'Safe' | Critics' Picks | The New York Times
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 09. 2009
- A.O. Scott reviews Todd Haynes' 1995 film about a California woman's descent into either illness or madness.
Related Article: bit.ly/3k5kJ3
Subscribe to the Times Video newsletter for free and get a handpicked selection of the best videos from The New York Times every week: bit.ly/timesvideonewsletter
Subscribe on CZcams: bit.ly/U8Ys7n
Watch more videos at: nytimes.com/video
---------------------------------------------------------------
Want more from The New York Times?
Twitter: / nytvideo
Facebook: / nytimes
Google+: plus.google.com/+nytimes/
Whether it's reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, New York Times video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. It's all the news that's fit to watch. On CZcams.
'Safe' | Critics' Picks | The New York Times
/ thenewyorktimes - Zábava
incredible film. you really shouldn't show the ending of a movie in a review though. just saying.
Yeah, if you're interested in his pitch then stop watching, he does it a lot.
Todd "The Postmodernist Sirk" Haynes is absolutely amazing.
Amazing movie. Been waiting for it to be released, and subsequently rediscovered by a lot more people, on Criterion since forever. Because you know it's gonna.
God Julianne Moore...What a terrific actress.
She really is. Very pretty too.
The HIV+ guru is the clue-- Safe is really about the AIDS crisis and its profound destruction of human connectedness and intimacy in the 80s and 90s.
That’s certainly at least partially what it’s about. Haynes was positive when writing and directing the film.
This film had the most open-ended ending ever.
Yeah, it's kind of open to interpretation as to whether the ending is optimistic or not. I tend to think "not;" it literally ends with Carol in a bubble, talking to herself.
@@tomh.2405 But she is saying 'I love you' to herself, which the other woman there told her helped her heal.
@@phototristan Fair enough. Either interpretation is defensible. I guess this film has just always seemed so generally cynical to me that it's hard for me to imagine Todd Haynes intending a sunny conclusion. Can you and I at least agree that it's a great film, in that it's making us think and then have a conversation like this one? How many movies can you say that about?
This is one of the best American films of the past 25 years, and I usually don't like Haynes. Brilliant, disturbing stuff.
If you like Safe and its modern paranoia, you should watch William Friedkin's Bug (2006). Michael Shannon and Ashley Judd are stunning in it.
It’s not paranoia if it’s real. I haven’t seen but the very beginning of this move about chemical sensitivities because honestly it was so very slow moving. But I have Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and I get nose bleeds, turn pale, immediately poisoned, vomit, cough, nose running, all kinds of things from a long list of every day chemicals and I’m pretty sure paranoia can’t cause Glade Plug ins’s acids to disintegrate my nasal passageways lolololol
If anything, having MCS and having reasonable fears about it wouldn’t be paranoia but complex PTSD as it’s a very real, reoccurring harm that is definitely going to keep happening.
The most under promoted movie ever , not since Seconds with Rock Hudson has there been such a powerful movie about the modern tragedy
I love Seconds!
Seconds is amazing!
Underrated and massively accurate gem.
🎯
Just watched this tonight from the new Criterion edition. Wow
BRILLIANT film!!! One of my all time favorites.
This film is now.
ikr 😭
I agree. I like his other films, but Safe is in a league of its own.
all time fave
In my opinion CArol's tragedy is more than the environment. It's the people she needs to be safe from. It's very much what Simone de Beauvoir means in "Le Mal c'est les Autres:" In the end Carol finds safety apart, not only from everything, but most of all from everybody.
You mean Sartre with his "L'enfer c'est les autres" ?
Is it safety? Carol is entirely, completely alone, yet still doomed to suffer and die. Her only hope is a loose sense of self love she still knows will not actually save her. Carol is entirely unable to do anything, but bide her time until she ends up exactly like Lester or Mel's husband.
Sparkle motion!
Cool Exorcist homage when Carlo was in the hospital bed
I watched this film last night, I don't get why everyone loves it so much
First time I saw Ms. Moore, and this film still haunts me. A very timely film. ☣️
Most brilliant actress working today. She and Cate Blanchett.
so prescient !
the world itself is a ' safe ' place...
we just have to feel the Love
within...
Feels like "it follows"
This movie is underrated
hmmm 2020
just watched this in 2020
Same.
hits different
I thought this movie would bring validation to this very real illness- Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). This critique even portrays it as just a strange fictional illness. I am on Federal disability for MCS also known as Environmental Illness (EI).
Carl Wheezer's bronchial swelling times ten.
What makes this movie so disturbing?
If you have to ask, you can’t afford it
Good question. Part of it is simply the style, the look. (Haynes has a lot of wicked fun with his color palette; the daytime scenes tend to be suffused with a lurid orange, the night scenes with inky, depression-inducing indigo.) More importantly, I think it's the implication that the core of Carol's problem isn't the environment around her, but her own lack of identity and purpose. She's passive, childlike, uncritical. Roger Ebert wrote a great line about this, to the effect that her body seems to have developed this all-purpose allergy as a protest against her vacuous lifestyle.
The disturbing part is that she is getting very sick from chemicals around her but no one believes her, not even her husband, friends, doctors or even the "Guru". Everyone thinks she is going crazy so she starts to believe that herself and she starts to go crazy little by little.. Now she is all alone with herself and her illness and the most terrifying thing is that it can happen to anyone.
Multy Chemical sensitivity is a real illness.
That opening didn't age well...
People should read the book "Hands of Light" written by the physicist Barbara Brennan to learn how to heal themselves. This book is built on quantum physics that says subatomic particles are spinning and pulsating too fast for anything to be solid or physical. This means that we are holograms/images. E=mc2 says the same thing. So does the phrase "protons spin as positive charges and electrons spin as negative charges". It's just that no one is taught the significance of all these words in a way that can be understood.
But I can understand. Quarks are 3 points of light spinning super fast which form protons and neutrons. Electrons pulsate and spin as 1 point of light. The hydrogen atom spins and pulsates super fast as 7 points of light. This can be done for each atom because of the amount of the protons for each. People exist as 7 billion billion billion atoms, each one spinning super fast as light. All this super fast spinning is why we are not solid or physical. We are images where our thoughts are imagery itself. Just look at your next thought. Didn't you picture what you were going to say before you said it? Thought pictures cause these holographic bodies to change constantly. Sometimes we see the change right away because the concentration on the thought image is intense. What are called germs and viruses are thought images of our own. Since we live in a perfect unified field of electromagnetic energy, then there are no germs or viruses. There is nothing to attack us out there. This is propaganda created by the US empire or nazis or the NWO or the evil federal reserve. Take your pick.
The pills given out by doctors are pills that manufacture propaganda. They are placebos. All of them. Intense studies have been done to prove this. Heal yourselves instead. We are intense images constantly being created. Not knowing this leads to fear, which is a heavy stress that causes the holographic body to short circcuit in some ways. When a thought is not let go, then it becomes an image or set of frequencies that cause the whole perfect system to vibrate off balance. Hatred, judgement, belligerence, sadness all interfere with our perfect systems. These feelings vibrate as frequency pictures that become stuck like the pinch in an electrical wire that causes a fire or short circuit. Cancer, AIDS, a cold, are all frequency vibrations caused by feelings that are not expressed.
I have healed myself and others many times by releasing stressful feelings.
Pure Energy ke chucha
@@braits
What language is that?
This comment is exactly what the film talks about. Drink your meds, folks. Don't trust these frauds.
@@november2838 yup this is literally what Haynes intended the film to be a parody of, unfortunately a lot of folks take Carol to the the object of criticism, not Wrenwood
@@TheArigreen23. I heard him interviewed recently. He said the movie was in part a reaction to those Louise Hays books.
русские здесь? объясните, о чём фильм?
IDK, more disturbing than Mulholland Drive? Seems a bit heavy handed to call this film the most disturbing of any timeframe outside of just the 90s
Willem Cohen It is to him.
Mobley Hernandez But he doesn't really go into detail about it does he? He just talks about what he likes about the movie and calls it disturbing. He doesn't juxtapose it against any movie, not concretely anyway, and I just think it's kind of a huge claim to make without a basis to back it up.
Willem Cohen His analysis is how he backs it up, the fact that its so disturbing is what he likes about it and why he thinks its brilliant.
Mobley Hernandez I understand that.... I just think his argument is ground in excess subjectivity... He doesn't go back to his claim at all and just talks about what he likes about it... If he were to have started framing his review around the idea of "this is why this is the most disturbing movie of the last 20 years" and threw around a couple of comparisons, perhaps I could have respected it more. His analysis alone does not suggest any details from the film that could be called more disturbing than, say, "Naked Lunch", and that's where I take issue with it.
The whole thing is rather subjective by nature, I just think the statement was a bit of an inchoate afterthought that isn't easily defend-able.
Willem Cohen agreed that its subjective, and agreed that mulholland drive is more disturbing (to me). But this is A.O Scott's take on the film and he's speaking for himself and hopes that it resonates with others. If it didn't with you, and you disagree, that's fine, but he wasn't trying to make a definitive statement. He's just a well respected critic giving his own short analysis.
Yeah it sucks
Worst movie I've ever watched.
You lie
Well every one has their own opinion but those who don’t appreciate movies like this
Seem to be the type of people who
Rather watch mediocre movies with pointless action. No real story mediocre acting
What do they know