Reply to Topic
Its existence?
Nearly the entire thing was not to my liking. What was awful was the cumulative effect of how unsatisfying I found it. It's not about a specific scene.It's about its overall and aggravating nothingness to me.
Could I go and put it on again and find a moment to try and articulate what I specifically don't like. I guess. But its not the kind of thing that would be particularly well explained through this format. I'd be pointing at a look, or a edit that came one moment too quick or one moment too slow, or a line that was just read in a way where I could see the script in their eyes. It's the equivalent of asking me to explain how I knew someone was lying to me by finding the specific thing they said that was untrue. But all I can do is point to the person and not understand why you aren't seeing how the way they are fidgeting with something in their hand or how they won't look me in the eye or how there was an intonation in their voice says more than I could ever do about the things they were saying.
My relationship to art is about instinct. Even though I from time to time can break somethings down into specifics of what works or what doesn't, some films don't fill me with the urge to do this. My instinctual dislike of them is enough. Some movies I hate like this may be technically accomplished. They may be playing at saying larger things about culture. But unless these are incoporated in a way that make me want to dig deeper or think longer, I find it pretty dull to raise these elements to the forefront of the discussion. Because the aren't terribly important to me. To me they are at best the skeleton or the eisel that holds up the emotions and the actual art. More often than not, I like things I can't put my finger on. And I dislike things I don't have any interest in touching.
Nearly the entire thing was not to my liking. What was awful was the cumulative effect of how unsatisfying I found it. It's not about a specific scene.It's about its overall and aggravating nothingness to me.
Could I go and put it on again and find a moment to try and articulate what I specifically don't like. I guess. But its not the kind of thing that would be particularly well explained through this format. I'd be pointing at a look, or a edit that came one moment too quick or one moment too slow, or a line that was just read in a way where I could see the script in their eyes. It's the equivalent of asking me to explain how I knew someone was lying to me by finding the specific thing they said that was untrue. But all I can do is point to the person and not understand why you aren't seeing how the way they are fidgeting with something in their hand or how they won't look me in the eye or how there was an intonation in their voice says more than I could ever do about the things they were saying.
My relationship to art is about instinct. Even though I from time to time can break somethings down into specifics of what works or what doesn't, some films don't fill me with the urge to do this. My instinctual dislike of them is enough. Some movies I hate like this may be technically accomplished. They may be playing at saying larger things about culture. But unless these are incoporated in a way that make me want to dig deeper or think longer, I find it pretty dull to raise these elements to the forefront of the discussion. Because the aren't terribly important to me. To me they are at best the skeleton or the eisel that holds up the emotions and the actual art. More often than not, I like things I can't put my finger on. And I dislike things I don't have any interest in touching.
