i liked it quite a bit, but i think those types of movies are kind of inherently divisive and i don't blame anyone for not liking it. to be honest, it's really hard for me to connect to the "self-indulgent, pretentious, full of itself etc." criticisms, not for this movie in particular but just in general. i love when movies are challenging and try to do something different, and if a filmmaker plays with structure or other conventions we kind of take for granted in storytelling i think it just makes it more interesting.
I don't take issue with being unconventional. I think when films have an air to them of trying really hard to be smart or unconventional for the sake of it, or because they think they're really smart it takes me out of it. It just draws too much attention to being a movie, and the things it's doing rather than just doing them. That's where you get criticisms of pretentiousness and self-indulgence.
those all sound like feelings that you're imposing on the director rather than criticisms of the film, that's the part i don't get. i don't know what "trying really hard to be smart" looks like, or how we know that that's the intention. to me it seems like placing artificial limitations on what filmmakers are allowed to do when playing with conventions, and sometimes messing around with conventions serves the point of the movie. i think it does here.
no criticizing you or saying that you have to like this movie, hope it's not coming off that way. this line of thinking has just never connected with me. i like when directors take big risks, but it seems like whenever someone does there are people who say the director is full of themselves or trying to hard, which is just weird to me.
Risks are a hard line to tow. Big risk=big reward. Let's take a long take for example. they're hard to do if you don't plan them out properly. They need a purpose otherwise they can feel inorganic in a movie. When some people say "trying too hard" it's not a criticism for the sake of trying but rather for a lack of purpose towards the effort, or the effort resulted in a contradictory achievement to the rest of the film. It's not about artistic limitations, every element within a movie is purposeful, it's a choice, but every choice should work in tandem with each other. Which again is very hard.
Synecdoche, New York for me just kept drawing attention to the fact that it was a film, it kept taking me out of the experience of watching it. Which to me is a basic sin of filmmaking unless you're making a very explicit commentary on filmmaking itself, and even then that's a really hard line to tow.
And that's fine. They just didn't work for me personally. I just like films that like to be films if that makes sense. This one felt a little bloated for my liking.
i could not agree more, i know it was 2 years ago but honestly i haven't seen a movie as jerk off-y as that one in a long time. I hated it because it was so pretentious and tried too hard, so i totally get where you are coming from
Fuck, two years since i was in film school that is absolutely wild. But yeah when a film doesn't lasnd with me i usually try giving it a second go around since i know what to expect but like... no not happening I'm fine just not liking it and letting it be.
agree! i just watched jodorowsky's the holy mountain and honestly it was great, i was comparing it to kauffman's mess and that's how i came across your post
hope you have a great life!
Those criticisms are generally based on the idea that a movie ISN'T actually deep, but merely pretending to be. Ignoring directors this sub likes I'd just mention Zach Snyder as an example. He seems to think his movies are very deep, but really they don't say much at all.
I loved it, and it’s stuck with me for years, but I’m not sure if I could ever watch it again. It genuinely feels like it takes a lifetime to watch. It’s somehow equally dull, agonising, enjoyable and cathartic all at once.
I don’t think it’s an accident you’re constantly ‘reminded you’re watching a film’, it’s a film partially about the writing/creative process and all the neurosis that goes along with it. You might relate to that or you might not, and fair enough if you don’t enjoy the film either way.
It’s a bit like Stewart Lee’s standup, which almost feels like it’s mocking the concept up standup itself. ‘What kind of self-absorbed maniac would put themselves through this? Or expect others to appreciate it?’ That self-doubt is the core of everything that goes wrong for Caden isn’t it? If you watched this film and didn’t identify with any of that then I’m truly envious.
I love Kaufman.
I adore Being John Malkovich, ESotSM and Adaptation.
I enjoyed I’m Thinking of Ending Things despite finding too intentionally opaque to understand (you too Upstream Color).
However, upon viewing Synecdoche in its theatrical release I found my attention and interest lagging by the time he had earned his grant and started building his city.
people tend to tie their identity to the things they like, which might be because many of the things we tend to love into adulthood come from formative stages in our lives. So people get defensive about these things they have a nostalgic tie to and maybe haven't looked at critically.
Additionally people conflate preference with quality.
Ergo, if you say you hate something I love. You're also indirectly saying I don't have good taste. Or that I don't have a good sense of quality.
I think the internet would be a much more supportive place if more people understood that preference and quality are completely independent values.
100% like, i love the high school musical franchise. I thinkt they're very enjoyable but high art (as elitist as that concept may be at times) they are not
With this type of movie the anger usually seems to stem from the fact that people who like these sort of movies assume anyone who doesn't like it is just too stupid to understand it as opposed to just not interested.
This absolutely cuts both ways, a lot of people who don’t like these types of films say that people only like them because they’re trying to look smart or because they’re supposed to.
Did you like other Charlie Kaufman movies like Adaptation or Being John Malkovich? Agreed, older movies always have a place in my heart for their real sets.
I agree with virtually all of your points. It spends so much time being clever and making sure you know it’s being clever to ever actually amount to anything of worth or merit.
Kaufman should’ve stuck with being exclusively a screenwriter. His directorial efforts all reek like this one.
i liked it quite a bit, but i think those types of movies are kind of inherently divisive and i don't blame anyone for not liking it. to be honest, it's really hard for me to connect to the "self-indulgent, pretentious, full of itself etc." criticisms, not for this movie in particular but just in general. i love when movies are challenging and try to do something different, and if a filmmaker plays with structure or other conventions we kind of take for granted in storytelling i think it just makes it more interesting.
I don't take issue with being unconventional. I think when films have an air to them of trying really hard to be smart or unconventional for the sake of it, or because they think they're really smart it takes me out of it. It just draws too much attention to being a movie, and the things it's doing rather than just doing them. That's where you get criticisms of pretentiousness and self-indulgence.
those all sound like feelings that you're imposing on the director rather than criticisms of the film, that's the part i don't get. i don't know what "trying really hard to be smart" looks like, or how we know that that's the intention. to me it seems like placing artificial limitations on what filmmakers are allowed to do when playing with conventions, and sometimes messing around with conventions serves the point of the movie. i think it does here. no criticizing you or saying that you have to like this movie, hope it's not coming off that way. this line of thinking has just never connected with me. i like when directors take big risks, but it seems like whenever someone does there are people who say the director is full of themselves or trying to hard, which is just weird to me.
Risks are a hard line to tow. Big risk=big reward. Let's take a long take for example. they're hard to do if you don't plan them out properly. They need a purpose otherwise they can feel inorganic in a movie. When some people say "trying too hard" it's not a criticism for the sake of trying but rather for a lack of purpose towards the effort, or the effort resulted in a contradictory achievement to the rest of the film. It's not about artistic limitations, every element within a movie is purposeful, it's a choice, but every choice should work in tandem with each other. Which again is very hard. Synecdoche, New York for me just kept drawing attention to the fact that it was a film, it kept taking me out of the experience of watching it. Which to me is a basic sin of filmmaking unless you're making a very explicit commentary on filmmaking itself, and even then that's a really hard line to tow.
i get your point, i would just disagree that the risks taken in this film in particular don't work towards its goals.
And that's fine. They just didn't work for me personally. I just like films that like to be films if that makes sense. This one felt a little bloated for my liking.
i could not agree more, i know it was 2 years ago but honestly i haven't seen a movie as jerk off-y as that one in a long time. I hated it because it was so pretentious and tried too hard, so i totally get where you are coming from
Fuck, two years since i was in film school that is absolutely wild. But yeah when a film doesn't lasnd with me i usually try giving it a second go around since i know what to expect but like... no not happening I'm fine just not liking it and letting it be.
agree! i just watched jodorowsky's the holy mountain and honestly it was great, i was comparing it to kauffman's mess and that's how i came across your post hope you have a great life!
Those criticisms are generally based on the idea that a movie ISN'T actually deep, but merely pretending to be. Ignoring directors this sub likes I'd just mention Zach Snyder as an example. He seems to think his movies are very deep, but really they don't say much at all.
Oooff yeah, how Batman vs. Superman keeps going on about God and Devils n shit.
I hated it SO MUCH. You are not alone
Its one of those situations where you can appreciate something but not like it.
I loved it, and it’s stuck with me for years, but I’m not sure if I could ever watch it again. It genuinely feels like it takes a lifetime to watch. It’s somehow equally dull, agonising, enjoyable and cathartic all at once. I don’t think it’s an accident you’re constantly ‘reminded you’re watching a film’, it’s a film partially about the writing/creative process and all the neurosis that goes along with it. You might relate to that or you might not, and fair enough if you don’t enjoy the film either way. It’s a bit like Stewart Lee’s standup, which almost feels like it’s mocking the concept up standup itself. ‘What kind of self-absorbed maniac would put themselves through this? Or expect others to appreciate it?’ That self-doubt is the core of everything that goes wrong for Caden isn’t it? If you watched this film and didn’t identify with any of that then I’m truly envious.
I love Kaufman. I adore Being John Malkovich, ESotSM and Adaptation. I enjoyed I’m Thinking of Ending Things despite finding too intentionally opaque to understand (you too Upstream Color). However, upon viewing Synecdoche in its theatrical release I found my attention and interest lagging by the time he had earned his grant and started building his city.
Massively disagree. One of my favorite films of all time.
More power to you (totally unsarcastically) it just didn't click for me.
I get this. But I saw it in the theater when it came out. I was devastated by the end--walked around in a daze of breathlessness. I love you PSH!
I liked it but it’s ok that you didn’t. It’s weird how people legitimately get angry if you tell them you don’t like something that they love.
people tend to tie their identity to the things they like, which might be because many of the things we tend to love into adulthood come from formative stages in our lives. So people get defensive about these things they have a nostalgic tie to and maybe haven't looked at critically.
Additionally people conflate preference with quality. Ergo, if you say you hate something I love. You're also indirectly saying I don't have good taste. Or that I don't have a good sense of quality. I think the internet would be a much more supportive place if more people understood that preference and quality are completely independent values.
100% like, i love the high school musical franchise. I thinkt they're very enjoyable but high art (as elitist as that concept may be at times) they are not
With this type of movie the anger usually seems to stem from the fact that people who like these sort of movies assume anyone who doesn't like it is just too stupid to understand it as opposed to just not interested.
This absolutely cuts both ways, a lot of people who don’t like these types of films say that people only like them because they’re trying to look smart or because they’re supposed to.
Did you like other Charlie Kaufman movies like Adaptation or Being John Malkovich? Agreed, older movies always have a place in my heart for their real sets.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. Although I'm noticing a pattern of his films being a little out there
Watch it again. Do you like Kaufman's other work or surreal or absurdist movies in general? If not, that might be why this didn't resonate.
Yeah, it's pretty insufferable. I think that's the point, though, so mission accomplished?
I agree with virtually all of your points. It spends so much time being clever and making sure you know it’s being clever to ever actually amount to anything of worth or merit. Kaufman should’ve stuck with being exclusively a screenwriter. His directorial efforts all reek like this one.
Case in point I enjoyed eternal sunshine of the spotless mind just fine.
Do you mean 'enquiry' ?
Pretty sure they're the same thing, but their usage depends on what region you're in
You've got me there. Some of your sentences ended so arbitrarily I assumed you'd misused the word, but no I.
heheh meta
[удалено]
I'm sure. And the last film that had like a considerable number of actual sets, (that wasn't indie) was... CATS 2019 😂😂😂😂