Wtf with these quirky movies?

I was watching Synecdoche, New York tonight, and I had to shut it off after 70 minutes. It was really frustrating because all of the acting was so good. But I would start to really get into it, and something weird happens. There would be some great drama, then all of a sudden, characters are sitting in a house that's on fire, or some other unrealistic thing. I don't know if it's a characters imagination, or if it's supposed to be a metaphor, or what. But it's really distracting to what should be a great, serious drama. This is not the only film that has pissed me off like this. After loving Boogie Nights, I watched Magnolia. Again, great acting and great parts. But then it ends with it raining frogs??? Wtf! I haven't seen another Paul Thomas Anderson film since. It's aggravating because I want to, but I'm afraid some odd event will ruin it. I'll watch The Master on DVD because of the actors but I do not expect to like it. And it seems that all of Charlie Kaufman's films are like this; great cast and moments of brilliance and then something goofy happens. If I want fantasy, I'll watch Lord of the Rings or a Sci-Fi film. Another is Wes Anderson. I hear about Moonrise Kingdom and see it has a great cast. Then I watch the trailer and it looks like it was directed by some weird 11yo kid. But I hear so many great things about these films and so many people seem to love them. Somebody please tell me that I'm not the only one who doesn't get this "art"?

It's called surrealism. It's what happens when you remove the director between Charlie Kaufman and the screen. Bunuel and Lynch are also classic surrealists. And, the end of Magnolia is possible. It's in one part a biblical reference, but also, raining frogs has happened when a waterspout displaces them. Surrealism isn't meant to be real, it's all either overt symbolism, or subconsciousness, and it's very beautiful if you actually think about it and not storm off so fast.

__________________
Mubi

Yes, Lynch is another and I don't know the other one. I like Lynch more because of the darker context, but I'm not as big of a fan as others on this forum. The thing is, when I watch a drama, I want realism-not surrealism. Too me that's fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I understand that some people will love these and I don't think they're trash. It is just annoying to me and I believe a lot of these films appeal to movie snobs, rather than the average person. I don't think a lot of these films have done great with typical, commercial audiences, yet they all seem to be critically acclaimed. And personally, I have yet to have frogs fall from the sky onto my head and I don't believe it'll ever happen. And to me, the bible is fantasy. I suppose there's people out there who watch ghost stories and afterlife films and think it's possible. Not me, but it's all in what somebody's personal beliefs are.

If you don't like surrealism, don't watch Kaufman films. It's kind of his thing.

__________________

I've yet to see a tornado, yet, I still believe they're real, and it's still possible for it to happen. And, I wasn't saying that the time it happened was from the bible, I was just saying that whether or not it could happen, it was probably intended to reference the bible.

I can't really see how you compare a tornado to raining frogs. I mean, everybody knows tornados are real I assume.

Miss Vicky-you are right. It's just that so many of these films look so good and so many people here, who's opinions I respect, love them. One of the reasons I watched Synecdoche, New York tonight is because it's in Bluedeed's top 10. And all of these films have components that I really enjoy. But they are ultimately very disappointing because I get drawn in with my expectations, and it's just a few small instances of strangeness that ruins it for me.

There's a lot of symbolism in Synecdoche and the house on fire is one example. It doesn't make it fantasy, it just means that fantastical elements are used to further the story without having to be so literal. The fact that it can be interpreted in many different ways just adds depth. There is still a linear story going on.

I'm not a movie snob and this movie is one of my favorites. I didn't get all the symbolism and references on first viewing and I still discover something new everytime I watch it.

Yea you know I just can't explain it too well. I appreciate the art form but I get sucked into the stretches of these films where there is great drama and emotion. I just don't find the oddities necessary and it makes me groan inside. Maybe it's because of the way it's filmed. If I knew the characters were feeling or seeing something, but they didn't actually show it, I would feel differently. It takes me out of the moment. I'm just wondering if this bothers anyone else.

It obviously depends on the director, but with people like Kaufman or Buñuel, when they're including what you call unnecessary oddities, they come across to me as trying to say the unspeakable. I tend to empathize extremely well with that sort of sentiment so maybe I just have an affinity for this style inherently but these oddities are the little things that make the film speak, if you will. Not sure how to explain it. It's never jarred me before either, especially since I tried to watch more films that were actually trying to be visual storytellers unlike most films today.

Yeah that's it. It's like a way of illustrating something that is happening, or being felt that can't be delivered in dialogue or through actions. I don't know if that makes sense, but it's like the things that Hazel's house being on fire symbolized could only be shown in that way.

I have similar views on Synecdoche, but I love many surrealist movies.two of my top ten films are pretty hardcore surrealism. Lynch is one of my absolute favorite directors. But when it comes Synecdoche I think I disliked more than you. I never got Into it, never understood what's going on, and similarly turned it off. I think like any genre surrealists can be a hit and a miss. For a lot of people Synecdoche, New York is a home run, many love it. But with that some people won't. In my mind not a "modern day masterpiece", Seymour-Hoffmans worse film, but for other it's vice versa.

Also about your comments on Moonrise, I felt the same thing watching the trailer, I found it annoying, but it ended up being a very good film. One of the best of the year.

__________________

Right, I really can't think of another way to show something like that, at least not so efficiently and effectively. That moment, for most people, is the divisive point in the film. Up until that point, the film seems logical (it's actually not though, watch the opening scenes closely). Kaufman's surrealism enforces very realistic and terrifying themes, which is why it's so effective for me. I especially love filmmakers who extend themselves visually first and foremost, cinema is so ripe for this kind of thing. Also, I don't really get why everything needs to make perfect sense to people in watching films. Plenty of things in life go unexplained. We live with things that don't make sense every day, yet when we watch films, if it's not complete and without unexplained events, there's a problem. Let cinema be life and be confusing and hard! That's what art is, life!

I'm watching the rest of it now, it feels like a love/hate relationship.

I like surreal films. What bothers me is when I'm watching, and getting into, a serious, realistic film and then all of a sudden something surreal happens.

I don't believe movies should aspire to perfectly mimic reality.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Watch Wes Anderson's work. It's a little less ridiculous, but still 'quirky.' See if you can take it in smaller doses.

__________________
~ I am tired of ze same old faces! Ze same old things!

Some movies use lots of symbolism. It's kind of a good thing, because it can allow them to be imaginative and present ideas about the real world in interesting ways. Instead of, you know, just being documentaries.

I'd recommend you to watch There Will Be Blood,nothing surreal there.

And it's strange that you don't like "moments of surrealism" but you like surreal movies overall. I didn't mind raining frogs (actually, for a 3 hour drama it was refreshing a bit) and I never take literally surreal scenes.On the other hand,I never analyze them,too.I just watch the film and usually that surreal scene just fits.

There Will be Blood is on my to see list; I'm not against trying anything and I've read so many good things about it here.

Yes, I like surreal films. But it's when something like that pops out of nowhere in what I think is not a surreal film that drives me nuts.

Nothing interesting in There Will Be Blood, either.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.