I found myself in a bizarre predicament with this film. It was a film that I could easily see myself discussing with a group of friends, and remained thinking about it after seeing it. However, I got no enjoyment out of it. From an intellectual point of view there were plenty of topics worthy of discussing, such as the worth of the mass view of your work and what constitutes art versus pornography but the problem for me was the presentation of these ideas.
For me, the supposed hero of the story did nothing of his own accord and was led around by the ear of the title character doing exactly what he said. It's hard to root for him if he really has no stock in what he is doing. As well, the title character Henry Fool is unlikeable, and not just because he has a history of deviance. He practically forces his desire for success on someone who otherwise would not want it. There is no dynamic between the two, just a man and his tool that he uses for his own personal gains. To me, neither was likable and it ruined the chance of me rooting for their successes.
Meanwhile, the film as a whole seemed needlessly self referential, occasionally fashioning some blatant point through the main character's work or another character's comment that applies almost directly to the film itself. It makes it feel as if the characters are only ways of forcing the writer's concepts about his own work to come to the open, and it uses them for whatever it wants and lets them pick up the pieces afterward.
After all this, however, I think that I would still recommend you watch the film. While I have much bad to say about it, it made me think, and when any film does this, it is worth watching simply because I can easily see how a variety of opinions could be formed about the film. Furthermore, not being a writer I found it difficult to identify with any of the predicaments, which might add a personal touch to those who can. At the least I can appreciate an intelligent man trying to make a film of the topics that feel relevant to him.
For me, the supposed hero of the story did nothing of his own accord and was led around by the ear of the title character doing exactly what he said. It's hard to root for him if he really has no stock in what he is doing. As well, the title character Henry Fool is unlikeable, and not just because he has a history of deviance. He practically forces his desire for success on someone who otherwise would not want it. There is no dynamic between the two, just a man and his tool that he uses for his own personal gains. To me, neither was likable and it ruined the chance of me rooting for their successes.
Meanwhile, the film as a whole seemed needlessly self referential, occasionally fashioning some blatant point through the main character's work or another character's comment that applies almost directly to the film itself. It makes it feel as if the characters are only ways of forcing the writer's concepts about his own work to come to the open, and it uses them for whatever it wants and lets them pick up the pieces afterward.
After all this, however, I think that I would still recommend you watch the film. While I have much bad to say about it, it made me think, and when any film does this, it is worth watching simply because I can easily see how a variety of opinions could be formed about the film. Furthermore, not being a writer I found it difficult to identify with any of the predicaments, which might add a personal touch to those who can. At the least I can appreciate an intelligent man trying to make a film of the topics that feel relevant to him.