched people were by it, how happy people have been to see its success. How genuinely moved people were to see it be recognized. Whatever anyone thinks of the film I think we can agree that's rare when that happens. Funny how a film about how hard it is to be forced outside into the cold bonded so many closer together.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#83 Post by TMDaines » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:39 am

At a Q&A I attended, Jenkins was pretty nonchalant at people's desire to try and draw parallels between Moonlight and Wong Kar Wai's films, despite him admitting that he is a director he admires and that (if I remembering correctly) Happy Together was the first subtitled film he watched and a pretty formative experience. There's a Youtube video that has been watched a fair bit that compares shots between Moonlight and Wong Kar Wai's work and Jenkins didn't think there was much to it other than so many of the shots being straight-forward and the obvious way to shoot something that there isn't much there.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#84 Post by bearcuborg » Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:57 am

I caught this in a theater last night, and I'm glad I did see it on a big screen. It's really a wonderful looking movie, but I can't say I saw any similarities with In the Mood for Love. Hearing Goodie Mobb in the final chapter put a big smile on my face.

Having not seen the Oscars in some 25 years, I'm still shocked this won best picture, or was even nominated. Apart from being black/gay themed...indie movies like this never receive this kind of attention.

animaux
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#85 Post by animaux » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:17 pm

Unfortunately, I didn't like it.
SpoilerShow
In order to prove an ideological point, they had to sacrifice coherence of the characters and the dramatic components of the film. And I am not even going to demand realism, though to me as a gay man, all of it seemed counterintuitive and false.
Also, the aesthetics are not that impressive. Part Malick, part Wong Kar-wai (in the third act). None of it worked when coupled with the most basic shaky-cam direction and less than impressive acting and dialogues. In addition, many scenes seem pointless and without any dramatic weight.

To return to the main flaw - the ideology that ruined the characters. The film is arguing against masculinity. It sees masculinity as the source of all troubles. Not only aggressive masculinity which perpetuates violence, but also the paternal masculinity of the character of Juan, from the beginning of the film, which the film tries to debunk. It argues that such masculinity, with all its superficial integrity, comes with a price. In order for Juan to be so stabile and wise, he has to be victimizing others. He is a drug dealer. Basically, he is privileged to be able to be so wise and understanding, and it is his fault that Chiron's mother is using drugs. Or, in other words, he can be a wise paternalistic figure only insofar as he is victimizing others. Of course, this is a simplistic ideological representation of the problems of single motherhood. And easy way to clean the mother of all guilt. In other words, everything is the fault of men.

The second act gets even worse. It never gets explained why Chiron is so silent and frightened of every move and of everyone. Is it because he is gay? Because he is ashamed of it? In that case he would be trying to be more macho. Or is it because he is afraid of people finding out? In that case he would try to be careful, to pretend a lot, not to look so obviously frightened all the time. He has zero defiance in him until the moment when he throws the chair at the bully, which is not consistent to how he was previously.

And then, in the third act, his personality is completely different. He has embraced masculinity at the expense of his homosexuality (Why does it have to be either or?). Somehow, lifting weight and becoming a macho drug dealer has made him asexual or lacking in libido (which is completely unrealistic and not at all how things are in real life). And still, he is silent and frightened. It doesn't make sense.
But that is the ideological problem of the film. It is trying to sell us the idea that standing for yourself, becoming tough and resilient (more masculine) is coming at price of not being who you are. However, in reality, it is the opposite. In order to get what you want, be true to yourself, you will have to become more resilient and tougher (not necessarily in a physical way). Every gay man knows that in order to be able to say "FU" to the world and accept your sexuality, as well as to try to find your place in the world, you have to embrace your masculinity, not reject it.
In real life Chiron would be closeted macho guy, but he would be having a lot of sex with men on the down low. Or he would be completely accepting of himself but still careful about people not finding out. In that case he would have relationships.
But as the film portrays him, he is ashamed, yet still he sits in the car and drives to meet that guy from his childhood. How does that work? It doesn't. His character is inconsistent. He is not supposed to be ashamed of being gay. According to the film, his masculinity is what is suffocating him. If only he could cry more, it would be much better for him.
Such ideological message is so unlike what happens in reality. And it is also very dangerous for young men who want to come out. It tells them to basically reject masculinity in order to be gay (as if those two are mutually exclusive). But the main reason why in some cultures homosexuality is not accepted is because people wrongly assume that to be gay is not to be a man.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#86 Post by DarkImbecile » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:46 am

animaux wrote:Unfortunately, I didn't like it.
SpoilerShow
...To return to the main flaw - the ideology that ruined the characters. The film is arguing against masculinity. It sees masculinity as the source of all troubles. Not only aggressive masculinity which perpetuates violence, but also the paternal masculinity of the character of Juan, from the beginning of the film, which the film tries to debunk. It argues that such masculinity, with all its superficial integrity, comes with a price. In order for Juan to be so stabile and wise, he has to be victimizing others. He is a drug dealer. Basically, he is privileged to be able to be so wise and understanding, and it is his fault that Chiron's mother is using drugs. Or, in other words, he can be a wise paternalistic figure only insofar as he is victimizing others. Of course, this is a simplistic ideological representation of the problems of single motherhood. And easy way to clean the mother of all guilt. In other words, everything is the fault of men.
This is an interesting interpretation, but I have to disagree. If anything, I think you could see the film as making the argument that it was the absence of examples of strong, stable masculinity from Chiron's early life that made him such a target for other kids (and why Kevin's influence was necessary), and then Juan's absence in his adolescence contributed to the stunting of his growth toward a more healthy manhood. Also, the film in its third act seems to look quite approvingly on Kevin's more mature masculinity as an adult, which seems to stand as a more desirable counterpoint to Chiron's exaggerated adult persona.

animaux
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#87 Post by animaux » Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:11 pm

DarkImbecile wrote:
animaux wrote:Unfortunately, I didn't like it.
SpoilerShow
...To return to the main flaw - the ideology that ruined the characters. The film is arguing against masculinity. It sees masculinity as the source of all troubles. Not only aggressive masculinity which perpetuates violence, but also the paternal masculinity of the character of Juan, from the beginning of the film, which the film tries to debunk. It argues that such masculinity, with all its superficial integrity, comes with a price. In order for Juan to be so stabile and wise, he has to be victimizing others. He is a drug dealer. Basically, he is privileged to be able to be so wise and understanding, and it is his fault that Chiron's mother is using drugs. Or, in other words, he can be a wise paternalistic figure only insofar as he is victimizing others. Of course, this is a simplistic ideological representation of the problems of single motherhood. And easy way to clean the mother of all guilt. In other words, everything is the fault of men.
This is an interesting interpretation, but I have to disagree. If anything, I think you could see the film as making the argument that it was the absence of examples of strong, stable masculinity from Chiron's early life that made him such a target for other kids (and why Kevin's influence was necessary), and then Juan's absence in his adolescence contributed to the stunting of his growth toward a more healthy manhood. Also, the film in its third act seems to look quite approvingly on Kevin's more mature masculinity as an adult, which seems to stand as a more desirable counterpoint to Chiron's exaggerated adult persona.
I am not convinced. The moment when he stands up for himself as a teenager should have been the moment he becomes self-confident about his sexuality. But the film is trying to make it the opposite of that. It simply doesn't ring true to me. They were trying to make a point which doesn't make sense, I'm afraid.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#88 Post by DarkImbecile » Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:14 pm

animaux wrote:I am not convinced. The moment when he stands up for himself as a teenager should have been the moment he becomes self-confident about his sexuality. But the film is trying to make it the opposite of that. It simply doesn't ring true to me. They were trying to make a point which doesn't make sense, I'm afraid.
I thought, to your earlier point, that the moment he attacks his tormentor is when he adopts his facade of apparent masculinity (or at least some parts of it) instead of embracing and owning his sexuality. The tragedy of the middle portion of the film is that
SpoilerShow
he is presented with a glimpse of a potential path toward acceptance of his individuality and sexuality, and then takes the path of repression and assimilation in the face of his beating (and the mechanism for both of these possible outcomes are literally Kevin's hands).
I'm not trying to dissuade you of your interpretation, but I did obviously find the film much more convincing and didn't see the ideological agenda you charged it with earlier; that said, I'm a heterosexual white guy, so I acknowledge that my perception of the sexual politics of the film might differ from others.

On the other hand, I did grow up poor with a drug-abusing single mother, and to the point raised in your first post that the film uses Juan's drug dealing in a way that "cleans the mother of all guilt":
SpoilerShow
one of my favorite parts of the movie was the delicate balance with which it treated Paula, neither excusing nor demonizing her for her addiction and behavior. Certainly she tries to pass off the blame for her failures to Juan during their confrontation, but I don't think the film buys this, nor does it allow her the complete redemption a lesser movie might have offered after her rehabilitation in the final act.

User avatar
Satori
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#89 Post by Satori » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:53 am

Animaux, I get your critique and I think it's an important one, but I don't think the film is trying to make an "ideological" point. I don't read the film as making a universal claim about what it means to grow up gay; it is a representation of what it was like for one boy to grow up gay in very particular circumstances. It seems to me that are your reading of the film rests on this argument:
animaux wrote: Every gay man knows that in order to be able to say "FU" to the world and accept your sexuality, as well as to try to find your place in the world, you have to embrace your masculinity, not reject it.
I find this reductive because it presumes that there is only one way to "embrace" your queerness. Many gay men do embrace masculinity, but there are femme gay guys too. Would this imply that lesbians can only accept their sexuality by embracing femininity? More importantly, I don't think masculinity can be defined so easily; there are many different forms of masculinity across the gender spectrum. The problem of the "Black" section is not masculinity per se, it is a toxic form of masculinity that is causing Chiron to repress his emotions. Kevin is also represented as masculine in this section, but it is a different form of masculinity that allows him to express his feelings.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#90 Post by DarkImbecile » Tue May 09, 2017 9:04 am

An oral history of A24, for whom Moonlight was the first original production.

Constable
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:51 pm

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#91 Post by Constable » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:44 pm

I rewatched the film yesterday and I didn't understand the symbolism/meaning behind "in moonlight, black boys look blue." Can anyone explain what this meant?

User avatar
Boosmahn
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:08 pm

Re: Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

#92 Post by Boosmahn » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:39 pm

Here's a good answer from /u/Asiriya:
Lots of the revelatory moments happened at night - on the beach of course, but at Blue's house when Little asks questions of him. And Chiron's dream is set at night. Black cruises around hard by day but is weak at night.

To bring the ideas together - there's a strength in the ideal of the 'black man'; the drug slinger, the muscle, the hip hop gangster. But in the moonlight they look blue, and even the toughest has a softness. A tenderness. Through the day they hide from it, put on camouflage and build jewelled walls. At night these [...] vulnerabilities are exposed.
In the same thread, /u/spartan0228 has a different interpretation:
The way I understood it, is that moonlight represents a setting, and by saying that "Black boys look blue," he's talking about letting your setting define how yourself.

Juan talked about how they used to call him 'Blue' because the moonlight made him look blue. When he says "Black boys look blue under the moonlight," I took it as Juan's warning to not let your envoirnment define who you are.

Chiron's internal struggle is choosing between being himself or fitting in and letting his surroundings define him. As we see him in Act 3, he is no longer the Chiron we knew from Acts 1 and 2 - his environment changed him.

Post Reply