skuhn8 wrote:In all fairness I find nothing odd about Narshty having rented Scizopolis... He watches self-indulgent pet projects it would seem, but has a lower success rate enjoying them that other varieties. 96 minute investment and now he knows if he likes it or not when the title comes up in conversation or literature.
Ok, I don't think it's odd that Narshty rented
Schizopolis to see what all the fuss is about, but I do find it odd that he has such a strong reaction to a film that did not stand very much of a chance to succeed based upon his tastes. By his own words, he is "livid" and considers the film "detestable". These types of reactions are strong and probably justified, but they imply a sort of shock that the viewer was blind-sided by just how offensively bad the film was. All I'm saying is that a viewer who understands that he/she doesn't enjoy these types of films should not really have such a strong reaction to another entry onto the list. It should be an expected reaction and the strength of the reactions should probably diminish as he/she subjects himself to more of these films. It should also be apparent that Soderbergh is purposely exaggerating all of the qualities that people detest in this "genre" in order to fuel an extreme example of these types of films, thus creating a type of parody. I'm surprised Narshty didn't recognize the film to be just another one of the clever audience-distancing films that he doesn't enjoy. In a case where a film has such a limited potential to succeed, is it really even worth the rental price?
skuhn8 wrote:Besides, doesn't anyone else view films they suspect they won't enjoy but are considered essential viewing and thus necessary to fill in the gaps of a cinematic education?
Yes, but when I do (and I can't think of an example either) I recognize that the film has a very small opportunity to succeed, and thus I can't really judge it as harshly or respond to it as strongly when it turns out to be exactly what I suspected - unless it does something I do detest that I didn't expect it to do. I watched
Cinderella Man weeks ago and it turned out to be exactly what I expected it to be, but I didn't really detest it, just merely shrugged it off as another in a series. Also, in these cases where the film is considered essential viewing for cinematic education, I would attempt to adjust my critical perspective to try and figure out what others appreciate about the film (for the record, I'm not sure
Schizopolis fits into this category).
skuhn8 wrote:It's not the same as the Barbra Streisand analogy.
Ok, how about
Amelie then? A great deal of film enthusiasts claim that Jeunet's film is essential viewing necessary to complete one's cinematic education. I don't enjoy the film, and it never really "cast its magical spell" upon me. However, I can see why other people enjoy it. Having watched it I can safely say I wasted the $6-$10 it cost me to see it in a theatre. I should have known better given that there was very little chance I would enjoy that type of film. I'm not going to say its a vile piece of cinema, or that I loathe it specifically, or that I'm livid that people include it among their favorites, or that I detest its existence. The only thing I can say is that I don't enjoy these types of films and I loathe some of their characteristics, and
Amelie is just another member of the group. I don't doubt that the filmmakers of
Amelie achieved everything they intended to do. It just isn't my type of film, and I should have used better judgement.
dvdane wrote:just attempting to celebrate the flexibility of filmmaking as a method of communication and self-expression, while illustrating just how far filmmakers choose to abuse that same ability.", which basically is saying nothing at all,
dvdane wrote:Only when ... make the films within one self, then filmmaking becomes real..."Schizopolis" is not self-indulgent
When I say that Soderbergh is "attempting to celebrate the flexibility of filmmaking as a method of communication and self-expression" it is akin to your assertion that "
Schizopolis is ... anti cinema. It breaks every rule in the book, only to reinvent new forms of communication and of story telling". When Soderbergh "breaks every rule in the book" is when I interpret him to be "celebrating the flexibility of filmmaking". When he "reinvents new forms of communication and of story telling" is when I interpret him to be illustrating how filmmaking functions as a flexible method of communication and self-expression.
I say he is also "illustrating just how far filmmakers choose to abuse that same ability" because his entire project is self-aware of its own inability to communicate with a larger audience, and has a considerable amount of humor tied into that fact. While film provides an artist the ability to express themselves and offers another medium for an artist to communicate within, many filmmakers find they need to make the most personal works possible at the expense of the ability to convey their message to the audience. Soderbergh is completely conscious that this is a project for himself, created in order to find inspiration to refuel his filmmaking abilities, and thus has limited appeal to larger audiences. However, he makes light of that fact constantly by displaying characters (some played by Soderbergh) that are entirely too self-involved. Not only are his characters entirely selfish, but he casts himself in the film, further clarifying his position that the film itself is satisfying his own selfish needs as a filmmaker. It seems apparent to me that Soderbergh's film experiment is not completely sincere in its attempt to be aggravating to an audience. I don't believe his "fuck you" to the audience is a sincere dismissal, because, despite its fractured narrative and bewildering logic, Soderbergh is taking things to such an extreme that the film becomes a parody of itself, and I'm positive Soderbergh understands it to be. By creating this parody, he is making light of the fact that artists often feel an overwhelming selfish need to create art for themselves, which cannot be easily accessed by others since it is so self-involved.
The film sets up a series of arcs where characters choose to become self-involved within their own perspectives. They ignore their responsibilities towards other people within their lives in order to fulfill their own pursuits. Thus, the characters themselves are standing in for the director's own mentality on the project itself. While his characters are saying "fuck you" to the people they are surrounded by, Soderbergh is doing the same thing to his audience. The only difference is that Soderbergh takes things to such an extreme that you also become aware that he is poking fun at himself, and his own selfish needs as a filmmaker in attempting this egotistical project.
One of the key scenes in my mind is when Elmo is talking to the producers in pretentious gibberish, which neither producer understands. Finally, he levels with them both and demands that he is allowed to screw some hotty on set. He starts by speaking as if he is a troubled, misunderstood, vanguard of an artist, when in fact his pursuits are actually truly shallow. It's Soderbergh poking fun of actors/stars, but it's also a dig at himself and other self-involved artists, considering how self-centered this entire film project is.
The "genius" of the film isn't that Soderbergh has said "fuck you" to his audience, but that he has created a film that says "fuck you" to the audience, while he himself has started to become amused by the fact that he, as an artist, feels this need to create extremely personal art that cannot possibly communicate to a larger audience, and has thus decided to examine this need while also poking fun at its selfish goals.
Also, Godard is a perfectly acceptable filmmaker for Narshty to bring up in comparison to Soderbergh given that they are both practicing self-aware filmmaking. They might be doing different things with their methods, but they still can be compared.
