#123movies #fmovies #putlocker #gomovies #solarmovie #soap2day Watch Full Movie Online Free – David Wagner is a kid whose mind is stuck in the 1950s. He’s addicted to a classic 50’s sitcom television show called “Pleasantville”. Pleasntville is a simple place, a place where all of its citizens are swell and simple-minded folks, a place where the word “violence”, and life outside of Pleasantville, is unbeknown to its inhabitants; things are perfect down in Pleasantville. One evening, the life of David and his obnoxious sister Jennifer take a bizarre turn when an eccentric repairman hand them a supposed magical remote. After a quarrel between the siblings, they inexplicably zap themselves into the world of “Pleasantville”. Now, David and Jennifer must adjust to a 50s lifestyle of repressed desires and considerably different societal values while trying to find their way home.
Plot: Geeky teenager David and his popular twin sister, Jennifer, get sucked into the black-and-white world of a 1950s TV sitcom called “Pleasantville,” and find a world where everything is peachy keen all the time. But when Jennifer’s modern attitude disrupts Pleasantville’s peaceful but boring routine, she literally brings color into its life.
Smart Tags: #1950s #trapped_in_tv #censorship #symbolism #rebellion #color #mural #art #small_town #utopia #innocence #free_thinker #family_values #sexual_repression #individuality #forbidden_fruit #apple #no_opening_credits #alternate_dimension #conformity #rainbow
|7.5/10 Votes: 121,822|
|7.2 Votes: 1196 Popularity: 10.533|
Some critics here are saying the movie takes itself too seriously – but I believe some people are taking it too literally. … Saying that the topics that are addressed have no impact on society anymore, clearly misses the point. … The 50s — or more specifically, 50s TV — is used as a metaphor, because of the way 50s TV portrayed life in America. … Thematically, this movie is about “Living Life” to the fullest, whatever that means. More specifically, to live life to the fullest — to truly feel “alive” — you need to take the good with the bad. Sweeping things under the rug and just acting “pleasant” all the time, is no way to live. That’s what Tobey McGuire’s speech at the end to his “real” mother is all about. Bad things happen, it’s part of life. Having passion brings with it positives and negatives — but suppressing true feelings for the sake of “pleasantness” is an empty life. THAT is the key … and that “issue” is everlasting to the human condition.
Another point: People fear change. This is universal from the start of time until the end of time. The film suggests that changing and growing as a society and as people — even if scary — is good. Just because the 50s were used as a metaphor for that, don’t believe for a minute this isn’t a universal issue that exists today and forever.
Another issue common for people critical of this film is the sexual issue. They say that Gary Ross is promoting sexual promiscuity, sex out of wedlock, etc… Again, I believe it misses the point. Is Ross suggesting that premarital sex is OK? Yes, and I’d agree – and I’m sure there’s plenty of people who don’t agree with that, and that’s OK too. But, again, the sex is just part of the theme – used as a high-profile example to making the overall point about “openness” – and not suppressing one’s feelings. Note that the Reese Witherspoon character was already promiscuous, and her transformation was actually something completely different.
I can’t make everyone like this film – I’ll just say that, on a personal note, I was so floored by this film, I had to see it again the next day. That had never happened to me before, or since. Ross’ commentary goes on to speak of everything I felt about the film when I first saw it. It was great to hear that his reasons for what he did, meshed exactly with how I took it. I had to write him a letter to tell him so – another thing I’d never done before or since.
This is not a perfect film. I liked its subtlety, but then the racism correlation, and the censorship stuff, got a bit more overt. The courtroom scene at the end is a bit cliche … and I also agree with one poster who said that, to make the point about taking the good with the bad, we should’ve seen a bit more about the consequences of their actions.
Those are merely nitpicks in the grand scheme of things. This is a 10 out of 10.
People of Color
I didn’t know where this movie was going from one minute to the next. It could have been written by Rod Serling while possessed by a Dybbuk. It has touches of “A Short Walk” and “A Stop in Willoughby” in it. But Serling, brought up in Binghamton, New York, usually saw the past as something regrettably lost. A kind of cultural childhood, a Golden Age, a period of innocence, rather like Spielberg.
What are we to make of the clash of values that Bud and Mary Sue bring back to 1958 with them? Bud is happy enough to be in the black and white world of stability. (Stability? I mean obsessive-compulsive rigidity.) But Mary Sue runs around like a warthog in heat with nothing in her head except whatever impinges on her body sheath. And then there’s this colorization gimmick. People change colors as they, well, “evolve” maybe. The kids’ mother has her first orgasm (self induced) and a tree on the lawn bursts into colorful flame. She turns colored. Mary Sue begins to wonder, since she’s been rutting with all the young studs in town, why she remains black and white, and Bud suggests that maybe it’s not just the sex.
Well then what IS it? It’s not simply the capacity for change because Bud’s already got his dose. At one point Bud tells a townsman that people get colorized because of something human inside them, something trying to get out, and he demonstrates his point by enraging the mayor (great performance by J. T. Walsh).
But something has been trying to get out of the local soda fountain manager, Jeff Daniels, for a long time — the desire to paint modern pictures a la Picasso — and it finally does, but he remains black and white for a long time afterward. Cars turn color too, although something has been getting out of them fairly often. I’m stumped. Some of the incidents seem no more than arbitrary.
The clash of cultures is interesting though. It’s easy to make fun of the 1950s from our current perspective and this movie, unlike Twilight Zone, milks it for laughs. Married couples sleep in separate twin beds and never have sex. (They pollinate, I suppose.) Young couples go to Lover’s Lane — to hold hands. The books in the library are all blank because nobody reads or knows anything about life outside of Pleasantville. That last is a cheap shot, and untrue. Mary Sue, of all people, introduces them to reading and studying, and the books magically fill up with text and engravings. And it’s a weak argument that claims we read more now than in 1958.
Well, the two kids wind up colorizing everything and everybody and practically wrecking the town in the process. It’s supposed to be an improvement, but is it? The black and white townsfolk were dumb but happy. Now they get into fights, insult one another, trash art works they don’t like. They screw like minks before they’re married. One can imagine what this does to the crime rate and the teenage pregnancy rate — and taxes. (Is this what been trying to get out of them?)
Sure, it was oppressive in the 1950s. We can see that now — all that conformism and complacency. Is it less oppressive now? Perhaps not. Perhaps we don’t recognize the strictures we live under because we take them for granted. We may be in the same position as the guy Mark Twain mentioned who suddenly realized he’d been speaking prose all his life. From inside the box, the commonly accepted assumptions, we seem to have a good deal of freedom to do what we want. The good folk of Pleasantville felt the same way — and this movie treat them as airheads.
I want to mention something about the score. It insinuates anachronistically Dave Brubeck’s “Take Five” into one of the scenes, rather prominently. This is followed, again anachronistically, by a piece from an album I revere, Miles Davis’s “So What.” I’m glad that it wasn’t drilled into the viewers’ ears in 1958 because it’s unforgettable. How easily it could have become a stock piece, like R. Strauss’s “Also Sprach Zarathustra” from “2001: A Space Odyssey,” or the last movement from Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. I can almost hear it now, playing over and over and over on all kinds of TV commercials for shampoo, kitchen cleansers, pimple removers, and condoms.
It may be hard to tell but I kind of enjoyed the movie, although it left me as much puzzled as satisfied. Joan Allen’s performance is the only one with true depth; Macy is always interesting but his part gives him less to do. The kids are routine, except for the momentous 1950s bosom Reese Witherspoon has to strap on. Jeff Daniels fits his role as a reasonable but timid person very well. The only role in which I can remember his displaying energy was that of Joshua Chamberlain in “Gettysburg.”
Rod Serling didn’t always have a perfect answer for his longing for the past either, but I usually felt it was the result of ambivalence on his part, not, as here, confusion.
Original Language en
Runtime 2 hr 4 min (124 min)
Genre Comedy, Drama, Fantasy
Director Gary Ross
Writer Gary Ross
Actors William H. Macy, Joan Allen, Natalie Ramsey, Kevin Connors
Awards Nominated for 3 Oscars. Another 18 wins & 42 nominations.
Production Company New Line Cinema
Sound Mix DTS, Dolby Digital, SDDS
Aspect Ratio 1.85 : 1
Camera Panavision Cameras and Lenses
Laboratory DeLuxe, Hollywood (CA), USA, Hollywood Film & Video, Hollywood (CA), USA
Film Length 3,412 m (Sweden)
Negative Format 35 mm (Eastman EXR 100T 5248, EXR 500T 5298)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format) (some scenes), Spherical (source format)
Printed Film Format 35 mm