← Back to Reviews
in
Try looking up Southland Tales on the Internet. Richard Kelly's sophomore effort (after 2001's Donnie Darko) is the centre of a large chunk of controversy and polarisation among the relatively small number of people who have seen it. It has borne the brunt of largely negative criticism both by moviegoers and critics alike. Of course, there is a minority that does appreciate the film as well. Just check the reactions of the MoFos who've seen it. Some like it, most hate it. Even though I'd already wanted to see Southland Tales ever since I heard of it a couple of years ago, my interest was jacked up by the negative attention it drew. What was so bad about this movie that actually didn't sound so bad?
Southland Tales is a tale about the end of the world. Set in 2008 (following a fictitious nuclear attack in 2005), the film switches focus between a large and eclectic cast of characters over the course of a few days, all supposedly leading up to the end of the world. That's about as basic as the plot can get. But of course, it gets much more convoluted than that. Spelling it out defeats the point a little, for this reason: the less I knew, the better.
I know that making comparisons to other films are seen as a relatively cheap reviewing technique, but in the case of Southland Tales I think I really need to do it. I watched it while trying to know as little about it as possible - I think Mulholland Drive would've weirded me out much more if I didn't know that the narrative backflipped three-quarters of the way through. Southland Tales appears to have been going for a similar kind of "weirdness" factor, and there are countless bizarre aesthetic choices that I don't necessarily see as a drawback, yet not exactly much in terms of strength. Plenty of the characters and scenes are weird, yet the film could just as easily have been done without them. However, they gel perfectly with the film's bizarre sense of reality, and if you really reckon that's an issue, Southland Tales is definitely not your kind of film.
I've also noticed a number of complaints about how the story is muddled or confused or whatever synonym you care to choose. I personally don't see how the story is so hard to follow. As I have said, I have not looked into this film much at all before watching it. I have not read others' opinions too closely or looked up theories that do attempt an explanation of the film. I watched the film "cold", starting at about 11:30p.m. last night and finishing around 1:45a.m - and I still managed to follow the stories fine. There was no real confusion for me personally. The multiple stories, however ridiculous and contrived they seemed at times (especially one of the story's later twists, concerning Seann William Scott's character, which I semi-expected), managed to flow fairly smoothly without anything that particularly needed an explanation. It was certainly easier to understand on a first viewing than, say, Donnie Darko was. This is at once a serious strength and weakness for Southland Tales. On one hand, it's a clearer, more concise film than Darko or most of David Lynch's handiwork and therefore much quicker and easier to grasp. On the other hand, this means the film doesn't leave as much up to interpretation as the aforementioned examples. Those of you who love to watch thought-provoking "puzzle movies" repeatedly and trying to piece it together by yourself and discuss it with others, you may be somewhat disappointed by how easy Southland Tales is to figure out after one or two viewings.
Granted, it is easy to become disoriented in the whirlwind of stories that is Southland Tales. Although if the story confuses you somewhat, you can always try and appreciate the amusing banality on the film's surface. It's set in Los Angeles, the blackened heart of the consumer culture that drives America (and by extension much of Western civilization). Several of the main characters are played by people who are more celebrity than actor (chief among them being Dwayne Johnson and Justin Timberlake). Kelly has gone for a not-so-subtle mockery of the importance of celebrities in our lives (especially through Johnson's character) and their relation to the end of the world. While it doesn't pay off with any laugh-out-loud moments, you do find it amusing in almost the same way you'd find Dr. Strangelove amusing.
Obviously, Southland Tales isn't for everyone. Ask anyone who's seen it and they will probably tell you the same thing. While I found it easier to understand initially than your usual "mind-f***" movie, it's definitely weird enough to have appeal for the people who liked it. What I wonder is whether or not I should bother with a second viewing. Something tells me I will, although not at any point in the immediate future. I got enough out of the movie on one viewing that a second viewing seems rather pointless. This does not affect my opinion of what is otherwise a rather good film with some well-crafted visuals and a decent storyline.
(was originally going to give it , but decided against it due to some pacing issues that did make the film a little hard to sit through at times. Or maybe I just don't have as much patience for films over 2 hours long anymore. Oh well.)
SOUTHLAND TALES
(Richard Kelly, 2006)
(Richard Kelly, 2006)
Try looking up Southland Tales on the Internet. Richard Kelly's sophomore effort (after 2001's Donnie Darko) is the centre of a large chunk of controversy and polarisation among the relatively small number of people who have seen it. It has borne the brunt of largely negative criticism both by moviegoers and critics alike. Of course, there is a minority that does appreciate the film as well. Just check the reactions of the MoFos who've seen it. Some like it, most hate it. Even though I'd already wanted to see Southland Tales ever since I heard of it a couple of years ago, my interest was jacked up by the negative attention it drew. What was so bad about this movie that actually didn't sound so bad?
Southland Tales is a tale about the end of the world. Set in 2008 (following a fictitious nuclear attack in 2005), the film switches focus between a large and eclectic cast of characters over the course of a few days, all supposedly leading up to the end of the world. That's about as basic as the plot can get. But of course, it gets much more convoluted than that. Spelling it out defeats the point a little, for this reason: the less I knew, the better.
I know that making comparisons to other films are seen as a relatively cheap reviewing technique, but in the case of Southland Tales I think I really need to do it. I watched it while trying to know as little about it as possible - I think Mulholland Drive would've weirded me out much more if I didn't know that the narrative backflipped three-quarters of the way through. Southland Tales appears to have been going for a similar kind of "weirdness" factor, and there are countless bizarre aesthetic choices that I don't necessarily see as a drawback, yet not exactly much in terms of strength. Plenty of the characters and scenes are weird, yet the film could just as easily have been done without them. However, they gel perfectly with the film's bizarre sense of reality, and if you really reckon that's an issue, Southland Tales is definitely not your kind of film.
I've also noticed a number of complaints about how the story is muddled or confused or whatever synonym you care to choose. I personally don't see how the story is so hard to follow. As I have said, I have not looked into this film much at all before watching it. I have not read others' opinions too closely or looked up theories that do attempt an explanation of the film. I watched the film "cold", starting at about 11:30p.m. last night and finishing around 1:45a.m - and I still managed to follow the stories fine. There was no real confusion for me personally. The multiple stories, however ridiculous and contrived they seemed at times (especially one of the story's later twists, concerning Seann William Scott's character, which I semi-expected), managed to flow fairly smoothly without anything that particularly needed an explanation. It was certainly easier to understand on a first viewing than, say, Donnie Darko was. This is at once a serious strength and weakness for Southland Tales. On one hand, it's a clearer, more concise film than Darko or most of David Lynch's handiwork and therefore much quicker and easier to grasp. On the other hand, this means the film doesn't leave as much up to interpretation as the aforementioned examples. Those of you who love to watch thought-provoking "puzzle movies" repeatedly and trying to piece it together by yourself and discuss it with others, you may be somewhat disappointed by how easy Southland Tales is to figure out after one or two viewings.
Granted, it is easy to become disoriented in the whirlwind of stories that is Southland Tales. Although if the story confuses you somewhat, you can always try and appreciate the amusing banality on the film's surface. It's set in Los Angeles, the blackened heart of the consumer culture that drives America (and by extension much of Western civilization). Several of the main characters are played by people who are more celebrity than actor (chief among them being Dwayne Johnson and Justin Timberlake). Kelly has gone for a not-so-subtle mockery of the importance of celebrities in our lives (especially through Johnson's character) and their relation to the end of the world. While it doesn't pay off with any laugh-out-loud moments, you do find it amusing in almost the same way you'd find Dr. Strangelove amusing.
Obviously, Southland Tales isn't for everyone. Ask anyone who's seen it and they will probably tell you the same thing. While I found it easier to understand initially than your usual "mind-f***" movie, it's definitely weird enough to have appeal for the people who liked it. What I wonder is whether or not I should bother with a second viewing. Something tells me I will, although not at any point in the immediate future. I got enough out of the movie on one viewing that a second viewing seems rather pointless. This does not affect my opinion of what is otherwise a rather good film with some well-crafted visuals and a decent storyline.
(was originally going to give it , but decided against it due to some pacing issues that did make the film a little hard to sit through at times. Or maybe I just don't have as much patience for films over 2 hours long anymore. Oh well.)