I sincerely hope I am wrong about my conclusion. I would like to be the one who leaves a sliver of a chance that it's not so. However, every time I go back to this film, seen recently, I seem to gravitate inevitably to my initial belief: that those in the know (film critics, et. al.) and I watched completely disparate movies. Which happens to lead me into a postulate I've come to accept as true: never trust critics, especially when the praise for a film, ranging from "under-the-radar" to the most blatant exercise in commercial grandeur, is unanimous in establishing how much of a must-see it is. It's as if they -- the Ones who are responsible for grading these films -- and the director, producer, and/or anyone involved in the making of such a movie decided to promote the crap out of this despite its clear flaws. And that's all right. It happens all the time. Fashion is dictated by such means; it has to be in order for certain styles to be executed. That's why suddenly, for the past year or two, turquoise and coffee brown have shown up in showrooms ranging from designer labels to Pier One Imports and/or even IKEA. Such things don't happen randomly.
Such is the case with this movie by Andrew Bujalski. I had read the near perfect praise for it last fall and was impressed by what was being written about it. I decided, maybe this little film is something that I could catch, and I always gravitate towards the unpredictable before succumbing to the latest blockbuster or overblown, Oscar-ready drama. So I take a chance on it, am genuinely impressed by its look, reminiscent of the style of films from the early Sixties -- Eric Rohmer immediately came to mind, then John Cassavetes who in the Seventies did groundbreaking work with little artificiality. The grainy black and white drew me in as well as the natural, "unscripted" dialog. However, the more I saw it, the less I felt I was watching anything that really merited its viewing. The endless talk, the planned cleverness (I could be wrong but this is what I surmised) of every scene... the fact that this seemed to be an imitation of a type of film-making that has been out of style for years now... that did me in. When a story -- or a lack of a story -- becomes so cloying that there is nowhere for it to go but out, something has to be done.
I think that this is the type of film that is best appreciated by film students who can take in the concept of cinema for the sake of it -- images just there, unpolished -- and enjoy its bare existence. It's really the only audience whom I can see this being aimed to, although needless to say there are people who will go nuts for this type of film which is really an experiment more than an experience. I just am not that kind of person.
Such is the case with this movie by Andrew Bujalski. I had read the near perfect praise for it last fall and was impressed by what was being written about it. I decided, maybe this little film is something that I could catch, and I always gravitate towards the unpredictable before succumbing to the latest blockbuster or overblown, Oscar-ready drama. So I take a chance on it, am genuinely impressed by its look, reminiscent of the style of films from the early Sixties -- Eric Rohmer immediately came to mind, then John Cassavetes who in the Seventies did groundbreaking work with little artificiality. The grainy black and white drew me in as well as the natural, "unscripted" dialog. However, the more I saw it, the less I felt I was watching anything that really merited its viewing. The endless talk, the planned cleverness (I could be wrong but this is what I surmised) of every scene... the fact that this seemed to be an imitation of a type of film-making that has been out of style for years now... that did me in. When a story -- or a lack of a story -- becomes so cloying that there is nowhere for it to go but out, something has to be done.
I think that this is the type of film that is best appreciated by film students who can take in the concept of cinema for the sake of it -- images just there, unpolished -- and enjoy its bare existence. It's really the only audience whom I can see this being aimed to, although needless to say there are people who will go nuts for this type of film which is really an experiment more than an experience. I just am not that kind of person.