Page 2 of 3

Re: Feed

Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:38 am
by redwinter101
As we're about to do the group watch thing, I'll stick this in spoilers.
Spoiler:
I think the nudity is a really important aspect of the film - a rare example of it being necessary - as it contributed to the sense of otherness of all these characters compared to norms of behaviour. Michael and Deirdre had completely different views of beauty, desire and sexuality compared to mainstream society and part of that was a voyeurist/exhibitionist trait. For Michael I also think there was an interesting comparison with the way he dressed when he was with Mary (I mean seriously, that tweed sports coat could not be more buttoned-up, suburban, normal). Philip and Abbey have a number of similar traits - the exhibitionism, lack of prudishness - and in many ways seem more conventional, yet their relationship is incredibly destructive. And he's the one who ends up with PIG written on his chest. Physical openness with each other did not give them any kind of emotional intimacy.

Apart from the fact that it contributed to the story, I also appreciated that it was pretty equal-opportunity nudity - because that's rare, even in films where it's warranted it's usually only the women who end up naked in front of the camera.
Red

Re: Feed

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:35 pm
by lynnrxgal
Found an interesting review of Feed from February 2006:
http://www.eatmybrains.com/showreview.php?id=173

It seems that Alex's talent was evident to this reviewer:
In fact, whether this was intended or not, I often felt myself rooting for Michael (Alex O’Loughlin), the baddie of the film who has far more charisma, presence, and a sense of logic inside of him than the work-obsessed (Jealous? On-the-edge?) cop who is pursuing him.

Re: Feed

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:55 pm
by wpgrace
Oh, both cool posts, Lynn and Red!

That's why I can watch this film... there are parts of it that DO make sense and yes, the nudity is helping us understand the idiosyncrasies of these people. And due to Alex's performance--I think the reviewer is right here; Alex does succeed with creating his "layers" with Michael-- one does root for him. Part of it is writing too... odd, gross, and uneven as the film is, Michael's particular brand of crazy DOES contain some truth and some intelligence and some insight. As Pgal, I think, said in the Watch Feed thread, if you didn't know what he was gonna do later on, what he had already done, to women, you'd be sitting there, as he speaks to Phillip, saying Amen, Brother! You go!

Of course we DO know what Michael has actually done, so instead ya just gotta enjoy the performance... Michael's AND Alex's.

Re: Feed

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:20 pm
by allegrita
Absolutely. And a bravura performance it is, too. By BOTH Alex and Michael.

For Michael, a lot of the thrill has to have been the knowledge that he was fooling the entire world. He had a smugness about his expression and body language, even before he started messing with Phillip.

Re: Feed

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:57 pm
by darkstarrising
allegrita wrote:Absolutely. And a bravura performance it is, too. By BOTH Alex and Michael.

For Michael, a lot of the thrill has to have been the knowledge that he was fooling the entire world. He had a smugness about his expression and body language, even before he started messing with Phillip.
ITA, but I think some of the smugness also came from the belief that even with Phillip being on to him, Michael would somehow best him. He'd gotten away with murder (of his mother) as a child (albeit spending some time in some sort of JV) and had been getting away with murder of the gainers. He recognized Phillip for what he was - damaged and just a bit burned out. In short, Michael thought he was better, smarter and perhaps less damaged than Phillip, so he 'wagered' that Phillip wouldn't be able to take him down.

Re: Feed

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:04 pm
by wpgrace
It could have been an excellent battle of wits, had Phillip had any wits. Instead, brute force merely won... and a gun.

Re: Feed

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:49 pm
by darkstarrising
wpgrace wrote:It could have been an excellent battle of wits, had Phillip had any wits. Instead, brute force merely won... and a gun.
I don't know if Phillip was meant to come off as brutish and slow as he did or whether it was just poor acting. If the latter, I wonder what a better actor could have done with the role....that would have been a battle of wits worth watching...

I think in one of the interviews Alex gave on Feed, he indicated he was supposed to play Phillip and Patrick Thomas was supposed to play Michael.....it would be interesting to see any footage they had with the roles reversed.

The point about the gun is interesting....Phillip shot Deidre in a moment of rage (ironic that he kills the woman he was trying to save just because she was screaming at him). Yet he shoots Michael to cripple him, then starves him to death. That seems out of character for Phillip. It was something more like Michael would have done had he ended up with the gun.

Re: Feed

Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:09 pm
by wpgrace
Yeah... don't quite know what the point of that total reversal was all about, except just to show that Phillip was just a royal a$$hole... all along.
And yes, Patrick is a large clunky-looking man. Alex is a tall but graceful, thin man... they seemed to fit their roles physically.
Had they reversed it, it would totally have changed the visual dynamics...

Wonder why they DID change those roles around? Anyone ever read the WHY for that??
(My assumption has always been that the director did not think Patrick up to the challenge of Michael... )

Re: Feed

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:21 pm
by Tam
I love FEED. A friend of mine got it and admitted she bought it to see Alex naked and said it was 'the most revolting film she had ever seen'. I checked it out on amazon.com and as it turned out, I owned all of the "similar suggestions" they had at the bottom, so I figured I couldn't really lose :snicker:

I think it's brilliant and daring- I only disliked the end a lot. Luckily I have a special edition version with an alternative ending in which
Spoiler:
Michael ends up in the same way, but Philip gets shots by the police. I think that works better. Why should he get away with what he does?
darkstarrising wrote:Yet he shoots Michael to cripple him, then starves him to death. That seems out of character for Phillip. It was something more like Michael would have done had he ended up with the gun.
I couldn't agree more. I think the end is just... bizarrely OOC. I feel like they are trying to moralize, "look, everyone has an evil psychopath inside them trying to get out" ...or something. Everyone's just as bad as Michael? :shrug:

Still, I think it's excellent, I watch it every now and then- and being far more interested in dark, screwed up characters, I kind of like Michael better than Mick :chair:

Re: Feed

Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:50 pm
by r1015bill
Ran across a new review of Feed

http://www.fangoria.com/index.php?optio ... 3&id=51563

The review makes the movie seem so.. deep...

But he likes Alex's performance so all is good!

Re: Feed

Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:08 pm
by JKsGirl
The review of Alex's performance was excellent!!

:twothumbs:

Re: Feed

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:34 pm
by francis
Overdamoon from H5Ofans found this amusing blog about Alex in Feed.
I especially love that she gets what being an Alex fan is like, and that she loves us.

http://www.onefemalecanuck.com/2011/03/feed-a-film
:laugh:

Re: Feed

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:33 pm
by wpgrace
:giggle: Delightful, thank you.

Re: Feed

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:14 pm
by allegrita
That is darn funny. But I hope she's not inundated with Alex fans (OR Alex haters) who do not get her quirky sense of humor.

Re: Feed

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:43 pm
by tucutecats
I.ve seen it and didn;t like it parts of it didn't make any sence, and the ending sucked.but
alex plays a sycopath well as proved with the Big Wheel on criminal minds/