A pretentious entry.
[There are times where I just need to rant. I don't except anyone to read this whole entry or to respond, sometimes I just need to vent. This is one of those times.]
Sometimes I have serious doubts about pursuing a career in professional film critiquing. It’s not just the fact that the art itself is dying (though that doesn’t ease my woes either), it’s... I don’t know. I think it’s the idea of calling it a “profession.” What exactly does one need to be a film critic? Obviously a talent for writing is essential and the ability to put feelings into sensible words that others can understand. Maybe that’s where I’m getting hung up. Let me start from the beginning.
I saw Synecdoche, New York today. It’s the latest movie written by Charlie Kaufman, whom I admire for the other movies that he has written (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), not for this one. I feel like the reason I didn’t like Synecdoche, New York was because I didn’t get it and that saddens me a little, to think that I don’t like a movie simply because I didn’t get it. But it doesn’t matter what I thought of the movie, or maybe it does. I was thinking about what would happen if I were a film critic and had to write a comprehensible review about a movie that is incomprehensible and devoid of a clear meaning. I had this same thought with Mulholland Drive when I first saw it, as well as Gosford Park, both of which are considered to be great movies. If that is the case, then why can I not express how I feel about them?
It’s easy to say, “you don’t have to like everything,” but it’s different. I don’t know what I did or didn’t like about Synecdoche, New York. I liked that it was different from what I’ve seen, yet it wasn’t. As much as traditional Hollywood films are criticized for how similar they are to each other, I think the same thing can be said for independent film, but I don’t think anyone ever says them because as students of film, we are not supposed to criticize indie films. How come indie filmmakers try so hard not to be conventional that they wind up copying each other? Why is it that every marriage has to be dysfunctional? And not even dysfunctional in the traditional sense because that in itself would be breaking the rules of trying to be nontraditional. Instead, husbands and wives scream at each other for no apparent reason, have fantasies about the other one dying, get high, and talk only about themselves and how they feel, and generally don’t feel like they should be together at all. It’s all so damn depressing.
I know, I know, that’s how life is. It’s not all rainbows and flowers and puppy dog kisses. Marriages don’t work, people do scream at each other, get high, and don’t belong together. Life sucks, I get it. I just don’t need a reminder in every single independent film that I see just like how there isn’t need for an explosion in every Hollywood movie. I think it’s just how people want to view the movies. For some, it’s escapism. I know people that want to sit there and be entertained, not reminded of how shitty life is on the outside. I’m like that in one regard, but on the other, I like to watch movies that make me feel good, even if they are dark and depressing tragedies about life (Pan’s Labyrinth). I hate to say it, but I enjoy movies that I can get on some level. I’m glad there are challenging films out there that break that traditional mold and force the audience to think and view the film again in a different mindset (I might one day watch There Will Be Blood again just to get it), but what can I say about a movie that was obviously not meant to be appreciated by me?
Therein lies the problem, I think. I know I am not supposed to truly appreciate movies like High School Musical or Twlight, both of which have a built in audience that does not include me, but how do I feel about a movie that I generally don’t understand and worse, don’t want to understand? How am I supposed to suggest seeing such a movie to someone that might have a different take? I’ve looked at the message board on IMDB for Synecdoche, New York and there are people hailing it as a masterpiece, a term that I think gets thrown around more than it should. I am relieved that other people found it insanely delirious to the point of incomprehensibility, but I still feel as though I’m in the minority here. Honestly, I couldn’t write a comprehensible review about a movie like Synecdoche, New York. I don’t even think I would write a paragraph about it except to maybe describe the plot. But when I would get to the part where I’m supposed to insert my opinion, it would just be blank. I have no opinion for a movie that is trying to tell me (at least I think) that life is just a series of scenes and we’re actors trying to make sense of the world and of life and of death but we can’t control it, we just have to live it. I have no opinion because I don’t feel that way, and how am I supposed to convey that feeling of not having a feeling? I suppose I just did.
Sometimes I have serious doubts about pursuing a career in professional film critiquing. It’s not just the fact that the art itself is dying (though that doesn’t ease my woes either), it’s... I don’t know. I think it’s the idea of calling it a “profession.” What exactly does one need to be a film critic? Obviously a talent for writing is essential and the ability to put feelings into sensible words that others can understand. Maybe that’s where I’m getting hung up. Let me start from the beginning.
I saw Synecdoche, New York today. It’s the latest movie written by Charlie Kaufman, whom I admire for the other movies that he has written (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), not for this one. I feel like the reason I didn’t like Synecdoche, New York was because I didn’t get it and that saddens me a little, to think that I don’t like a movie simply because I didn’t get it. But it doesn’t matter what I thought of the movie, or maybe it does. I was thinking about what would happen if I were a film critic and had to write a comprehensible review about a movie that is incomprehensible and devoid of a clear meaning. I had this same thought with Mulholland Drive when I first saw it, as well as Gosford Park, both of which are considered to be great movies. If that is the case, then why can I not express how I feel about them?
It’s easy to say, “you don’t have to like everything,” but it’s different. I don’t know what I did or didn’t like about Synecdoche, New York. I liked that it was different from what I’ve seen, yet it wasn’t. As much as traditional Hollywood films are criticized for how similar they are to each other, I think the same thing can be said for independent film, but I don’t think anyone ever says them because as students of film, we are not supposed to criticize indie films. How come indie filmmakers try so hard not to be conventional that they wind up copying each other? Why is it that every marriage has to be dysfunctional? And not even dysfunctional in the traditional sense because that in itself would be breaking the rules of trying to be nontraditional. Instead, husbands and wives scream at each other for no apparent reason, have fantasies about the other one dying, get high, and talk only about themselves and how they feel, and generally don’t feel like they should be together at all. It’s all so damn depressing.
I know, I know, that’s how life is. It’s not all rainbows and flowers and puppy dog kisses. Marriages don’t work, people do scream at each other, get high, and don’t belong together. Life sucks, I get it. I just don’t need a reminder in every single independent film that I see just like how there isn’t need for an explosion in every Hollywood movie. I think it’s just how people want to view the movies. For some, it’s escapism. I know people that want to sit there and be entertained, not reminded of how shitty life is on the outside. I’m like that in one regard, but on the other, I like to watch movies that make me feel good, even if they are dark and depressing tragedies about life (Pan’s Labyrinth). I hate to say it, but I enjoy movies that I can get on some level. I’m glad there are challenging films out there that break that traditional mold and force the audience to think and view the film again in a different mindset (I might one day watch There Will Be Blood again just to get it), but what can I say about a movie that was obviously not meant to be appreciated by me?
Therein lies the problem, I think. I know I am not supposed to truly appreciate movies like High School Musical or Twlight, both of which have a built in audience that does not include me, but how do I feel about a movie that I generally don’t understand and worse, don’t want to understand? How am I supposed to suggest seeing such a movie to someone that might have a different take? I’ve looked at the message board on IMDB for Synecdoche, New York and there are people hailing it as a masterpiece, a term that I think gets thrown around more than it should. I am relieved that other people found it insanely delirious to the point of incomprehensibility, but I still feel as though I’m in the minority here. Honestly, I couldn’t write a comprehensible review about a movie like Synecdoche, New York. I don’t even think I would write a paragraph about it except to maybe describe the plot. But when I would get to the part where I’m supposed to insert my opinion, it would just be blank. I have no opinion for a movie that is trying to tell me (at least I think) that life is just a series of scenes and we’re actors trying to make sense of the world and of life and of death but we can’t control it, we just have to live it. I have no opinion because I don’t feel that way, and how am I supposed to convey that feeling of not having a feeling? I suppose I just did.