the concept holds up for the first half of the film and then it slowly fades into becoming less and less on point, until it eventually loses all grip.
It doesn't lose its grip, it just shifts focus to show the futility/hypocrisy in the rebellion against the establishment. It's a second act. Themes are allowed to shape-shift and take dramatic turns.
Also, I personally hate movies with clear-cut agendas/thesis. They're incredibly rigid and dull (The Babadook comes to mind). I mean Lynch is the king of messy, abstract subtext that doesn't coalesce into a focused thesis statement. I don't need artists who THINK they have clean-cut answers, i need artists who provoke by asking interesting questions and then exploring them intelligently. If the former is what ur looking for, go watch a *beep* Pixar movie. zzzz
Also, Haneke's tone, while certainly dark and comedic, is COMPLETELY different and not laugh-out-loud funny AT ALL.
are you sure that it was supposed to be taken that way?
Yes I'm 100% certain. The director has even said so himself. It's a dark comedy. If you didn't find it laugh-out-loud funny then that's a huge indication of why you didn't like it. I can assure you, at the very least, it succeeded on that level. It was hilarious.
Also, eyes wide shut is an entirely unnecessary, self-serious slog. Most people would agree with me. And Funny Games is just torture porn for art's sake. Absolutely nothing remarkable about either.
reply
share
kenny-164
9 years ago
I thought there were several problems with the direction and editing. Lea Seydoux was not effective, and her character was not plausible. The narrative had several issues, such as the visit to the city of 3 women. These have been discussed elsewhere. I do not want to take time beyond what I have already here, other than to say I find the comparison to Kubrick laughable.
reply
share
therefdotcom
9 years ago
I think the technical flaws weren't even that significant, except for the obvious script problems, which on the other hand were quite disastrous. The first part half of the film was entertaining and conclusive. The concept itself worked that far, but as soon as the second segment makes it clear that now the other extreme would be portrayed, I had my worries that it will not play out so well and in the end, it didn't. At times the director exaggerates his POV to a level, where the focus on the sheer portrayal of the extreme happens at the expense of the actual points he tries to make. I would not completely disregard the idea that he only had the first part figured out and did not settle with himself as to what he wanted to say in the first place.
yeah, the comparison with Kubrick, be it script wise, be it from any other technical angle, is beyond laughable.
reply
share