Talk:Vantage Point (film)

Rashomon effect

I take issue with the claim that this film uses the Rashomon effect. Even the actors cited in the article do not support this claim; e.g. Quaid's statement that "I just played it the same way the entire time." In Rashomon, each individual recalls the events in a fundamentally different way. The key element of the Rashomon effect -- subjectivity of perception -- is missing in this movie. 66.66.76.187 (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems like your taking things too much in a "literal sense". When Quaid said he played his role the same way every time, he's saying it in a figurative way. The film is presented with several different viewpoints which show the breakdown of events with many different details each time. Also, numerous critics from various newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, The Washington Post etc. specifically cite the film for its similarities regarding the Rashomon Effect. DeWaine (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree. Read the article carefully: none of the film critics states that the film is a bona-fide example of the Rashomon effect; the closest they come is to say that Vantage Point doesn't belong in the same class as Kurosawa's film. For instance, the Boston Globe critic states that "the device isn't used to question the nature of truth (as it was in Rashomon)". And I don't know what you mean when you say that Quaid's statement is "figurative"; it seems perfectly direct to me. Indeed, what he says is literally correct: as noted by several of the film critics, the actors simply repeated their actions during each sequence. The fact that the movie shows events from different people's physical locations is irrelevant here. As it states in the WP article, the Rashomon effect is present when "observers of an event are able to produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it." Nothing like this occurs in Vantage Point. 66.66.76.187 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you watch the film? When you say, the Rashomon effect is present when "observers of an event are able to produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it."; well here's an example of that particular statement: Time index 42:20 - The character Lewis views the character Enrique from a bridge being approached by a police car. Seconds later, Enrique is shot. Lewis turns around and views two secret service agents shooting in Enrique's direction. Lewis then says, "They shot him!". In reality through another viewpoint, he was actually shot by the character Javier, as Javier exited the police car. Indeed, the viewer deduces that he was shot by the secret service agents from that earlier scene. We only find out later through a different vantage point that it was not the case. So apparently, observers of an event are able to produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it. ... In the Washington Post, the film critic notes: There are many places one could lay blame for "Vantage Point." One would be the late Akira Kurosawa, whose original movie version of "Rashomon" made it chic for filmmakers to create multiple-perspective movies. He's alluding to the similarities of the films. DeWaine (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. The scene from the view of Lewis is exactly the same as the view of Javier. He only drew the false conclusions due to their customs. In fact they could have even acted the scene only once with two cameras, if they'd manage to get a good shot from both sides at the same time. The Rashomon effect on the other hand should act the scenes much more to what the person remembered/tells - which quite implies a frame story, completly missing in vantage point. Additionally the film repeatedly breaks its own rules of "vantage point" in at least two regards, often enough it does not show things from a vsntage point only to artifically create tension. For example in the second vantage point (Thomas Barnes) it does not show, what Thomas Barnes sees in the camera of Howard Lewis - altough from his ventage point it should be clearly visisble. Or during the course it artifically breaks the narration and winds back, so for example the vantage point of Howard Lewis is cut early, altough he does see what happens to the girl and the ambulence. And secondly near the end of the movie it completly breaks the vantage points anyway and randomly jumps from character to character. Sorry, I dont see any "Rashomon". (And personally: it shows again, to be financial sucessfull and a good movie a two completly dimensions, not mutually exclusive but also not dependant.) --Duodecimal2 (talk)

Well, it sounds like you have pretty good reason to "agree with the IP". Judging by your vernacular style, you and the anonymous IP sound like the same exact person. I can check that out with an administrator to verify it. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by almost anything you mentioned. Everything from "false conclusions due to their customs" and "it shows again, to be financial sucessfull and a good movie a two completly dimensions, not mutually exclusive but also not dependant" to "during the course it artifically breaks the narration and winds back". What your saying doesn't add up or make sense for that matter. DeWaine (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Paranoia? Please go ahead :) Also just becaue you are not able to undestand, doesnt mean its my fault, but your limited capacity. You also should work on you style to treat people. Your understanding of an argument seems to offent people. --Duodecimal2 (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Given what the actors and reviewers say about the film presenting different viewpoints, I feel it's appropriate to keep the comparison in it the article. More than a few sources made reference to the concept (even if they did so while taking a negative view of the film). And while Quaid may have said he played each take the same way, he went on to elaborate that each take might reveal a different aspect of the character or events due to camera angles or some other altered perception. We even include the rest of his quote on the topic in the article; claiming that his statement of HOW he played each scene is a valid reason to remove the comparison is selective reading at best. Millahnna (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but can we mention that it is quite acurate? To cite [Rashomon effect]: "The Rashomon effect is the effect of the subjectivity of perception on recollection, by which observers of an event are able to produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it. A useful demonstration of this principle in scientific understanding can be found in an article by that name authored by Karl G. Heider." This is not true in this film. There is no visible subjective altered perception. It are the same scenes, only cut differently. And the cuts are not even true to a vantage point. --Duodecimal2 (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Millahnna. I think it goes without saying, as you mentioned, countless film critics have noted the use and comparison of the Rashomon concept to this film. If this film had absolutely nothing to do with it, then why would they make those references? Duodecimal12, you may or may not be the random IP; but even if your not, I stand by what I said before. Nothing you said sounds plausible. I'm being perfectly honest with you, when I say I really don't understand what your trying to point out. I gave a perfect example above of what the random IP stated: observers of an event are able to produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it. There are plenty of examples of the concept in the film too. I also feel it's completely appropriate to leave those references in the article. DeWaine (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to explain it again. Normally, in a "rashomon effect" film, scenes are acted differently depending on the viewpoint, "substantially different but equally plausible accounts". The example you gave is not substantially different, its the very same scene, just the conclusions uttered are differnt since he didn't know it weren't real cops. Nobody said it has "absolutely nothing to do with it", but it isn't a "true" rashomon effect. And as said, at showdown it completly gives up the viewpoint concept and jumps randomly from character to character. Or to repeat another point, in the beginning of the film, it deliberatly leaves out information that was viewable from the viewpoint to artifically create tension. It are all cheap tricks to build-up of tension instead of clever use of rahsmon effect. --Duodecimal2 (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this time around, I think I understand what your trying to say, but I strongly disagree with your assertion in regards to the order of events which are not substantially different. You may not realize it, but you are in effect literally describing the Rashomon effect as depicted in the film. When you mention the scene with the cops; well it sounds like a fairly substantial difference whether they are the ones who are shooting, or the conspirator who is shooting. Thats not a minor uttered difference. And as far as at the conclusion, if a different course of plot occurs, it doesn't take away from the use of the Rashomon effect for the first hour and a half of the film. I don't know of any cheap tricks that are used to substitute for the Rashomon effect. DeWaine (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Rashomon Effect films I know the scenes are altered from the viewpoint, like some actors acting more emotinally, angry, in love with the viewer etc. as from other viewpoints. At least this effect is not present in vantage point. A proper Rashomon effect questions the way we remember how the past was. Not so in vantage point, there is only one real reality which the camera always pretends to capture, albeit some viewpoints only seen parts. The "cheap trick" is e.g. what I argued before, the time the film spools through the view of Thomas Barnes it does not show the viewer what he sees in the camera of Howard Lewis. The argument of the sniper going westwards to be lied. That Thomas has seen it and the film spools through his viewpoint, but not shown to user until a later viewpoint is a "cheap trick". Similar when showing the viewpoint of Howard it deliberatly breaks before showdown and spools back. Thats another "cheap trick" instead of showing his whole narrative. It only jumps back to him at the showdown where, as mentioned, it randomly jumps arond viewpoints. Thats are the point the critics ment with "breaking its own rules", and thus also breaking the Rashomon Effect. --Duodecimal2 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But that is a subjective interpretation of what the term means; obviously others felt that this film fit the mold implied by the term. The reviewers made the comparison and we are just reporting on the words of others not making our own judgments. Now if a reviewer or other outside reliable source stated they had problems with the assessment, we absolutely could and should include that criticism. But to remove the term based on our own subjective view of the term, even though other reviews have noted it, would basically amount to Original Research. I dropped a note on the WP:FILM talk page for more comments. So hopefully we'll get some more views on this topic or perhaps someone will have a source criticizing the term in this instance and we can update the article accordingly. Millahnna (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This review, though critical of the film, specifically mentions that the film tries to emulate the Rashomon effect. It seems to me that the comparison is appropriate and sourceable. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Tries to emulate" is quite a reflexive assessment, compared to "is an example of rashomon effect". Would be nice if this reflexive limited notion could be reflected in the article. --Duodecimal2 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that, for our intents and purposes, there really is no difference between "tries to emulate" and "is an example of" or any other statement suggesting correlation between the film and the effect. One way or the other, I find that it makes it appropriate to discuss in the article. I won't take issue with exact wording of the prose one way or the other but I don't think we can deny that a relationship exists. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Social Studies

Was this article created as a middle-school assignment? The plot summary reads like a book report and the rest of the article suffers from a laborious excess of detail. This film is wholly uncontroversial--save the question of whether it is risible or merely mediocre--and so entirely lacking in cultural significance that the number of critical reactions presented herein is preposterously exhaustive.

I totally agree. This article is way too long for such an average movie.173.216.248.174 (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vantage Point (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531070941/http://www.goldentrailer.com/awards.gta9.php to http://www.goldentrailer.com/awards.gta9.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)