Brilliant. Exasperatingly Underrated. Instant Cult. Comments?
This is what I posted at this site as a review. At the end is my question.
"This film is difficult, as all great art should be. Do not let the film's current obscurity deter you. I do not understand it presently, but I usually have a nose for good films (I think). There is something about this film, vague as it may sound, that really got to me. It's like a Lynch cross Fincher cross (the best of) Hitchcock cross Cronenberg (which especially appeals to me) cross Polanski, not in any order. Alienating, not an "audience friendly" film for sure. That term, however, is mostly used by dullard middlebrow critics anyway. Don't trust he one of them. All heathens. If this film looks like that kind of film that would interest you, WATCH IT for goodness sake. This is the kind of film that DEMANDS repeat viewings and your COMPLETE attention and patience. If you cannot fulfill these two criteria, this is not your film. I understand that, there are many (slow, ponderous, 'pretentious') films other people go moggy for that I despise. I have only watched it twice now, with viewings in quick succession (once on DVD).
Notice how most of the negative press concerns how "difficult" the film is, notice how many critics lambaste it by simply listing 'what happens', where, narratively, things go off the rails as far as 'logic' is concerned without saying anything about the film itself. Too literal, darlings. Okay, granted I am not exactly proffering an explanation, but that is simply because I havn't figured it out yet. I intend on finding out, which is justwhat I'm going to do right now.... Perhaps that is the films strength, resisting interpretation. Resisting our attempts to 'unload' it under neat schematic headings like THEMES: 12345 CONTEXT:12345 MESSAGE: 12345 This, I am sure, has a lot to do with any meaning that we should attempt to extract from the text.
Mark my words: This will be one of those cypher type of films that 'slipped through the cracks' in a couple of years, talked about but rarely seen. Shame that is the case with most great art. Shame that it is usually the doing of critics of the time that does great art in. Off the top of my head, in film, Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (can't spell it in French). Derided by critics and yanked out of theaters at the time of its release. Such a comparison may seem to have no basis, but I think that the film is THAT GOOD."
*******************************************************************************
Do you think that I am on the right track here?? What should I look for in my attempt to figure out this conundrum? Agree? Disagree?
[Please don't tell me to watch something else instead or to stop smoking the pot that I am etc.... I know that this film has its detractors. If you are one of them I understand your position, but this question is directed at people that want to discuss, or at least have something to say. If your criticism will help to enlighten me and others, please, by all means, but please let it not be just of the "I hated it, it sucked. The worst movie I've ever seen" variety.]