I saw this movie a while back and have thought of it often since. I have this notion about what its all about and what it all means.
A creative person is inspired by both the good and the bad. The good influences tend to get a disproportionate amount of attention, but they can oftentimes be less important than the bad. When I say bad, I don't mean destructive, but rather I mean those influences which are greatly flawed or of low artistic merit. Great works often come out of protest, whether consciously or subconsciously concieved. Maybe that is the case here.
Henry is the force that pushes Simon to the task of writing what becomes a crushingly important epic poem. Of course, we later learn, perhaps to little surprise, that Henry is a terrible writer himself. Yet, despite his utter lack of ability, he is the essential force at work in the narrative.
I think Henry relates to the viewer in the same way he does to Simon. I apologize to Thomas Jay Ryan if I am wrong here, but his performance is not good in the conventional sense. He is melodramatic and sometimes just plain ridiculous. But I think that is part of the idea. Perhaps the viewer can be inspired, artistically or otherwise, simply by the flaws of Ryan's performance, which are so evident. I know it at least made me think. His performance stirs because it is off, not reprehensible like some mailed-in action superstar performance, just off. Maybe this is brilliant.
A creative person is inspired by both the good and the bad. The good influences tend to get a disproportionate amount of attention, but they can oftentimes be less important than the bad. When I say bad, I don't mean destructive, but rather I mean those influences which are greatly flawed or of low artistic merit. Great works often come out of protest, whether consciously or subconsciously concieved. Maybe that is the case here.
Henry is the force that pushes Simon to the task of writing what becomes a crushingly important epic poem. Of course, we later learn, perhaps to little surprise, that Henry is a terrible writer himself. Yet, despite his utter lack of ability, he is the essential force at work in the narrative.
I think Henry relates to the viewer in the same way he does to Simon. I apologize to Thomas Jay Ryan if I am wrong here, but his performance is not good in the conventional sense. He is melodramatic and sometimes just plain ridiculous. But I think that is part of the idea. Perhaps the viewer can be inspired, artistically or otherwise, simply by the flaws of Ryan's performance, which are so evident. I know it at least made me think. His performance stirs because it is off, not reprehensible like some mailed-in action superstar performance, just off. Maybe this is brilliant.