Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Banshees Of Inisherin

Options
1111214161720

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭squidgainz


    Hahahahhahah. Could you imagine being so childish to say someone's diction doesn't mean their opinion matters. Grow up. I've also read some of your posts .. .. .. .. .. so.. eh.. yeah..

    Post edited by squidgainz on


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,059 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    I liked the scenery.

    Something that I also noticed and was a bit of a throw back to my younger days (not the 1920s mind you) and was the shots that showed people on the road.

    Obviously no one in rural Ireland is on the road anymore, but when I was young in the 70s it was common to see people on the road, kids to and from school, farmers on bikes going to and from land, people walking to Mass.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I liked it.

    Very much a film that if you're only "half-watching" it you have no chance of appreciating it.

    Not that it's very deep or anything just that you certainly won't like it in that case.

    An unconventional film that just about pulls it off as something that works.

    Some bizarre quirkiness that I liked.

    Keoghan's character was interestingly portrayed as a desperate creature. Farrell, Gleeson and Condon solid too.

    The banshee was well cast also.

    The use of words like "guys" and "depression" didn't get me riled up like some it seems. They also used "despair" for "depression" which was certainly a concept understood at the time. "guy" as a term emanates form Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder plot in 1605 etymologists believe and is understood to have gone from an original negative connotation to a neutral one over time.

    Didn't reek of "stage-oirishness" either (thankfully).

    Certainly not a classic but seems to have caught some momentum in the zeitgeist du jour.

    The only thing that was a bit annoying was the now-cliché ambiguous type ending a propos the banshee's two deaths prophecy.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,467 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    Each to their own I suppose. I saw it over the weekend. On its own, the film has good and bad points.

    Overall however I'd summarize it as another ham-fisted rip off of The Playboy of the Western World and/or Synge's work in general. Similar themes in both - authority figures like the Guard and priest are the villains. Lonely island/rural life driving people mad. Unrequited love. Main character goes mad in the end and resorts to violence. Differences between mainland and island life. Probably one or two more in there also.

    As for historical accuracy don't bother and to be fair many good films also fall down on this point. Nice guy, nut bag, depression, takes two to tango, etc etc were not used 100 years ago off the coast of Ireland.

    Post edited by tobefrank321 on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭squidgainz




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,805 ✭✭✭saabsaab




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭Deusexmachina


    For what’s it’s worth, I believe the self mutilation is a metaphor - recalling the ancient idea of the poet/musician (‘file’) cursing the lord that did not offer him food, board and drink when he arrived to perform.

    He would self harm in order to bring shame to the person he was cursing. At the time of film was set, Terence Mc Swiney (a playwright) had recently killed himself by hunger strike in order to shame the British into submission. A very Irish thing to do.

    So, another parallel between the central conflict in the film and the political situation at that time - and the sheer pointlessness of hate.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,805 ✭✭✭saabsaab




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,795 ✭✭✭sporina


    well said..

    on my 2nd viewing I actually had a lot more sympathy for Colm than I did when I saw it first...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    I thought it was a Van Gogh reference, the artist mutilating himself but also a convenient excuse for not producing work as he is simply not that gifted. It shifts the blame onto Padraic for not leaving him alone.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yes, that's very much my reading.

    It's a film about despair - existential angst. Colm realised he will die some day and has created nothing. Blames Padraic, rather cruelly.

    Then when he feels he still isn't creating anything of worth he cuts his fingers off so he can blame Padraic for that too.

    Then with no fingers he feels liberated as he can't create anything anyway. But, having been flippant with Padraics emotions, he has lost his friend and has an enemy for life.

    I wouldn't go deeper than that having seen his other plays.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭Deusexmachina


    Not sure I agree. Van Gogh had a psychotic episode - that's different.

    Colm is cutting off his fingers to hurt Padraic. It's a violent act which is full of hate.

    However, I think the idea that he is deliberately stopping himself creatively is interesting and I had not thought of that.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,106 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Colm cutting his fingers off didnt hurt Padraic. What hurt padraic was the little donkey dying because colm had cut his fingers off, and Padraic role in that.

    the van gogh reference is not about what led van gogh cut off his ear, but more about the legacy of van gogh as the wounded tortured artist, which goes hand in hand with his art.

    i think colm realised his wasnt exceptional, the islanders certainly didn't treat him as exceptional, so the self mutilation was a route he himself chose to go down with (a maybe subconsciously) thought towards him having to suffer for his art.. and that perhaps he may be remembered a well as a tortured artist... because his opus alone wasnt going to be good enough.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,984 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I think it's quite clear that Colm is going through a "psychotic episode".



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,795 ✭✭✭sporina


    well, wouldn't one have to be a bit "mad" to chop off ones own fingers?!

    and I don't think he hated Padraic.. he just took his own frustrations out on him (prob cos he thought he would be passive aggressive.. until Jenny got hurt that is - ekk)



  • Registered Users Posts: 85,392 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    10 Bafta nominations



  • Registered Users Posts: 561 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,744 ✭✭✭Brock Turnpike


    Condon

    Keoghan

    Gleeson


    Up for Oscars



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,002 ✭✭✭Shelga




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,157 ✭✭✭Man Vs ManUre


    I predict this film will not win any of the best/supporting actor and actress awards. It will probably win screenplay. And I don’t think it will win best picture or best director.



  • Registered Users Posts: 85,392 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Almost correct I think. The Fabelmans will win best picture and director despite it being one of Spielbergs least memorable films and nothing special by any means, but it's the safe Hollywood choice and he has credit in the bank.

    Fraser will win best actor because of the guy patting his ass all those years ago. In fairness he deserves some good luck after the blacklisting for so long.

    Angela Basset will get best supporting actress because she is the only black actor or actress up for nomination.

    BUT I have a feeling that Brendan Gleason will get best supporting actor. He is well liked in America, and has paid his dues.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,795 ✭✭✭sporina


    woo hoo



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭xper


    Gleeson definitely does the recognisability at this stage to go along with the actual merit for getting the nod but does having two actors from the same film in the same category inevitably split the vote somewhat among the voters who might admire the film overall?



  • Registered Users Posts: 561 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif


    Am I the only one who found Condon utterly unremarkable? Cry a little in bed and say ‘aren’t ya a right bollocks’ and you get an Oscar nomination.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I think Gleeson and Keoghan may primarily struggle because Ke Huy Quan has become such a runaway favourite across other 'awards season' awards - few other categories have such a clear frontrunner.

    I'd say in general Farrell and Condon are in with a decent chance in their respective categories, so I wouldn't count them out. But Farrell has Butler & Fraser to contend with (I would not be at all surprised if it went to any of those three), while Angela Bassett has a fair bit of momentum currently. But who knows - it's all just speculation at this stage.

    I certainly would not count it out in best picture, since it's a very random grab bag of films with no obvious consensus pick - Everything, Everywhere... perhaps having a slight edge over the others. I'd be surprised if Banshees didn't win screenplay, though - that seems like the most obvious category where it would win.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,467 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    The Oscars have become a bit of a running joke at this stage and the 9 nominations prove it for me. This is an average film at best. Some will like it, some won't. There's no doubt Gleeson is a good actor, but he plays a very similar role in many of his films, angst-ridden, persecuted, dry wit, etc. He was hardly stretching his abilities in this one. The screenplay started well, but ran out of steam half way through as did everything else with the film.

    It feels like McDonagh, Spielberg, etc can serve up anything and the Americans will love it and it will get loads of nominations and awards. A lot of recent, lauded Spielberg films have also been average at best.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You should work for the bookies - they have Ke Huy Quan 1/10 favourite for best supporting actor and Gleeson is second favourite at 11/2.

    Basset 4/9 on to win as well.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,840 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Just got around to watching this last night. I enjoyed it. The script and performances were brilliant, and they just nailed the chemistry. It's funny in a stupid manner imo. But I felt it kinda lost it in the end, even though I had no idea how it would go. My mother, a dressmaker, mentioned they were all too well dressed for the time, and I think she kinda has a point, they were very clean looking for people living in near poverty on an island. But I still enjoyed it.

    However, after seeing it, I believe it's a pointless film. As in, it doesn't go anywhere and feels like an extended short story. But I also don't get all these hidden references and artistic things that critics et al get. But that's just my view. Preferred his other films. And even though he was only exec producer, The Guard is better. Feels like a story was told in the other films. In this, not so much imo.



Advertisement