offoffoff film
 RELATED PROJECTS

      







 ADVERTISEMENT













Site links
  • OFFOFFOFF Home
  • About OFFOFFOFF
  • Contact us

    Get our newsletter:
     
    Search the site:
     

    Film section
  • Film main page
  • Film archive
  • Audio index
  • Film links


    Top 10 lists


  • Top 10 films of 2004
    (Andrea, David, Joshua, Leslie)
  • Top 10 films of 2003
    (Andrea, David, Joshua, Leslie)
  • Top 10 films of 2002
  • Top 10 films of 2001
  • Top 10 films of 2000
  • Top 10 films of 1999
  •  All of our top 10 lists, 1999 - 2004

    Current movies


  • Afterschool
  • Antichrist
  • Babies
  • Broken Embraces
  • Dare
  • District 9
  • The End of Poverty?
  • Fix
  • Food Beware
  • The Men Who Stare at Goats
  • Pirate Radio
  • Precious
  • Red Cliff
  • The September Issue

    Festivals


  • Brooklyn International Film Festival
  • Human Rights Watch Film Festival
  • New York Film Festival

    Archive


    Complete archive

    Recent reviews:
  • (500) Days of Summer
  • Anita O'Day: The Life of a Jazz Singer
  • The Art of the Steal
  • The Beetle
  • Blessed is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh
  • Boy A
  • Brideshead Revisited
  • The Brothers Bloom
  • Burn After Reading
  • Cold Souls
  • The Duchess
  • Elegy
  • Enlighten Up! A Skeptic's Journey Into the World of Yoga
  • Five Minutes of Heaven
  • Flame and Citron
  • Frozen River
  • Happy-Go-Lucky
  • How to Lose Friends & Alienate People
  • The Human Condition
  • Hunger
  • Inglourious Basterds
  • King of Shadows
  • The Lemon Tree
  • Lorna's Silence
  • A Man Named Pearl
  • Man on Wire
  • Memorial Day
  • Mister Foe
  • Morning Light
  • My F├╝hrer
  • My One and Only
  • Paris
  • The Pervert's Guide to Cinema
  • Peter and Vandy
  • Police, Adjective
  • Pray the Devil Back to Hell
  • Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind
  • Rachel Getting Married
  • A Secret
  • Sleep Dealer
  • St. Trinian's
  • Thirst
  • Throw Down Your Heart
  • Valentino: The Last Emperor
  • What's the Matter with Kansas?
  • Wild Grass
  • Jay DiPietro

  •  READER COMMENTS

    Reader comments on The Sea Inside

    Subject: Re: Isaac's comment
    Date: Aug 31, 2006
    Sender: RossPrevious | Next

    Pablo, I found myself in strong agreement with your review. I was conflicted because there were many things I admired about the film, the acting of all the principal characters was entirely believable and yet, if one disagrees with the idea of euthanasia, the message of the film is one that leaves a distate in one's mouth. Of all people, the main character had much to contribute and could live a full life, fuller than many, in spite of his inability to move. Thanks for having the courage to write such a review, I can imagine it is not a popular position to hold in the film community

    Previous: Re: Isaac's comment | Next: the film isnt pessimistic...you are

    Respond to this message | Return to original article: The Sea Inside



    Response to this comment:
    Re: Isaac's comment

    Thank you very much for your fervent comment; it's always great to see other people's opinions, especially when dealing with such a controversial topic.

    First and foremost, the film itself (sans the ethical material and whatnot) was not a masterpiece, like you said I seemed to be implying. It was excellently done, but it lacked in some departments, or overly relied in others (sentimentality, cliches, manipulation, etc). That said, from an aesthetic viewpoint, the film was very well done, which is why I praise Amenabar for his filmmaking abilities. I certainly don't mind the film receiving so many prizes, given that it deserves most of them (particularly Bardem's performance).

    Secondly, I think my review was rather fair. We're not talking about my opinion on euthanasia here, we're talking about how it may affect my view on the film, and if such a thing can be justified.

    One question: why is it that there are so many people out there who don't like Griffith's "Birth of a Nation"? I mean, it's certainly a technical accomplishment, way ahead of its time in many aspects; all in all, quite good from a cinematic perspective. So how can people hate it? Because they feel that its message, or whatever it's trying to tell us, is morally reprehensible. They feel the film glorifies racism, and that's offensive to them. I felt The Sea Inside glorified euthanasia, and that was offensive to me, harming my enjoyment of the film.

    Similarly, there are many people who hate "A Clockwork Orange", because they (wrongly) believe it glorifies violence and rape.

    This all means that it's not just the cinematic facets of a film that the viewer has to take into account (undeniably, Kubrick's film would also be a "masterpiece" from a cinematic perspective).

    Nowadays, the vast majority of society is against racism, violence, etc. If we see a film glamourizing these, regardless of how well made it is and how many Oscars it may have won, it is fair to dislike it because of what it's saying. We admire its artistry, perhaps, but despise its core message.

    Unfortunately, given that on the subject matter of euthanasia the general opinion seems to be more split, now I'm being criticized for "not liking" a film that, despite being very well made, glorified it.

    You see, one can make a porn with the greatest director in the world, the best cinematographer ever and the finest living actors. It'd all look splendid on the surface, certainly -- but it's still porn, it's still vacuous and morally wretched. And if I don't like what the film is telling me, I have no reason not to let my own opinions on its message -- if any -- from getting in the way. In cinema, like any art, it's not just the asthetic aspects that one has to consider. There is a lot more to it.

    All in all, I was a tad offended by Amenabar's film, because it was false and severely lacking from an ethical perspective. I never said it wasn't worth watching -- because it is --, just that I didn't like it as much as everyone seems to have done, for the reasons already stated.

    You say my review was close-minded, but regardless of whether it is or not, it nevertheless remains my opinion, and that's what we're all here for. It is an honest review, illustrating exactly just how I felt about the film.

    For the record, the film itself was close-minded, just like its main character, who could not even consider other points of view. Amenabar clearly has a political agenda, the film is pro-euthanasia propaganda, and it manipulates us into thinking that euthanasia is a good thing; and I, for one, still am not convinced.

    Allow me to conclude this reply by thanking you, once again, for sharing your opinion.






    Comment index:

  • Yup   from Rich, Dec 19, 2004
  • [no subject]   from matiash, Dec 20, 2004
  • [no subject]   from Sand, Jan 5, 2005
  • [no subject]   from Isaac, Jan 10, 2005
  • Re: Isaac's comment   from Pablo Hernandez, Jan 12, 2005
  • Re: Isaac's comment   from Paula, Feb 11, 2005
  • » Re: Isaac's comment «   from Ross, Aug 31, 2006
  • the film isnt pessimistic...you are   from James, Dec 11, 2005
  • The Sea Inside   from julianza, Feb 12, 2006
  • Re: The Sea Inside   from julianza, Feb 13, 2006
  • Re: The Sea Inside   from julianza, Feb 13, 2006
  • I disagree on the reviewers take   from Gail, Jul 22, 2008
  • Yup   from Rich, Dec 19, 2004
  • [no subject]   from matiash, Dec 20, 2004
  • [no subject]   from Sand, Jan 5, 2005
  • [no subject]   from Isaac, Jan 10, 2005
  • Re: Isaac's comment   from Pablo Hernandez, Jan 12, 2005
  • Re: Isaac's comment   from Paula, Feb 11, 2005
  • » Re: Isaac's comment «   from Ross, Aug 31, 2006
  • the film isnt pessimistic...you are   from James, Dec 11, 2005
  • The Sea Inside   from julianza, Feb 12, 2006
  • Re: The Sea Inside   from julianza, Feb 13, 2006
  • Re: The Sea Inside   from julianza, Feb 13, 2006
  • I disagree on the reviewers take   from Gail, Jul 22, 2008