Why Was This Movie So Disliked?

How is it empty?

This is what a previous poster, posted:

The motif of hands running throughout the film represents the anxiety of action. Hands are capable of producing both good and evil. Active figures like Chang and Crystal use their hands to impose their will without hesitation. Julian, by contrast, languishes in indecision. For him, action poses the terrible burden of decision. Because he has no core principles, no meaningful attachment to the cosmos, he seeks to destroy himself. This is a paradox. Julian's sole active wish is to destroy his capacity for action.

Hands symbolize the capacity for action, both good and evil. For Julian, his hands confront him with the reality of his agency. His hands have murdered, but they could also caress. He is incapable of recognizing the distinction. Action is painful for Julian because he does not understand the difference, nor is he strong enough to enact his will. Julian's believes that severing his hands will relieve him of the burden of action. That is true. But this act will also sever his connection to the world. Basically, Julian wants to become nothing. All of this is pretty damning, because I think Refn is using Julian as a symbol for modern human society.

Returning to the subject of this thread, the hostile reaction to this movie, I believe, illustrates a larger problem. The extent of much of the criticism is sophisticated, but empty. To criticize a movie, for most members of the audience, is to challenge the logic of its operation. If it doesn't make sense at an immediate level, it can be dismissed. We can laugh at the unbelievability of Julian not landing a single blow against Chang without even trying to understand the deeper meaning of this. Such a mode of criticism only succeeds in distancing the uncomfortable truth which is being communicated. Our modern, sophisticated society is losing its spirituality. Because of this, few can recognize the spiritual dimension which is essential to art. The capacity to engage or appreciate a work of art is being lost. I find it disturbing that so many seem to believe the summation of the aesthetic experience is liking or disliking the art object. Art transcends these categories. The true significance of art is pondering why these experiences are generated. Is the message true? A true work of art, I maintain, captures and expresses something true; freezes it for contemplation within a frame, and stands aloof to human judgment.

Only God Forgives is similar to a certain type of film which I find to be aesthetically masterful, indeed beautiful, but which nevertheless reveal to us the darkest truths of the human soul with great lucidity. Other films similar in kind are A Clockwork Orange and Funny Games. To experience these films is to confront human mortality and the capacity for violence which hides beneath a civilized veneer with an unblinking eye. These films offer an unpleasant experience, but one which is true and needs to be integrated. The universe is hostile to human vanity. Whatever moral values we promote, the cosmos is indifferent. To put a frame around human mortality makes mortality bearable. Death becomes a subject of sober contemplation at a distance and, in a small way, we can overcome (or at least recognize) our limitations.

It is an easy reaction to dismiss these films--this prevents us from confronting uncomfortable truths. But I'm afraid that by rejecting these films, we are censoring our worldview and sentimentalizing our view of humanity.