First let me say that obviously most of what I write is hyperbole. My entire other blog is hyperbole. I use extreme examples and say things like I say to get a point across, or whatever. I enjoyed the film. I am not actually comparing it to 8 hours of b-roll of a building. I am not comparing it to my high school poetry, and by the way, my teacher was right, John.
I am also not stupid. I was always first in my class, blah blah blah, and I hope I have enough general knowledge to hold my own in most discussions. I've also been obsessed with literature and film and music and art and theater since I was little. I've been a classical pianist since I was 7. Nabokov is my favorite author, by the way. With Kafka as a close second. (And I also like Kubrick, guys.) I also got the creation theme, I thought that was obvious purely based on the images haha, and also the power of nature, and the arbitrariness of life and death, and the power of God or the universe to give and to take and what that means for our little lives. I understood these things. My paragraph about the themes was a little glib, intentionally. (SIMBA!) I also understood that he wanted you to experience the film and it was about the experience itself. I did get that and I said in my post, I was actually on board with that.
But all this is exactly my point. A person can't question some of the choices a director like Malick makes without getting this reaction, and it shuts down the discussion. The person just gets put down and put in their place and gets old literature and classic film references thrown in their face that they can't refute, or oh you should read this critic and then you'd be smarter about this. And then someone says, but I mean, it's okay, I wouldn't expect you to understand it (with your feeble little mind), don't worry. Shh shh shhhhhh.
This is just my opinion but I think the furthering of the art form is not only going to happen with a bunch of film critics sitting around telling each other how great it was and how much better they are than everyone else because nobody else understood it. Why don't we ask why it's so hard to understand? You can have the greatest most powerful most important message in the world, or be doing the most important thing in the world, but if you're not getting it out to all the people you want to get it out to, or they're not really getting it, what does that mean? (That was my only point about the poems.) If they can't truly understand it because of certain decisions that you made, did you accomplish what you were setting out to do? And if you don't care whether they did... why? If they are up for being challenged by a film but came out of it not quite sure what they were challenged about or what you meant for sure but they did know that it was beautiful and powerful in some way, is that fine? And a person can't say - you know, "I think everything being about the experience of the film itself is great, I was WITH him on that, but then why did he kind of set it up like it was going to be a narrative? That's a strange choice, I felt confused and duped by that." without everyone acting like they're stupid and telling them why they don't care about film enough. Why isn't that a valid question after seeing a movie like this? Why can't a person say, you know, it made it more confusing that he had all this different footage but then also went in to character development and essentially STARTED cutting it together as if there was a story... for example, if there had been just one additional shot somewhere in the film of an older brother pushing his younger brother into a river and the younger brother, who was born in to this world out of both nature and humanity, drowns, essentially at the hands of nature and humanity together, would that have been what he was getting at and would that be the one thread that connects all these stories? I get that. All the nature footage makes sense in that context. I just wish I was more clear on the context. If it doesn't matter whether they're connected, okay, but why? Why combine an "experience" type of film and a plot type of film, why put a bible quote at the beginning, why did a chair fly out from the table by itself or whatever, did each of these choices contribute to the meaning of the film? Maybe they did. If some of the smallest choices had been different, would it have had a different meaning? But why am I a complete idiot for asking these questions? Why did the guys who had fathers like the character in the movie empathize with the characters, but people who grew up in a family of two daughters with parents who weren't like that - BUT who WANTED to feel something (I really wanted to, I always do, it's not that I didn't want to or didn't care, like I said, I was REALLY into this movie during the whole thing! and I think anyone who knows me in real life would immediately describe me as empathetic), why didn't she feel something? Was it me, or was that a miss? What could have connected that for me, and why didn't it? Isn't that worth asking instead of just dismissing it because it's Malick?
Please, I'm not saying he's not a professional, I don't want you to mistake that. I thought it was masterful, beautiful, and I've never seen anything like it. He clearly deserves his reputation, which is why I'm looking forward to the rest of his films. I liked the kind of stuff he was doing, a LOT. I'm also not ACTUALLY lumping him in with people who shoot 8 hours of a brick wall, and I agree that he's sincere. And I was joking about him being like, this was about not knowing what it's about, so screw you. Seriously, that was a joke.
But what bugs me is that a person can't ask questions about a film like this and the director's choices without getting slammed as if they think he's a hack. (Even if they're raising their questions in an indelicate way... sorry about that.) I know he's a filmmaker who has this great reputation because his films have been so great. But what's wrong with challenging the fact that then people look at his films differently and don't see them individually and might not challenge apart from the fact that it's by this director whether it did what it set out to do, because they waited 8 years to see it and I mean come on it's MALICK. People do that. And there's something about that that irritates me. Always in life I challenge that kind of thinking, I can't help it.
Obviously the way I wrote the post was aggressive and I guess it's hard to translate my personality over the web but obviously I was not being completely serious about everything and I was using extreme examples on purpose because I know you're all going to write raves (didn't you get a tip off from my Will Smith reference? lighten up guys!), and I knew everyone was going to attack me. I think he's genuine and the film was devoted to itself and all that, I agree with that. And I didn't mean to come across otherwise. But I do think making a film like this and then not worrying about whether it's accessible IS actually pretty pretentious. And I also think there's a difference between a film being for the masses and a film being challenging in terms of form and content but also accessible enough to be discussed by people who may not have been waiting the last 8 years for this movie to come out. Not that I'm saying everything has to be accessible, I'm just asking a question about it, I am not making a statement either way, but I should be allowed to ask that question. What does it accomplish if it's not? Art for Art's sake? Filmmaking for Filmmakers? Or is it more, even if it's not that accessible? But you can't even bring up any of this without just getting shut down by all these superfans of the director who are on the defensive and don't want to discuss this stuff with someone who they see as being below their intellectual level or something like that. Two camps: fan or stupid. That irritates me to no end.
Anyway, I'm done, I'm not a good debater, I hate confrontation and conflict, and I am never confident enough in what I think to debate anything. I fold like a cheap card table. I guess because what I think about things changes constantly, I'm always exploring. I probably shouldn't have been so playfully hyperbolic in my post since it's easy to be misinterpreted. It was 4am, what can I say. I also knew my feelings on it really have no chance against everything you guys are going to say, so what the hell throw it all to the wolves. Sorry for that, I was kind of just being funny about what I had to say because you are all a force to be reckoned with and I don't know what I'm talking about. I really liked the film a lot more than I think came across in my post. I really did. You guys are all really smart, and in your rebuttals to my flippant post you've made great points, most of which I agree with. "A nature that has developed all things and a grace to save them" - I like that Jeffrey. But I do have questions about the execution of that. And I don't think wondering about it makes me an idiot. But hey, who knows, maybe a second viewing would answer everything and make me want to watch this film every day. I definitely want the soundtrack.
No comments:
Post a Comment