Seemed like a decent movie. It started off simply enough. Plus, Alexis Bledel is in it. Then the movie projector failed and there's no Alexis in that auditorium, but the other characters seem the same...except here's Shiri Appleby.
Then at the end there's a different Kate. And if Shiri is Jill, then who is Schuyler Fisk at the end?
Confused.
What you're seeing, exept when the projector fails and for the last 15 minutes or so, is a movie Reed Fish made of his life after it fell apart. Alexis Bledel is an actor he got for the movie. Shiri Appleby is the real Jill.
When the prjector failed, everything up till then had been the initial screening of his movie to the locals. It went briefly to real life with Shiri Appleby; then when the projector was fixed, it was back to his movie; then eventually his movie screening ended and it was again forward to real life with Shiri.
And Schuyler Fisk was just playing "Jill" in the Reed's movie.
share
well, after reading wha you wrote, it makes sense. but i have to be critical here--
props to HIM for knowing what he was doing in the movie, but he should have communicated it better to the audience. clearly others were as confused as i was.
i do understand-- he was probably going for shock value with the whole projector stops thing. and i get that. (applause) but, like so many do now, they overemphasize some personal objective (in this case the shock value) at the expense of the general viewing audience's participation.
if he makes a film, and if he wants me to watch it, even like it, he must tell ths story in a way i can understand it.
it was just too convaluted. (sp?)
Not to be cruel, but if you didn't catch that then maybe you shouldn't watch films like these. He communicated it perfectly and subtlety is an artist's best friend. If you want things spelled out then just stick to the summer blockbusters.
hitrecord.org
shroudoffrost,
no cruelty inferred.
but i wonder about your post, if you posted it just for the sake of being contarry. or, maybe you felt the need to be defensive because your family member is in the film, or something. anyway....
it was NOT communicated perfectly. perfect is a strong word, homey. i am glad it satisfied you (for whatever reason, but definitely not from clear storytelling). if you have a good grip on this film, why don't you answer the original posters questions about the girls.
and, can we agree, with too much subltety the information being delivered can go so deeply minimalist that NOTHING is understood.
i like subtlety too, but this was way beyond that. more like, CONVOLUTED.
it simply wasn't clear.
What more did you want the filmmakers to do? They said each characters name, they stopped the movie in the middle to show we were watching a movie inside of a movie. Do you want them to break the fourth wall and just explain everything for the audience? That would be absurd.
I don't know anyone who made this film, I am speaking as a person who just sat down, watched and loved the movie. IMO, it was communicated perfectly. As I said before, they give enough for the audience to grasp, all they have to do is use their minds and think about what they saw. What do you think of David Lynch or Charlie Kaufman films? They both use subtlety to reveal the truth to their films. And trust me, it's much more obscure than this. Sorry if I'm incorrect in assuming that people who don't understand a movie like this would find understanding something like Mulholland Dr. or Synecdoche, New York impossible.
So, in short, this movie was very clear. Just not for people who are not use to watching movies with unique twists.
hitrecord.org
Okay, I have to comment to mentioning Mulholland Dr. as an "understandable" movie. I don't care who you are, and I'm a filmmaker and an avid david lynch fan, and the switch in that movie made no sense until I heard it from the horse's mouth. Kind of a pretentious thing to have to name-drop some films. Well, at least they were good ones.
You didn't argue the understandability of, say, G.I. Joe.
PS:
I'm watching the movie now, and I did get the whole thing they were going for, but I could understand someone not understanding if they're not attenuated to certain filmmaking styles.
peace and love to all
thank you friend.
good level comments
drugs...changed...everything..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MGBn3KawM&feature=related
I don't know how you could have missed that, to be honest. I caught the show midway when Reed was in the diner apologising to Jill about the kiss the previous night, and I had my "ohhhhhh" moment when I saw Schulyer Fisk lean against Frank Cortez at the end, in addition to the real Kate talking to Reed. So.... maybe you should just pay more attention :)
sharewere you replying to me? i dont understand your comment.
share
hey shroudoffrost, seriously, if you like convoluted nebulous films i have one i know you will love.
(really i am not being a smart ass. i bet you a 20 that you will like it, if you liked reed fish so much)
Lucía y el sexo
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0254455/
it's right up your alley
Amem to that, Was going to ask, If he even watch the movie, but you said it all
share[deleted]
Schuyler Fisk's non-Jill character was actually the real Kate, whom he was engaged to.
"Now I know what kind of man I am. I'm a man who doesn't give second chances." Doctor Who
No, Schuyler Fisk's real non-Jill character was Frank's girlfriend. She played Jill in the movie. Valerie Azlynn was the real Kate, and you see her talking to Reed in the limo.
shareblueseas is right. But it IS confusing.
For my part particularly because:
1. I thought that Shiri Appleby=real Jill might be movie-Kate=Alexis Bliedel a few years later (they were both darkhaired and I'm not that good at faces)
2. Movie-Jill=Schuyler Fisk was sitting in the audience. It would have helped my understanding if the actress playing movie-Jill hadn't been in 'real life' too (just as movie-Kate=Alexis Bliedel was not present in 'real life')
3. The other characters playes themselves (as far as I understand). Only Jill and Kate were played by other people)
And on a personal note I liked red-haired Jill and Reed so much together, I had a hard time accepting that he actually loved another girl ;-)
not knocking this movie at all because i really enoyed it, but i find the whole "movie within a movie" aspect of the film unnecessary. i'm never a fan of repeating material, but i feel that "reed fish" has enough original matter going for it (what with the performances of its leads and the smart writing) to not merit the extra edge it tries to go for. i appreciate what it wanted to accomplish but i question whether it was really necessary. what do you all think.
p.s. i've had a bit too much to drink tonight, so don't be too mean to me.
Seriously people can't your ADHD minds pay attention at all! I was busy watching and feeding my 3 month old baby while watching this and it made total sense to me. At the end it was obvious that this was a movie screening and the women in the movie were actors and not the real Jill and Kate. Honestly it's not like this was Memento or Fight Club as far as confusion goes. Like someone in an earlier post said, "maybe you should stick to summer blockbusters".
share