If you're going to make a statement like that, you have to qualify it. I'm really curious as to what's the deal with him. When I think of "ATRG" and "GW" I can remember a few good scenes and images that stuck out, but I remember it being a jarring experience to watch, though interesting nonetheless. He has plots, somewhat, but the plot is just like a thin thread to hold random scenes together. I understand the whole "naturalism" idea, but to me, he takes it a little too far. I understand the appeal of improvised performances and filming/taping whatever seems like it would fit, but DGG takes it too far. His style would be more suited to a documentary. I think he takes his art house audiences for granted- he knows we'll watch and try to appreciate anything, so he shows us whatever he feels like pointing his camera towards. As for his writing- he has ideas, but he doesn't see the merit in condensing them. I like to think he has a purpose in using such loose structures, but I suspect he's just lazy. I'll agree his films are always interesting to look at. But there's no reason that should make him stand out from the pack. Hundreds of experimental filmmakers can make films that are amazing to look at, but they don't try to confuse us with a plot usually.
I have to clarify one thing though- and this I think is a fact, not an opinion- he is far from unique- go to any college and you'll see plenty of random, incoherent, but very interesting films.
Anyhow, I know I might be missing something, so would somebody please explain to me why this guy is so acclaimed?
reply
share