Interesting posts here. I do have problems with a few things however...
Oh dear. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone wrote the defense "I'm very patient/attentive," or "I love art films," or "I don't need a dominant narrative," etc., before proceeding to criticize a picture for invoking those same values.
And if I had a nickel for every time anyone responded with the "go back to your Hollywood car chases and explosions, American" strawman on this site when anyone expresses any kind of dissent regarding any remotely "arthouse" picture I figure I'd still end up the richer man. And that's not even bringing up the fact that in nearly all these cases you can point out all day that that in fact is not the case at all, but the opposition will still try to assert that what you like in fact "doesn't count" and you're still some anti-intellectual Hollywood-loving philistine no matter what, getting to the point where the goal posts aren't being moved so much as being removed completely. Not that you're necessarily being this bad, but I do get a few hints of the latter attitude in this post and quite a number of users here wouldn't consider you totally out of line if you went all the way into that kind of full-blown obnoxiousness.
Now I do agree that criticizing this movie for lack of "plot" is irrelevant as it is not a plot-based movie, but the OP is being polite enough that there's no need to shoot down his post so aggressively. What I'd be curious is to know what exactly it is about other "art" films like The Passenger that he likes so much as opposed to this one because The Passenger as I see it is hardly any less a challenging, meditative or more "plot-based" a picture than SotB, despite the former having obviously more star power in the main casting. Of course we could always jump to conclusions that that is the sole reason the person likes that movie, but if you ask me unwarranted generalizations about another person's tastes without any kind of verification from the original poster would be pointless and more than a bit rude (and yes I realize that this topic was started nearly three years ago and the poster hasn't been back here since so it seems there really IS no point in speculating further on how the OP thinks).
The "problem" isn't necessarily with Beehive, for obviously it’s much beloved internationally and after many years is still considered to be of very high quality indeed.
We're starting to steer into appealing to the majority with this one; just because most critics and viewers find no fault with the film does not mean that there is no fault anyone can have with it. Criticisms and essays are there for to gain further insight and context for the item being written about, for personal appreciation or some basic understanding. The consensus on the quality of the item is merely there for anyone interested in statistics. Outside of that it is in no way an objective measure of the film's overall quality, just as nothing else really is.
But it was you who equated your subjective view with an objective one by writing "the main problem with the film," instead of the more reasonable approach of "I am not patient enough for this film." Huge difference.
Semantics. I see nothing to suggest that what the OP expressed is anything other than their own opinion, and I doubt the OP would argue otherwise. Unless you think every remotely assertive statement be signed off with an "imo" just to make sure nobody confuses an obvious opinion for fact, which,
imo, would be ridiculous, tiresome, and more than a bit redundant.
I find that attitude strange; so many forms of art demand to be looked at or listened to extremely closely in order to really appreciate them. This is especially true with the temporal forms, like music and film. We have no choice but to watch a film at the pace it sets, so I find it very odd, the idea that one can truly appreciate that kind of creation by watching it just once, unless it's formula pablum. I've found that many pictures have demanded more attention than I can possibly give them in a single screening.
Of course, even the most abstract, subtle film can "be understood on its own terms in one viewing," just like any similar kind of painting can be. The question is, though, what is the nature of the terms that contributed to that understanding? Putting aside a given viewer's relative experience and perspicuity, those terms are bound to be fairly superficial. A single viewing isn't really sufficient to grasp all the "terms," which is another word for context.
It is only really necessary to watch something multiple times if one is to write a fairly thorough critical analysis of it. Otherwise with so many films out there worth seeing, so little free time available for most people and arguably even shorter life spans for the same people, it takes some cheek to imply that one hasn't really "seen" a film if they've only been able to see it once or even twice. Now I don't disagree with the idea that a film is more likely to go over one's head from the first outing than it would from further outings - it is possible to miss a lot of details or important points that would lead to its better understanding, whether it be going into it sick, exhausted, in a bad mood or otherwise (nothing worse for me than trying to watch a movie while feeling half-asleep or when I have a lot on my mind), or that our ability to appreciate such a film is limited or deficient in some way at the time (I have a lot of films I haven't seen since around high school I need to revisit as my ability to enjoy silent movies and classic melodramas, not to mention the "visual element" of a film is much more refined now than it ever was before if I do say so myself), or maybe we just went in with the wrong expectations. However, unless one feels instinctively drawn to watch a movie a second time and feels they have missed a lot that they can possibly rectify with this second viewing, I see no reason why anyone should force themselves to watch something again and again because some people might claim they didn't truly "appreciate" what they've watched. One viewing is plenty adequate for an attentive and open-minded viewer to judge a film; any possible holes or questions one has can be filled by engaging or reading up on discussions and critiques of the film if necessary, and that combined with the power of human memory and the ability to stew and view all the elements in hindsight (almost always the better judge of a film experience than the immediate high gotten afterward if you ask me) should lead to a conclusion on the experience one can be confident in.
I take no issue with anything you have to say on the film itself; you seem enthusiastic enough about the film and have a very thorough grasp of its mechanics and themes, so bravo to that. You just seem to think that everyone has to engage with films the same way as you do and look down on those that don't, which there really is no need for.
reply
share