Uh, yeah, i posted this thing a while back on twitter -- it was an actual letter posted in a theater stating they will not give refunds. i had two walk-outs in my showing. and people just.. had no idea what they saw. this film affected me profoundly. i reviewed it on my film blog if you're interested :D So glad you enjoyed it.
see, i won't say i didn't find my patience tested, especially at the end, but i think i viewed the whole thing as like, image poetry? so the dinosaurs were just another stanza and the family was a recurring motif.
idk, it was so beautiful, and the narrative (when it was there) was so gripping that i'm just really surprised people would have been offended/bored enough to walk out.
I don't know that I'd say crowds of people? There have just been people steadily walking out. And I don't know that you can really call them philistines since they went to a Terence Malick film in the first place. I think the initial reviews and the press stressed the family plot so people were like, well, when is this happening?
Lots of stuff gets booed at Cannes. It's like a thing.
And these people may well have walked out of a showing of 2001. I'm not a big fan of that film but then I'm not a big fan of Kubrick, period.
But in a larger sense: this has to be okay. It has to be okay that some people were like, "you know, not for me." Because if art is going to move people, it will by definition be divisive and not even touch some people, not because their hearts aren't pure or something but simply because the thing it's doing doesn't resonate with them. If a film moves everyone in the same way then it's probably not moving anyone at all.
oh, of course it's okay, you can't change anyone's reactions, and usually the test of how great a film is turns out to be how many people hated it the moment it came out (there will be blood, for example).
i'm just really surprised that what generally seemed to be arthouse audiences who are used to this kind of non-linear storytelling would have been that offended by this movie.
Conversely, on the imdb boards i read one person, in the middle of all these arthouse walkout reports, who said they saw it in a large, mainstream theatre in a middleclass demographic, with a large crowd--and that the whole audience was silent and respectful the whole time, no walkouts. (which is awesome.) that makes me wonder if maybe if you go in expecting a certain kind of experience you are more likely to be frustrated than if you go in with relatively no expectations at all. (or if the religious aspect is that important.)
It really does seem to be, in the reports that I've read, that people had a certain expectation of the movie and it didn't match that expectation, and those were the people walking out. So it makes sense to me that the middlebrow types were more, "oh, it's this experimental movie with Brad Pitt" and that's all they knew about it so they could go with the flow. But IIRC the early reviews seemed to stress the plot more than the experience? Or something? So I can see the arthouse people being more, 'this is not what I thought" and also, bitchily, being more entitled about it
( ... )
I am soooo envious that you got to see it. I really want to see this movie, but it has not come anywhere near to where I live. I live in Central Florida, I think the stories of people walking out may have caused the studio to limit it's distribution. And this movie is one that definitely needs to be seen on a big screen.
Comments 9
Reply
Now that you mention it I remember seeing that and being totally confused. But now that I've seen the film, I.....am still totally confused, lol.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
see, i won't say i didn't find my patience tested, especially at the end, but i think i viewed the whole thing as like, image poetry? so the dinosaurs were just another stanza and the family was a recurring motif.
idk, it was so beautiful, and the narrative (when it was there) was so gripping that i'm just really surprised people would have been offended/bored enough to walk out.
Reply
Lots of stuff gets booed at Cannes. It's like a thing.
And these people may well have walked out of a showing of 2001. I'm not a big fan of that film but then I'm not a big fan of Kubrick, period.
But in a larger sense: this has to be okay. It has to be okay that some people were like, "you know, not for me." Because if art is going to move people, it will by definition be divisive and not even touch some people, not because their hearts aren't pure or something but simply because the thing it's doing doesn't resonate with them. If a film moves everyone in the same way then it's probably not moving anyone at all.
Reply
oh, of course it's okay, you can't change anyone's reactions, and usually the test of how great a film is turns out to be how many people hated it the moment it came out (there will be blood, for example).
i'm just really surprised that what generally seemed to be arthouse audiences who are used to this kind of non-linear storytelling would have been that offended by this movie.
Conversely, on the imdb boards i read one person, in the middle of all these arthouse walkout reports, who said they saw it in a large, mainstream theatre in a middleclass demographic, with a large crowd--and that the whole audience was silent and respectful the whole time, no walkouts. (which is awesome.) that makes me wonder if maybe if you go in expecting a certain kind of experience you are more likely to be frustrated than if you go in with relatively no expectations at all. (or if the religious aspect is that important.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
I really want to see this movie, but it has not come
anywhere near to where I live.
I live in Central Florida, I think the
stories of people walking out may have caused
the studio to limit it's distribution.
And this movie is one that definitely needs to
be seen on a big screen.
Reply
Leave a comment