Moonlight (2016)

Arcade_Tryer

Couldn't find a thread...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NJj12tJzqc

Saw a trailer for this while waiting to watch Manchester By The Sea and to be honest this was what I was thinking about leaving the cinema. Been out in the US for a few months, not sure when it's due to release in Ireland? But it looks like the real deal.

Anyone seen it yet?

MilesMorales1

I think its out either the 10th or 17th.

johnny_ultimate

It is a beautiful piece of work. It is not as showy as some of its awards-season contemporaries, and it's hard to identify individual moments that really push it to new heights. But that's what makes it so effective: its quietness, subtlety and slow-burn achievements.

What makes it so special is the way it embraces cliches in order to tear them down. Many plot points are right out of your typical street-level crime or gangster film, but the film carefully but definitively demolishes them. Instead this wants to explore the characters, to create a very moving and human story that transcends the tropes it hints at. It is a socially conscious film, but also very romantic and intelligent. It is tender and compassionate to quite an extraordinary degree.

Slydice

It's a different story than Manchester By The Sea but it's kind of out to give you the story in a similar way. Kinda.. 'this is how it is' kinda way.

I thought it was done well.

yerwanthere123

Really looking forward to this, have been for a while now.

Watched the first half of this, and may not have been in the mood for it, but I saw the cliches and perhaps didn't stay long enough to see them torn down. The first 40 mins or so did nothing for me really in so far as to say I was expecting a lot more.

Slydice

Changes around the 1hr mark.

steve_r

I thought this was excellent, hope it does well at the Oscars

Frank O. Pinion

Incredible film, one of the better Best Picture nominees. I enjoyed this so much more than Manchester By The Sea. Great performances, with a unique narrative.

The Black Oil

A little baffled by the buzz surrounding this. Didn't do much for me, I'm afraid. Performances were good, just didn't care for the rest.

pumpkin4life

Was thinking of seeing this. Is it a legitimately good film or is it just another run of the mill victim porn film?

Fysh

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Was thinking of seeing this. Is it a legitimately good film or is it just another run of the mill victim porn film?

...I'm not sure anyone can answer that without knowing what you consider "run of the mill victim porn films".

I thought it was excellent, myself, with some beautiful camerawork, a strong script and great performances. It's very character-focused, and the performances in the lead role are mesmerising, especially considering the three actors involved are newcomers.

pumpkin4life

Victim porn = films which try and reduce complex issues such as race, homosexuality, religion. wealth etc, down to simple class issues, mawkish sentimentality abound, disguised as being much deeper/profound than they actually are.

From 2016, I Daniel Blake and Son of Saul are good examples of that in my opinion.

I don't want to want to watch a two hour pity party on how society has it out for gay black lads.

Slydice

It's a story about this guys life from roughly childhood to mid/late 30s. It doesn't revolve around homosexual harrassment but it's not ignored. I can't remember race being made into an issue.

Ultimately, I felt they were aiming for it to be

a story of someones life with a love story included

Mostly I felt the praise was around how (hrmm what's the word? .. maybe it's) non-bull**** the film is presented.

Sad Professor

The film is about identity and masculinity but does deal with victimhood. In the main character's world, being gay is a sign of weakness. His fear of being perceived this way and of being a victim of stigmatisation defines the man he becomes.

It’s a beautiful and deeply moving film.

Ben Gadot

It was difficult to do a story like this justice in the space of 111 minutes so from that perspective, I feel like the film barely scratched the surface on the issues it presented.

Yet its beauty lies in its simplicity and lack of melodrama. The relationship of parent and child I found particularly moving.

One question I have though is on Juan and Teresa's relationship. Maybe I missed it but I didn't think they were together yet the plot summary on Wikipedia states that they were?

Sad Professor

Ben Gadot wrote: »

One question I have though is on Juan and Teresa's relationship. Maybe I missed it but I didn't think they were together yet the plot summary on Wikipedia states that they were?

Well, they lived in the same house, so I assumed they were a couple.

quadrifoglio verde

Didn't enjoy this at all. Far too slow dull and boring.
This just seemed to drag on far too much in nearly every scene. I'm struggling to see what the hype is around it

A real kick in the balls though, because it was the movie I was most looking forward to see this year.

Chain Smoker

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

This just seemed to drag on far too much in nearly every scene. I'm struggling to see what the hype is around it

Remove all that dragging on and you'd have about 40 minutes of **** all. You can't race through emotions.




Loved this.

yerwanthere123

Enjoyed Moonlight a lot. Films like this always leave me wanting more though, I feel after they hadn't seen each other in about 10 years Kevin and Chiron's reunion could have been dealt with in more detail, or at least with more dialogue. Still, a great movie, worthy of best picture, and it would've been a crime if La La Land beat this.

pumpkin4life

Dull as fùck film. Admittedly, it doesn't go down the Son of Saul/I Daniel Blake victim porn route as much as I feared it would, but there isn't really much to this. I found it pretty melodramatic and superficial if anything, even though the direction and shooting is class out.

Hacksaw Ridge is one of the best movies of the past few years, and Arrival and Hell or Highwater are great too. Hell, even Casey Affleck on a boat and blowjob musical are better movies than this one.

No way a deserving winner of Best Picture.

Tipsy McSwagger

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Dull as fùck film. Admittedly, it doesn't go down the Son of Saul/I Daniel Blake victim porn route as much as I feared it would, but there isn't really much to this. I found it pretty melodramatic and superficial if anything, even though the direction and shooting is class out.

Hacksaw Ridge is one of the best movies of the past few years, and Arrival and Hell or Highwater are great too. Hell, even Casey Affleck on a boat and blowjob musical are better movies than this one.

No way a deserving winner of Best Picture.

You're talking out of your arse if you think Son of Saul is 'victim porn'.

Fysh

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Dull as fùck film. Admittedly, it doesn't go down the Son of Saul/I Daniel Blake victim porn route as much as I feared it would, but there isn't really much to this. I found it pretty melodramatic and superficial if anything, even though the direction and shooting is class out.

Hacksaw Ridge is one of the best movies of the past few years, and Arrival and Hell or Highwater are great too. Hell, even Casey Affleck on a boat and blowjob musical are better movies than this one.

No way a deserving winner of Best Picture.

If you honestly think Moonlight is more melodramatic and superficial than Hacksaw Ridge, I'm not sure we're using the words to mean the same thing.

Moonlight is very much character focused - it doesn't spend its time dwelling on specific sequences of events, rather it shows how the environment in which he grows up affects and shapes Chiron. IMO it's only dull if you lack the ability to feel empathy for the characters.

yerwanthere123

This movie has really stuck me with, can't stop thinking abut it since I saw it, a sign of a great movie! What did ye interpret from the ending?

I feel it was a bit up in the air as to whether they rekindled their romance, if you can even call it that, but I certainly feel that they'd be in each other lives going forward in some form. What form that takes is open to question. It's certainly the beginning of a healing process for Chiron, helped by the fact that he's forgiven his mother too.

Nerdlingr

wrote about it on another thread but i dont really get all the hype surrounding this film. Its beautifully shot but character wise i never really thought they did a good job selling the character to me.

one of the major flaws for me was the drug dealer with a heart of gold . This guy's on the street peddling his wears dealing with low life every day yet breaks down in tears when a kid he has no attachment calls him out on selling to his mother. Purlease!

the second act i felt was the most profound. his coming on age...no pun intended!! we got to see his internal struggle, his rage, anger, disillusion, pity, sorrow... this was the real heart of the movie...something to get our teeth into..

the first and third parts were pretty bland and mostly forgettable imo.

but its about a black gay man so guess that automatically makes it oscar/best movie of the last ten years material.

Fysh

Nerdlingr wrote: »

wrote about it on another thread but i dont really get all the hype surrounding this film. Its beautifully shot but character wise i never really thought they did a good job selling the character to me.

one of the major flaws for me was the drug dealer with a heart of gold . This guy's on the street peddling his wears dealing with low life every day yet breaks down in tears when a kid he has no attachment calls him out on selling to his mother. Purlease!

the second act i felt was the most profound. his coming on age...no pun intended!! we got to see his internal struggle, his rage, anger, disillusion, pity, sorrow... this was the real heart of the movie...something to get our teeth into..

the first and third parts were pretty bland and mostly forgettable imo.

but its about a black gay man so guess that automatically makes it oscar/best movie of the last ten years material.

It's not about "drug dealer with a heart of gold", so much as it's about a man who happens to be a drug dealer ending up looking out for a kid who he realises has no father figure. Falling into drug dealing through a lack of any other prospects is one of the issues in the film, as is the impact of a lack of father figures, growing up in economic deprivation in a hyper-masculine and extremely heteronormative (not to mention misogynistic) society, and the stresses of being a single parent struggling with poverty amongst other problems.

Did you miss all the bonding between Little and Juan (who recognises his need for a father figure)? Or the growing conflict Juan feels about the fact that the excuses he might make to himself about selling crack to people he doesn't know fall flat when he sees the direct impact on someone he cares about?

The third act is about Chiron finally confronting the fact that he has repressed his sexual identity almost completely in an effort to make himself less of a target; in doing so he has almost completely closed himself off emotionally, and refused to think about how he has followed the same path that he knew Juan struggled with (and ultimately died from). So his effort to reconnect with Jared is also part of a greater effort to break the cycle that has shaped his life so far.

steve_r

Fysh wrote: »

Or the growing conflict Juan feels about the fact that the excuses he might make to himself about selling crack to people he doesn't know fall flat when he sees the direct impact on someone he cares about? .

This is it exactly, Juan's reaction is guilt more than anything else.

The scene in the kitchen in the third act has really stuck with me. Really understated but very powerful.

Viscount Aggro

Does this movie have a happy ending?

Tipsy McSwagger

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

Does this movie have a happy ending?

Yes on the beach in the middle of the film.

Tipsy McSwagger

Nerdlingr wrote: »

wrote about it on another thread but i dont really get all the hype surrounding this film. Its beautifully shot but character wise i never really thought they did a good job selling the character to me.

one of the major flaws for me was the drug dealer with a heart of gold . This guy's on the street peddling his wears dealing with low life every day yet breaks down in tears when a kid he has no attachment calls him out on selling to his mother. Purlease!

the second act i felt was the most profound. his coming on age...no pun intended!! we got to see his internal struggle, his rage, anger, disillusion, pity, sorrow... this was the real heart of the movie...something to get our teeth into..

the first and third parts were pretty bland and mostly forgettable imo.

but its about a black gay man so guess that automatically makes it oscar/best movie of the last ten years material.

Best scene in the movie for me. The guy was completely ashamed of who he was and what he is doing, and to have the kid walk out on him completely destroyed him.

yerwanthere123

Yes, Mahershala Ali was terrific in this, although I'll admit I'm surprised he won the oscar given he was only in about half the film.

Sad Professor

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Yes, Mahershala Ali was terrific in this, although I'll admit I'm surprised he won the oscar given he was only in about half the film.

He won best supporting actor.

johnny_ultimate

Nerdlingr wrote: »

but its about a black gay man so guess that automatically makes it oscar/best movie of the last ten years material.

No.

Yes, this is a film about a gay black man. Yes, that probably won it a few votes in the aftermath of last year's diversity 'outrage' / election of the orange nightmare. But to reductively dismiss it as that is frankly spectacularly unfair to the film.

It is one of the most impeccably crafted films of recent years, from a director and performers in complete control of the material. It does not address its social commentary in the manner of a typical 'issues' film: it represents a philosophical antithesis to the brute force approach that wins Academy favour, instead subtly weaving its exploration of black and gay identity into what is a refreshingly tender and intimate coming-of-age tale. Its willingness to treat drug dealers, addicts and criminals not as cliched bad guys but instead actual human beings in a troubled world remains something of a rarity in modern media. There is nothing remotely preachy about this film - it is the anti-Crash.

And even removing its progressive and timely bonafides, in terms of sheer artistic craft alone Moonlight is deserving of the praise it has received. It is impeccably composed: visually evocative but never at the expense of the narrative. Its structure is carefully thought out, with details such as the recurrent beachside sequences ensuring it feels whole despite its explicitly segmented storytelling. Perhaps above all else it is a simple tale beautifully told: scenes & characters constantly gifted the space to breathe and develop (that diner scene, that beachside encounter, the 'baptism'.... just wonderful sequences all, but whose pleasures are miraculously understated). It is unhurried and unassuming in the best possible way, another uncommon trait that makes its wider success refreshing.

I fully appreciate that people will not like the film, much as people will not every film that has ever been made (a situation that is doubly true in this endlessly combative modern discourse of ours). I entirely respect and expect dissent. But to suggest that the praise is only coming from some place of liberal hyperbole is one I would strongly, strongly refute - this film in purely cinematic terms is the real deal. Given the Academy's past history towards rewarding 'worthy but artistically shallow' films like Crash, that's what makes Moonlight's victory much more welcome.

And yes, I do firmly believe it is the best best picture of the decade (narrowly edging No Country... and 12 Years A Slave)

pumpkin4life

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No.

Yes, this is a film about a gay black man. Yes, that probably won it a few votes in the aftermath of last year's diversity 'outrage' / election of the orange nightmare. But to reductively dismiss it as that is frankly spectacularly unfair to the film.

It is one of the most impeccably crafted films of recent years, from a director and performers in complete control of the material. It does not address its social commentary in the manner of a typical 'issues' film: it represents a philosophical antithesis to the brute force approach that wins Academy favour, instead subtly weaving its exploration of black and gay identity into what is a refreshingly tender and intimate coming-of-age tale. Its willingness to treat drug dealers, addicts and criminals not as cliched bad guys but instead actual human beings in a troubled world remains something of a rarity in modern media. There is nothing remotely preachy about this film - it is the anti-Crash.

And even removing its progressive and timely bonafides, in terms of sheer artistic craft alone Moonlight is deserving of the praise it has received. It is impeccably composed: visually evocative but never at the expense of the narrative. Its structure is carefully thought out, with details such as the recurrent beachside sequences ensuring it feels whole despite its explicitly segmented storytelling. Perhaps above all else it is a simple tale beautifully told: scenes & characters constantly gifted the space to breathe and develop (that diner scene, that beachside encounter, the 'baptism'.... just wonderful sequences all, but whose pleasures are miraculously understated). It is unhurried and unassuming in the best possible way, another uncommon trait that makes its wider success refreshing.

I fully appreciate that people will not like the film, much as people will not every film that has ever been made (a situation that is doubly true in this endlessly combative modern discourse of ours). I entirely respect and expect dissent. But to suggest that the praise is only coming from some place of liberal hyperbole is one I would strongly, strongly refute - this film in purely cinematic terms is the real deal. Given the Academy's past history towards rewarding 'worthy but artistically shallow' films like Crash, that's what makes Moonlight's victory much more welcome.

And yes, I do firmly believe it is the best best picture of the decade (narrowly edging No Country... and 12 Years A Slave)

Good writeup.

That was more my problem with it tbh and I disagree tbh. I don't like evil cartoonish characters but I don't like "poor little helpless victim of a harsh environment has no moral responsibility choice middle class view" characters either. For example, I think the show The Wire pulled that one off extremely well. It's a very hard thing to do. This movie fell way into the latter camp for me, but hey, that's just me. There's this strange glorification of criminals/victims in recent times in the media; people who in real life in this position are real scum tinker territory, and Moonlight just continues that trend.

Also, its a character study movie, and character study movies fail/win big on depending on your investment in that character. I had little to no interest/empathy for Chiron to be honest.

Chain Smoker

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Good writeup.

That was more my problem with it tbh and I disagree tbh. I don't like evil cartoonish characters but I don't like "poor little helpless victim of a harsh environment has no moral responsibility choice middle class view" characters either. For example, I think the show The Wire pulled that one off extremely well. It's a very hard thing to do. This movie fell way into the latter camp for me, but hey, that's just me.

I wouldn't say it fell into a patronising view at all. The Wire was something like 55+ hours long, a 2 hour film simply isn't gonna have the time to drill into all of the socioeconomic factors at hand. And frankly, the Wire done that kind of thing so well that it'd be pretty bloody ambitious to try and retread those lines.
A smaller, more personal, project is gonna have a smaller and more specific focus, the endless comparisons to the Wire that I find this facing online a bit weird tbh.

The film is all about Chiron, Juan's role in it is pretty much exclusively about how he connects with Chiron, what he gave him, how he influenced him, etc. Juan being a dealer who lies to himself about the impact he's having is about as far as it needs to go.



As I read it, your issues are pretty much entirely with not connecting to Chiron. If that aspect fails, I can't imagine this film holds up at all.

kaymin

Extremely dull and tedious film. I'd have left the cinema early except I didn't want to be rude to the other cinema goers.

The main theme is bullying at a young age impacts a person's life later on and sometimes they end up not being true to themselves as a result. Groundbreaking. I can't wait for the heterosexual version.

The film takes the main character from being a bullied teenager to a hardened but sexually repressed criminal without any scene devoted to this journey.

As for the drug dealer breaking down scene or the contrived scene where he catches the mother talking drugs - scarcely believable and all the subtlety of a brick. As if it never dawned on him before that drugs might wreck lives / families.

That about sums it up for me - no substance. No depth. No story. No believable characters. No narrative worth remembering. Just superficial, awkward moments, brooding silences masquerading as an overload of emotion.

fisgon

Generally agree with the above.

Just saw this, and had been looking forward to it, but after it was finished I had to look up the Oscars website again just to check that I had seen the right film, the one that had won Best Picture. Maybe I had gone to the wrong film, I thought, did I pick the wrong screen number in the cinema?

This is a the kind of film I have seen hundreds of in the local film club, in the IFI: slow, independent, low-budget films that sometimes work and sometimes do not. This does not. It is the kind of film that believes it is giving a profound, unique message to the world, when in fact it is full of cliches and stuff we have seen before. It is a film that mistakes silence for profundity, and misery for meaning. It seems to think that if you slow everything down, this shows emotional intensity, when in fact it just makes it tedious to watch.

The first half simply charts

the misery of sensitive Chiron, drug-addled mother, bullies in school,

stuff we have seen in a million movies and tv series, though done much better in Friday Night Lights, The Wire etc. The kid just spends the first three quarters of the film miserable, with his head down, silent, and the film revels in this melancholy. If feels manipulative. Look, it is saying, look how awful, how miserable, how terrible.

And exactly how Mahershala Ali won Supporting Actor is another puzzle. He has a small role for literally thirty minutes. His character is of much less importance than it appears at the beginning.

The Best Picture award is not much of a surprise, given some of the duds that have won that particular prize in the past, but the almost unanimous praise of this dull, unoriginal unengaging piece of melancholia among reviewers is surprising. It seems to be a movie that people do not want to criticise.

(And did someone here really say that it is the best picture of the decade? It is not even the best picture of the week.)

Fysh

It's quite important to note that one of the film's core themes is the impact of growing up in a toxic hyper-masculine and homophobic culture on a young gay man, who in this case also has the added disadvantages associated with being a young black man growing up in a housing project.

So whether or not it works for you, trying to suggest that this narrative is so overdone as to be cliché is to miss the point - because it's still disappointingly rare to see characters who happen to be minorities in more than one respect. Like another commenter above, it seems disingenuous to say "this has been done better in other productions" and then point to TV series, because the serialised nature and much greater running time offers a different context than a single feature film running time.

Criticising a character-focused film for not being plot-driven also seems to miss the point. Each act in the film shows a context for Chiron at that time, along with events that show how he is relating to the people in his life at that time. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work - but there's a lot more going on with the character than just "looking miserable".

homerun_homer

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Yes, Mahershala Ali was terrific in this, although I'll admit I'm surprised he won the oscar given he was only in about half the film.

More like a third:pac:

pumpkin4life

Fysh wrote: »

It's quite important to note that one of the film's core themes is the impact of growing up in a toxic hyper-masculine and homophobic culture on a young gay man, who in this case also has the added disadvantages associated with being a young black man growing up in a housing project.

So whether or not it works for you, trying to suggest that this narrative is so overdone as to be cliché is to miss the point - because it's still disappointingly rare to see characters who happen to be minorities in more than one respect. Like another commenter above, it seems disingenuous to say "this has been done better in other productions" and then point to TV series, because the serialised nature and much greater running time offers a different context than a single feature film running time.

Criticising a character-focused film for not being plot-driven also seems to miss the point. Each act in the film shows a context for Chiron at that time, along with events that show how he is relating to the people in his life at that time. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work - but there's a lot more going on with the character than just "looking miserable".

What is going on in your opinion with Chiron?

American Honey is very similar movie (character study, not really any plot, main protagonist is from a disadvantaged background/minority and the impact of the environment and people on said character) yet actually pulled it off without the need for "look at poor person isn't it sad" stuff.

Also, what does toxic masculinity mean?

Chain Smoker

Judi Dench got best supporting actress for like 6 minutes of screentime, didn't she? Anthony Hopkins got best lead actor for about 15 minute at most.


I've seen a quote from Barry Jenkins somewhere where he said that one of the things he elected to keep from the play was the homosexual angle to (paraphrasing) "remain true to the writers original sentiment" in an interview that seemed to really downplay the importance of the gay angle to things. I definitely watched the film more along the lines of it being about a misfit in that world than anything more specific. It wouldn't be that hard to rework it so it's not about a gay dude imo.



Toxic masculinity presumably means an environment where the rules of what entails masculine behaviour are strictly enforced to the point of oppressing all the men involved?

pumpkin4life wrote: »

American Honey is very similar movie (character study, not really any plot, main protagonist is from a disadvantaged background/minority and the impact of the environment and people on said character) yet actually pulled it off without the need for "look at poor person isn't it sad" stuff.

If you break it down like that sure, but it's also a film that is absolutely fixated with trying to capture a moment. It'd be extremely hard to for that film to maintain the thing it was doing across a wider timeframe, girl had a **** life and she's basically on a diversion before the next big wave of **** locks her down. She's also a pretty naive and impulsive person so it makes more sense that she'd brush off the crap whenever she isn't forced to deal with it.

Besides it opens with a big sympathy run of her in that **** house, then there's that other house with the poor kids later in the film.

Fysh

pumpkin4life wrote: »

What is going on in your opinion with Chiron?

American Honey is very similar movie (character study, not really any plot, main protagonist is from a disadvantaged background/minority and the impact of the environment and people on said character) yet actually pulled it off without the need for "look at poor person isn't it sad" stuff.

Also, what does toxic masculinity mean?

Toxic masculinity is an unrealistic standard of what "being a man" means being perpetuated and enforced across a social environment. So just like Chiron is badgered about the fact that he doesn't "front" enough as a kid, the fact that he doesn't constantly boast about his sexual or physicak prowess is used as an excuse to torment him in his teens, with even the idea that he might be gay being used as an insult and further reason to torment him; culminating in him turning himself into something that outwardly appears to fit some part of that standard.

As for what's going on with Chiron - he has no father or father figure, and Juan is the closest to that which he finds in his childhood (but still compromised because he is aware that Juan is a part of the wider problems affecting him, most obviously because he's the suplly chain for Chiron's mum's crack habit). In his teens, Chiron starts to understand his sexuality more - but also that it will not be accepted by most of his peers or social environment, and is driven to violence by the relentless bullying and harassment to which he is subjected, and further punished by a legal and educational framework that had no interest in helping him as a victim but is happy to pursue him vigorously once he can be recast as a perp. Predictably, prison does nothing to help him, and by the time he gets out he's following Juan's footsteps, although his mother's efforts to overcome her crack habit have led to some improvement in their relationship. As in his teens, it is his bond with Kevin that proves a lifeline for him, because Kevin is the only person in his life that knows and can accept Chiron as he is, rather than as he has reshaped himself.

American Honey is an excellent film with a lot of thematic overlap with Moonlight, but the main differences between the two are more down to the structure and timeline of their narrative than some fundamental difference in perspective. Given how unflinchingly grim Honey's life is shown to be at the start of (and at various points throughout) that film, it's somewhat unfair to suggest it as a sunnier, more positive take on the same subject matter, IMO.

.ak

Just watched it.

I thought it was brilliant, a 9/10 for me. Visually stunning without it taking away from the other elements. I thought Chiron's character is beautifully written; a real risky move considering the long silences and little dialogue, that can always go one way or another. The feeling of anxiety and struggle of attempting to come to terms in what is a ruthless society of pressure and bullying is portrayed very well without being over the top.

It's pity to come on here and see so many posters not appreciate it for what it was, a brilliantly simple bit of story telling to serve as a character study that was framed by some very poignant social environmental backdrops. I think people are looking at Chiron's character with content because he appears so 'woe is me' but I think that is the incorrect way to view his character; as his sexuality is not what drives his separation from society (as there's another gay character who's able to fit in) but rather it's to do with Chiron's character as a person, portraying we all deal with adversity in different ways.

I guess it's not for all, but as piece of film making it's deserving it's plaudits, not for it's content in terms of social standing but because of the artistry that's gone into making it; as films go it's near flawless.

The only reason I didn't give it 10/10 is I felt the last act is a bit weak. Maybe I need to watch it again but act I and II are such big movements with bold scenes and powerful dialogue and events that act III just seemed a little flat. I suppose it was the opportunity to showcase some raw acting in what is essentially two actor scene with little to no distractions, but for me it didn't grip me as much as the other acts, maybe I just wasn't sold on the two actors tbh.

Fysh

While Chiron's bullying isn't just down to his sexuality, I did feel it was a significant part of his alienation from society and his peers - his mother and teachers appear to be no less bigoted than his bullies in their intolerance for his sexual orientation (or their perception of it). While Kevin is able to better navigate social issues, I got the impression that he was bisexual rather than gay, which in this context would make it somewhat easier for him to pass as straight.

fisgon

.ak wrote: »

It's pity to come on here and see so many posters not appreciate it for what it was, a brilliantly simple bit of story telling to serve as a character study that was framed by some very poignant social environmental backdrops. I think people are looking at Chiron's character with content because he appears so 'woe is me' but I think that is the incorrect way to view his character;
.

Interesting that many of those who defend the film take the attitude that their perspective is the "correct" one, that those of us who do not appreciate it are simply mistaken.

There is a very strong sense of lecturing in a lot of the positive posts about the film, as if the rest of us are just too stupid or ignorant or blind to really appreciate the genius of Moonlight.

The thing that some posters should really realize is that there is no "correct" opinion about a creative work of art. Liking Moonlight does not make you smarter or more humane or more sensitive.

Maybe if I say that Moonlight is tedious, it is not because I am too dull or thick or bigoted to appreciate it: perhaps it is because the film itself failed to engage me in any way, and that is a problem with the film. If you like it, good for you, but spare us the lectures.

I loved this.

.ak

fisgon wrote: »

Interesting that many of those who defend the film take the attitude that their perspective is the "correct" one, that those of us who do not appreciate it are simply mistaken.

There is a very strong sense of lecturing in a lot of the positive posts about the film, as if the rest of us are just too stupid or ignorant or blind to really appreciate the genius of Moonlight.

The thing that some posters should really realize is that there is no "correct" opinion about a creative work of art. Liking Moonlight does not make you smarter or more humane or more sensitive.

Maybe if I say that Moonlight is tedious, it is not because I am too dull or thick or bigoted to appreciate it: perhaps it is because the film itself failed to engage me in any way, and that is a problem with the film. If you like it, good for you, but spare us the lectures.

Sorry now, but you yourself are making the assumption that people are assuming their opinion is correct.

I never said anything of the sort, I simply said it's a pity others didn't view the film for what it was from my opinion, and I gave an opinion on why I think people would view it one way or another. Ofcourse people will have a different opinion to my own, it doesn't make it any less valid and I never stated otherwise.

All you're doing is stating you don't like my opinion rather than offering one of your own.

Regarding opinions, I completely agree, opinions are subjective; and like assholes, everyone's got one.

Arcade_Tryer

Powerful movie. An important portrayal of lives less seen. The poor. The black. The bullied. The addicted. The gay. The marginalised. The forgotten. Moonlight is a movie that will live long in the memory for most people. Understated, unassuming and utterly mesmerising. A modern masterpiece.

Tipsy McSwagger

It's a film for people who don't expect some big set piece to happen.

MilesMorales1

This went right over my head. Looked very nice, some very good acting in places, but overall it left me cold.