MovieChat Forums > Mutual Appreciation (2007) Discussion > Why 'self-indulgent'?

Why 'self-indulgent'?

posted 14 years ago by Demian Cypher
1 reply | jump to latest

I'm curious whether anyone who thinks this film is "self-indulgent" (as many of the reviews and posts here have said) could explain, specifically, why they think this is so. Are you implying that anyone trying to do anything other than the typical commercial style, where the aim is to please/flatter/pander to the viewer, is being self-indulgent because they're more interested in expressing something of how they see the world than in giving the audience the kind of world/story they'd like to escape into? Is it because the writer/director cast himself as one of the main characters and therefore gives himself a lot of screen time? Are you really trying to say that you felt the characters were self-indulgent (which is different from the film being so)? Etc.

[–] MyCutePetTotoro 14 years ago

I hated this movie strictly from a New Yorker point of view. A typical suburban rich kid leaves his comfortable life to live in the city. This film and the character are the reason New York has lost all it's originality, and the reason why it's so expensive to live here now, and why I hate Williamsburg so much.

I wouldn't say it's "self-indulgent", but what if someone think it is? why do you have to say: "Are you implying that anyone trying to do anything other than the typical commercial style." that is the tired same excuse when it comes to "art" films. This is another you don't "get it" type of arguments.

Don't you feel smart for enjoying a low budget, poorly written, bad music, no sense movie? I'm sure you do.