Its a truly incredible film, but has a few subtleties that may be hard to catch at first glance. Pay attention to the colors that people are wearing (green, orange, red, and blue) for the deeper subtext of relationships of the political situation in Ireland.
I may be missing a detail or two, and would happily be corrected, but for the curious:
do you know this definitively? was it in the book?
I'm asking because I picked up a hitchhiker way back when that was an ordinary thing to do, and he was a vocational school grad, but told me this whole thing about how the Wizard of Oz was a parable about the gold standard (follow the yellow bricks to the Emerald City) vs greenback dollar, with the cowardly lion (Dept of Defence) and the Tin Man (midwest industrial might) and Scarecrow (agriculture), pitting the witches of the North and South and East and West... you get the picture. It's a very tight theory, and I was shocked I hadn't learned this in my college track/college career.
and I believed it for the next decades till I found out: it wasn't true.
So I ask you again, is this something you know you know? I only have time left to believe one new thing and I need to be sure of it
> do you know this definitively? was it in the book?
I can't really speak to this, which is why I have a (?) around the meaning of Blue. I can say that green, orange, and red have pretty obvious connections, especially given the context of the film taking place during the Irish Civil War, which directly followed the Irish War of Independence (from England, who wore red in battle).
If it helps assuage your fear, you can take a look at the meaning of the colors of the Irish flag to see context for green and orange.
Absolutely loved the film. The acting and directing is superb. Colin Farrell's and Kerry Condon's performances are incredible, but Barry Keoghan steals the show.
That scene is heartbreaking to watch. Keoghan deserved the academy award for best supporting actor this year IMO (as for best screenplay, while I think Banshee's should've gotten it, it was pretty close and EEAAO would've been my second choice anyway),
Is it supposed to be a caricature of a mentally disabled person? What is great about that acting? Not being rhetorical here, I'm not a person of high culture.
Loved it too, It's funny in the absurdity of it all and the dialogue. There's a delicate balance of dark humour, the Irish charm of the setting and characters, and subtle deeper aspects that emerge from initially simple seeming characters that tops it all off. Not to mention the excellent acting.
But I suspect a lot of that is a subjective taste, so it's not surprising it's not widely appreciated.
I find Irish people perfectly charming, but when it comes to the themes of Irish film and literature, charming does not oft spring to my lips. Did you watch this film to the end? warmed the cockles of your heart did it?
I was really down after I left the movie. It was unexpectedly one of the most depressing movies I've seen, right down there with The Reflecting Skin, Irreversible and Black Rain. It is a good movie, and I'm pleased that there's room in the public attention for movies like this, but the way that people talk about it I wonder if we even saw the same movie. I'm in no hurry to watch it again.
as a quick vignette of life at one of the stops of the short bus, sure; but as it relates to the rest of the movie and why is it in there, I agree with you.
And if you liked this movie you might like "In Bruges". Very similar in mood and the same two lead actors (and director). Personally I liked In Bruges a bit more but they're both good
Couldn't disagree more. In Bruges is a wonderful black comedy. Banshees is not even remotely similar in story or mood; the two actors play entirely different characters.
Both are wonderful Black comedies, imo. I agree that the story and characters are different (but that's to be expected given they are different movies after all) but the mood is similar between the two. I'll concede that Banshees is darker than Bruges, though.
It's set during the Irish Civil War. Someone else in this thread posted a Wikipedia link to an article about this war. If you read some of that you'll begin to understand what the film is about.
"What is art?" I started to enjoy film more when I understood that the best directors are just telling a story and not don't care if you like it or not. Of course you are free to hate it.
The same applies to any form of art.
If you want a movies easy to enjoy, there's the superhero blockbuster movies and Star Wars, I guess.
I mean, you're not wrong, but the truth is, anyone can tell a story. I hear tons from drunks at bars and homeless folks in my city.
What makes a director/story writer so exalted as to have better stories?
The best movies, IMO, are those that can tell a story while drawing the audience in. Whether through comedy, sadness, shock, etc.
This movie was just a person telling a very weird story. Taken at pure face value, and ignoring the actors' talent, it sounds more like a story a random drunk person on a bus would tell.
I understand art is completely subjective, so I'm in no place to say you're wrong. But it's kinda dismissive to tell someone who hated it to watch superhero movies. Now -those- really shouldn't be made.
It had a pretty good premise. But I felt like they couldn’t figure out the rest. The 3rd act felt meh to say the least.
The story was perfect for a short film and not a feature film. I bet if you edit the movie down to 20-25 minutes it will make a fantastic piece of art.
Agree to disagree. I found it funny. Just try describing it to someone, and the premise is actually hilarious. But yes, dark, and heartbreaking in certain scenes. Great film.
I didn't like it that much. It was ok but I think it's been hyped out of all proportion.
Gleeson and Farrell are good actors, but for me the script let them down. It felt like it was trying too hard to be meaningful or symbolic but nothing landed.
Barry Keoghan was the best thing about it, amazing performance.
It was brilliantly written and had a lot of laugh out loud moments, but it wasn't a comedy. It was extremely dark, just like the awful civil war that it was a metaphor for.
The melancholy, loneliness, and utterly pointless violence far outweighed the occasional laugh.
More like it was almost relentlessly melancholy, peppered with some horrific violence, agonizing conflict, and the occasional brilliantly written, darkly funny moments. Humor was honestly a tiny fraction of the total time.
You can call it whatever you want, but I'm certainly not going to recommend it to friends as a black comedy. That's a surefire way to set them up for disappointment.
I enjoyed this movie and can’t place what about it stuck with me.
I’ll be hit randomly in my day with recollections from the film and chuckle or even burst out laughing. More so than In Bruges or 3Billboards.
“That’s the same way my mammy died.” And “I’m here for the opposite of that. What’s the opposite of licks? I don’t know.” And “It takes two to tango. I don’t want to dance. You were dancing with your dog.”
Yeah after writing my comment I learned he was the mastermind behind In Bruges, which I loved, and Seven Psychopaths, which I forgot about but I remember enjoying its quirkiness.
I loved it, thought it was hilarious. Though to be fair I'm from Ireland, and I can see that the comedy might not translate well much further a field than Ireland or the UK.
I may be missing a detail or two, and would happily be corrected, but for the curious:
- Green = Catholics / IRA supporters
- Yellow/Orange = Protestants
- Red = English
- Blues = Anglo-Irish Treaty supporters (?)
edit: formatting