So is the entire run time of this going to be this guy complaining that this movie is just a bunch of shots of ceilings and doors? Even though it is clearly more than this, unless one overlooks all of the other cinematic techniques that are being used in tandem with its images. You know, like sound design, shot composition, manipulation of how the audience experiences time, allusions to greater narrative and thematic elements. You know, the things that make a film be a film.
Does he just keep saying he doesn't understand the praise? Even when he could fairly easily find write ups online which would explain exactly what fans of the film like about this.
Is he going to keep claiming he completely understands the film, even though he seems to be using movies like Hereditary and Midsommar as reference points that he is up to the task. Movies that clearly bare zero relationship to Skinamarinks intentions. That there is absolutely no reason even to mention beyond the superficial link of being from A24
Does he at any point make it known that he has any basic understanding of experimental film? Maybe an experience with something like Wavelength or Dog Star Man? The sort of film experiences that can prime one for what Ball is trying to do here?
Does he at any point even mention what he thinks the aim of this film is? Why it removes standard narrative elements, and is composed with so many lingering shots? How these might not be instructive in understanding plot, but are essential in order to lull the viewer into the same elongated experience of a child awake in the middle of the night. How this experience with time is exactly a part of the films appeal.
Does he pay any mind to how incredibly well composed each of those 'pointless' shots are. Their use of line and shadow making each a small masterpiece of minimalist design. Their use of negative space helping create a world where we are meant to always be looking, deeper and deeper into corners. You know, like a child might in the middle of the night.
Or is this epic rant just him repeating what virtually every other person who doesn't like the film says. Like, verbatim. Does he have an interesting angle on his complaints of not getting it, and not understanding how anyone else dare to like it? Does he say anything at all I can't already imagine him saying before I click on the link? Just asking, because the first five minutes are kind of frustratingly repetitive.
It's obviously not a movie for everyone. Never will be. And that's okay. I don't blame this guy for not liking it, and maybe he has great takes on things he actually has some knowledge about.
But there is something numbing and so anti curious about the idea of ranting against a film that is this different, especially if he doesn't pay any notice of what it might be doing right, at least in relation to what it is hoping to accomplish. It's also annoying when he seems to be irritated at the notion of it being called revolutionary, even when it clearly kind of is, whether he enjoys it or not. Not that I think there will be that many copycats of this particular style. People's patience for this kind of thing is going to be slim. It's much too austere. Much too single-minded in the kind of audience member it is trying to reach. But it's still very much revolutionary in how it is a completely uncompromising film, in multiplexes, which is ultimately exposing an unexpected audience to a cinematic experience usually relegated to art houses and galleries. The kind of thing most general audience members would dismiss out of hand as being pretentious twaddle. And what is encouraging is some people, even those who might not normally like this kind of thing, or even have any general understanding of experimental films at all, are finding something affecting here. Which is important. Any film that shakes up the way we normally experience a film matters. Even if it makes a lot of people cry about wanting their money back.
Reply to Topic
