The most interesting director nowadays, in my opinion. Pure joy of experimentation and no cliché. May Apollo bless you with new films, dear Mr. Lanthimos.

@DavidBerglund

2 ай бұрын

100%

So great to see how humble Yorgos is, in addition to being one of the best directors of the generation ❤ Can't wait to see what he does next

@Michael-lt3zb

3 ай бұрын

He’s one of the least up-their-own-ass directors who makes movies

@JAI_8

Ай бұрын

I think you’re confusing an artistic decision to remain a somewhat cynically disengaged bourgeois “absurdist” with humility.

One of the greats. Great to hear his process. Shame not to ask him about working with his other frequent collaborator though, the glorious Rachel Weisz.

king yorgos

Hell yeah playing games is dope in life.

Will you release the films featuring Al Bowlly?

18:15

you know

I disliked Poor Things so much I felt compelled to come here and see what he had to say for himself.

@papertoyss

4 ай бұрын

So, in other words, you just watched a whole 53' interview in order to see what the director of the movie you disliked has to say *for* the movie *he* made; need to remind, for a movie nominated for 11 Oscar awards, which was awarded with two Golden Globe and most importantly one which got the Golden Lion in Venice for best movie. *Who does that?*

@alfredojackhouse

4 ай бұрын

@@papertoyss what?

@PrimerCinePodcast

4 ай бұрын

That’s all right you’ve got time to learn about good cinema hoho

@DanCThorpe

4 ай бұрын

@@PrimerCinePodcast One day maybe. I hope so.

@PrimerCinePodcast

4 ай бұрын

@@DanCThorpe I wasn’t expecting such a kind answer. My sarcasm was unnecessary. I studied film and I love it but of course, people who never studied can absolutely have more meaningful and insightful takes on movies than full film graduates. My first advice on how to “judge” movies, being super brief of course, would be to consider what does the film you’re watching say about the world? What does it say about being human? All stories are about people, even fantastic stories are about fantastic beings that might talk and act and feel like people. So when evaluating a movie, think about what is it saying about living life as a person? Is it sincere? Is it impactful or helpful to think about? Does it make a good argument for its own opinion on what it’s saying? What’s the main, most important theme? Bad movies are usually superficial or undeveloped on what their point of view is. And this doesn’t need to take itself seriously or be dramatic. A random wacky comedy about two friends can say tons of sincere things about friendship, or love, or whatever else. The most important thing for me is what does this movie care about? And therefore, what do the filmmakers care about so much as to tell us about it? It can be the most complex or the most simple of opinions.

Sexual exploitation is a very real and damaging issue that women face and have to guard against constantly from a very young age. So, Lanthimos' response to legitimate criticism of POOR THINGS, by calling everyone uptight and prudish, shows that he has an incredible lack of empathy to people in more vulnerable demos than men. He's in a very privileged position where he doesnt understand, or have to ever try to understand, that there are many reasons outside of sexual repression that people, particularly women, would criticize his sexually explicit depictions of Bella and centering so much of the story around her sexuality. All depicted for the consumption of men. My visceral response and internal dialog, again and again, while watching this "feminist" story, was "lack of empathy to women." This is a low empathy man's very limited view of women and feminism, which is that they're all about sex and how they serve mens desires. He doesn't understand that there's so much more to women and feminism than that. He doesn't have to ever try to understand more.

@mayavides5872

2 ай бұрын

I came here to see what he had to say on this very issue. Do you have a timestamp to where he talks about this? I really appreciate your input because I struggled with very similar thoughts while watching the film.

@DavidBerglund

2 ай бұрын

Your question is for Emma (producer and lead actress), Yorgos, the screenwriter/s and the team that put together the story. The movie is a story. It's ONE story. Many seem to think that any movie that touches upon an idea or concept that they have a lot of thoughts about, that the movie has to express such a range of ideas about it, to show all perspectives. It's one movie. One story. You may just not like it and that's fine...

@marz9676

2 ай бұрын

@DavidBerglund I understand. It was dishonest to market it as a "freedom from patriarchy" film. Yes. I know it "touches on a lot of thoughts" men have. Over and over. That's how it should have been marketed. Same old. Same old. Like how the filmmakers of Deep Throat created a fantasy world where a woman only receives pleasure in her throat to "touch on a lot of thoughts" about bjs that men have. It's no more sophisticated than that. This is a fantasy where removing those frigid adult woman brains make a woman sexually uninhibited "to touch on a lot of thoughts" men have about child minded nymphos. Men let their penises make them pathetic.

@user-xi8ul6pg6i

2 ай бұрын

People are trying so hard to put a label on a movie. "Feminist". It's just a story. The movie isn't trying to be anything.

@marz9676

2 ай бұрын

@user-xi8ul6pg6i HE put that label on his own work. Emma did, too. Mark did, as well. This is how it was marketed. He had to in order to try to cover the obvious truth. Old school sexual exploitation. Completely dishonest. At least be honest if you insist on feeding your low level, adolescent urges in your work. Have the same courage you ask Emma to have and expose yourself, directors, in ways you would never ask Mark or any male lead to do. Own it, Yorgos!

I have to say this interview is entirely empty of meaningful content. Big nothing-burger. That being said I must say I enjoy his films; and I suspect many of you will too … on the intellectual “conservative right” and “emancipatory left” too. Which is due to the political non-committal nature of absurdism. So Lanthamos’ appeal shouldn’t be surprising to us nor for any absurdist really, since absurdist stuff is always just flirting on the edges without ever fully committing to satire; the absurdist in a way doesn’t want to take the risk of upsetting anyone powerful on either side of the fence the absurdist balances on so precariously like the bourgeois tight-rope walker they are, deploying signs and symbols of arbitrary power and the befuddled alienated and lonely Everyman constantly confronted by what are clearly false dilemmas yet neither the filmmaker nor any of the characters suggest the way out of these situations is to either take revolutionary emancipatory action together with all the others around him who are suffering the same confusion and oppression … or adopt a reactionary conservative approach and fully commit to one of the two options presented (and thereby joining and fully embracing the ideology of the seen or unseen power who is setting the dilemmas all the alienated common people are struggling with … and taking his place in the hierarchy ABOVE those who will not choose, but still BELOW those setting the rules and terms of the social experiment and struggle; the reactionary conservative can choose selfish action (or join a small, reactionary group that means to “identify” itself with the powerful (seen or unseen) rulers of the society and organizers of the social contest, the. take violent and oppressive and destructive selfish action against all those newly defined social “ outsiders” or “losers” who do not agree with the arbitrary choice made by he or he and his small group of elitist would-be associates of the powerful rulers and contest organizers. The absurdist merely maintains the tension and keeps upping the stakes without ever taking a side, or even clearly identifying via what I call the “satirical break” what current or historical society is being depicted, or which political or metaphysical position the filmmaker adheres to; an egalitarian and emancipatory democratic socialist politics; or a rigid hierarchical, authoritarian, aristocratic monarchical or oligarchical and anti-democratic reactionary conservative politics. The absurdist in real world era of political unrest and turmoil is a cynical self-serving cop out. A cynical “artist” larger and court jester for the King or the Economic or Cultural Elite (the absurdist can choose to interpret power either way … materially and economically, or socially, culturally) in a time when political commitment is critical. Absurdist fiction or even fact-based fiction is even more useless than sustained political satire like the “liberal satire” of late night comedians who continue to produce the same schtick (and get rich doing so … thus proving they aren’t really interested in promoting significant change to the political power in society) year after year, decade after decade, as their audience continues to get poorer and poorer and more dispossessed and powerless as time goes by, and they get richer proving their satire is mere cynical self-serving essentially conservative larp social justice emancipatory action. Absurdist work is one step more removed and abstract bourgeois art for art sake; fascists and socialists both can read what they want into such work. Cynical artists who continue to produce it without making clear transition to identifiable satire are selfish predatory servants of the status quo; the king’s court jester we peasants get to peak in on and enjoy too in today’s mass media society. Demand more of someone with so much talent. We are being used to enrich celebrities and our time and attention is being wasted by such cynical intellectual fence sitting.

Pretentious mediocrity. No wonder it impresses so many people in our mediocre times.

@JAI_8

Ай бұрын

Yeah, ok … that reads full-on misanthropic snob and elitist. 😂 Great start! Not saying I don’t have a problem with Lanthamos (and anyone who employs long stretches of maintained absurdist storytelling), but I can elaborate my reasoning a little better than your double libel there! Exactly what’s your 1. aesthetic complaint with his work, and what is your 2. political complaint with his work? Judging by your selection of Beaudelaire for your profile name I gather you share his reactionary conservative politics, his disdain for humanity and common people, his love of “aristocratic” values and a desire to live in a rigidly hierarchical society in which your supposed poetic genius like his could take its place at the left hand of the king to put fine words to his aristocratic ideals, impulses, features, face and body and actions and whatever arbitrary political decisions he made? Or don’t you know that about Beaudelaire you just like how he wrote about sex and poop and violence and more sex and how everything and everyone sucks? Almost all such cynical artistic misanthropes (and a lot of the Romantics) tend to be crypto/secret (or bold and public) reactionary conservative ass-kissers of monarchy and authoritarian rule. Who were elitist pric£s who thought themselves better than all their fellow poor neighbors … “pearls before swine” and all that. Insufferable self-important elitist pric%s! Anyway … explain to me why YOU don’t enjoy Lanthamos. I know why I have my reservations about it. Interested in yours!