Nomadland on Hulu (films, theme, characters, exercise)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Privilege? Or is it ambition and/or taking control of ones life. Living in a house you don't own or rent means you have no control over the roof over your head. Who wants that?
When someone like yourself asks a logical question, one I would ask myself, and responder pulls out that over used word, privilege, I just dismiss them. It's like if you grew into a responsible adult, hold a job, keep a roof over your head you are now privileged
I have not watched it yet but may give it a whirl this weekend.
When someone like yourself asks a logical question, one I would ask myself, and responder pulls out that over used word, privilege, I just dismiss them. It's like if you grew into a responsible adult, hold a job, keep a roof over your head you are now privileged
Or, one could be born into, or by life happening, a situation where they live in a broken home, lack of education, lack of a decent income, or many other possible scenarios, and no matter how hard they try, they cannot get ahead. Not everyone is "Hillbilly Elegy". I would suggest reading "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” by Isabel Wilkerson and “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City” by Matthew Desmond.
Don't get me wrong. There is definitely some gorgeous cinematography in the movie, and the actors are great. But the story is a muddled mess. This movie shouldn't have been called NOMADLAND. It should have been called MOPIN' THROUGH 'MURICA.
I think there is a good story in here somewhere. The script just never found it. Everything is out of order. To engage in a story, the audience needs to know what the protagonist wants and why. We don't get that until the last 20 minutes of the movie. We have to sit through the protagonist's misery for 90 minutes before the story actually starts. And it doesn't really end.
I've been a nomad for over a decade. I've done the camp hosting gigs and taken seasonal jobs on the road. Crisscrossed the country seeking opportunity and adventure. Luckily my rig is equipped with a proper flush toilet and other amenities that leave me quite comfortable.
With that said, I wasn't sure what message the director was trying to relate in this movie. It was a hodge podge of incidents tossed together to make some sort of point.
It didn't follow the usual movie plot layout. I think that was the point all along. To leave the viewer questioning what they just saw displayed in front of them.
Privilege? Or is it ambition and/or taking control of ones life. Living in a house you don't own or rent means you have no control over the roof over your head. Who wants that?
I think many of the nomads would say it offers them more control than somebody "trapped" in a house that doesn't go anywhere.
Some aspects of that lifestyle appeal to me. Crapping in a bucket (as was vividly portrayed in the movie), however, as discussed before, does not.
What? In what way?
Why are you so bothered that someone doesn't agree with your opinion? It's not 'wrong', it's just different. This seems really personal to you for some reason.
Or, one could be born into, or by life happening, a situation where they live in a broken home, lack of education, lack of a decent income, or many other possible scenarios, and no matter how hard they try, they cannot get ahead. Not everyone is "Hillbilly Elegy". I would suggest reading "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” by Isabel Wilkerson and “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City” by Matthew Desmond.
In the context of the movie, do you really think Fern and her husband NEVER had the opportunity to take a class, change jobs, or move? They were in Nevada, which offers many opportunities and great schools. Also, Fern didn't come from a broken family at all. They were middle class.
What prevented Fern and her husband from making ANY changes in their lives?
I grew up dirt poor. I know the issues and deficiencies in the "system." I also knew that if I didn't want to stay poor, I had to change something. Even small changes over time all add up.
In the context of the movie, do you really think Fern and her husband NEVER had the opportunity to take a class, change jobs, or move? They were in Nevada, which offers many opportunities and great schools. Also, Fern didn't come from a broken family at all. They were middle class.
What prevented Fern and her husband from making ANY changes in their lives?
I grew up dirt poor. I know the issues and deficiencies in the "system." I also knew that if I didn't want to stay poor, I had to change something. Even small changes over time all add up.
The town they were in is in the isolated desert of northwest NV, far from any large city. And you do realize that it is set in 2012 - right in the midst of the depression, yes? Even if she had the skills, at that time would there have been the jobs? I doubt it. Not to mention I’m guessing she probably went into debt because of her husband’s illness and death.
Every now and then a movie comes along that is widely praised and lauded and worshiped by the critics on the industry because things going in the culture, corporate politics, or just because no one can admit the Emperor hath no clothes. But later on, people start to come to their senses and realize that that movie everyone loved actually was kinda bad.
Remember American Beauty? Ugh. It won all the awards. Critics gushed over it. The stars all gave interviews where they looked wistfully into the distance and opined how Important this movie is and how it changed their life just being in it. It does indeed have some great acting and great cinematography (sound familiar?), but the movie itself is bad, and even the industry critics have come around to that conclusion.
Much the same thing happened with The Usual Suspects. And Shakespeare in Love. And Scarface. Consensus on Birdman is turning. I suspect much the same thing is going to happen with NOMADLAND over time. Because the movie just isn't very good.
Totally with you on that one...but I didn't have to "turn." Watched it with 2 friends and we all just looked at each other afterward, like WTF??? I guess I'm not "deep" enough to understand whatever the hell the point of Michael Keaton's character was. Or Emma Stone at the end, looking up into the sky and smiling. Again I say, WTF??
Totally with you on that one...but I didn't have to "turn." Watched it with 2 friends and we all just looked at each other afterward, like WTF??? I guess I'm not "deep" enough to understand whatever the hell the point of Michael Keaton's character was. Or Emma Stone at the end, looking up into the sky and smiling. Again I say, WTF??
BIRDMAN was a movie with great style and craftsmanship, but no actual substance. It wanted to "look deep" without actually being deep.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
