Thus, the intention of this paper is to analyse the mother-son dyad in accordance with Kristeva’s theory of the child’s necessary matricide and his or her search for a loving, imaginary father in order to demonstrate that Coriolanus’s impossible and unsuccessful matricide, his consequent linguistic asymbolia, and the final phase, his search for an imaginary father, are illustrative of the Kristevan pattern. Exposed to a threatening motherly environment, Coriolanus is unable to separate from his mother, that is, he is unable to commit matricide while at the same time he is in search of a loving, imaginary father. Numerous critical responses have recognized precisely Volumnia as the cause of the play’s and her son’s problems. This absence creates enough space for Volumnia to be, in Kristevan terms, a phallic, devouring mother. The play is unique in Shakespeare’s canon due to the mother’s all-encompassing and negative influence and the complete absence of a father figure. However, in Coriolanus one sees a reversed situation. In such a patriarchal world, the character of a mother is redundant. The world of Shakespeare’s plays is predominately masculine, fatherly oriented. Lazy moviemaking.Shakespeare’s “avoidance” of motherly characters is a well-known and often debated literary theme. Just 2000's lame teen music playing over many scenes which again shows how cheap and predictable the movie is. You could take the idea and make it work, but it just doesn't here. Maybe if you are a teen and see these scenes and plot points for the first time you won't feel it's as predictable and lame. So you can take the 10 funny scenes and laugh at them while the movie overall is a miss and not worth watching unless you have a huge cringe tolerance. And you know EXACTLY how this stuff goes as 90% of the plot is just stolen directly from those old B-tier Hollywood movies. Instead we focus on the "influence rebel kids" scenes. Just like we never see much tricking in relation to getting to the buried heist. The tunnel stuff is actually a super cool idea. It's all played up for gags as we see scene after scene with loose plot connections and these characters acting over the top stupid. The lead is trying to get a job at the school to dig up a heist buried under a school building, as we see in the very start, yet he is never clever or secretive about anything. And many other characters act the same way. We see him piss, puke, eat like a pig, constant nose-picking, belching, weird nasty gags. The other main issue, besides it being overly cringe, is that the lead is a disgusting gangster. The movie itself is a cheap movie with flat camera work. So the romance is extremely cringe, just unwatchable. We just see characters act silly and never change unless they have to according to the plot. There is no charm or slow development of anything. When someone falls in love for example we see them overact extreme interest in every single scene. Maybe one every 15 scenes is good the rest fall completely flat with bad acting, terrible cringe comedy and cheap cinematography. Yeah, some of these gag scenes are funny in the first 30 minutes of the movie before it drops off a cliff and becomes terrible. It's the kind of flat characters you'd recognize from over the top 80's and 90's teen comedies so unless you think those "nerd teens go to cool party" movies were amazing comedies this may not be for you. So the handsome disgusting gangster, the cute kind teacher, the rebel kids, the sex fixated female roommate/teacher, the gullible principal. It's basically a collection of ridiculous scenes with flat characters. Pretty bad B movie overall, but did have some funny scenes. Reviewed by JurijFedorov 4 / 10 Overly cringe with a few laughs
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |