MovieChat Forums > My Winnipeg (2008) Discussion > (Please read full post before getting an...

(Please read full post before getting angry)


This Film is Crap-TACULAR!
The internet is a difficult place to convey tone, so please understand, this is said with incredible glee.
I don’t know, maybe it’s that I’m too cynical. But “My Winnipeg” is a film so bad, so appallingly over-long for it’s content, so mind-bendingly stupid while pretending or possibly aiming and failing to find depth within the stupidity, that I couldn’t tell if Maddin’s a pretentious incompetent or a satirical genius.
All I knew was that the rest of the audience appeared to be struggling to find the deeper meaning present within the film, while I was laughing my ass off at its sheer awfulness. For future reference, the scene where a Girl’s possessed by the spirit of the Cefe Goddess of Winter Magic or some such was the first moment where I began to chuckle, and I broke into hysterics at what I’m going to call the “Nazi Point”.
The best part was surely the audience around me. Some were seemingly deep in thought, while occasionally laughing at the least funny bits, where Maddin had included a fake “joke” like horses being frozen. Others were clearly thinking that their partner making them sit through this was the breaking point of their relationship. One or two fell asleep.
I want to believe that Maddin has found one of those ideal careers, where you can make fun of the achingly pretentious, while at the same time extracting respectable amounts of money from them. Am I wrong? Is he in fact actually pretentious, and I’m the only one who believes that the real joke is much deeper than the crude tools such as the random lady who refuses to leave? The fact that he won the Best Canadian Feature Film at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival suggests I may be wrong; as does this comment I found elsewhere:
“It's a fantasy documentary that doesn't put undue emphasis on that crazy notion of "objective truth," but instead creates a magical version of the past that is closer to the subjective ways we all probably feel about our "cubes of home." It's not fake enough to be a fake documentary, not real enough to be a real documentary, but it blends the two to become a subjective documentary.” - the_crystal-image “Re: What is this exactly?”(Sun Jul 20 2008 09:09:58)
I’ll be honest, this feels like exactly the comment I’d make while trying not to break out in laughter, but as I said, the Internet is a hard place to convey tone, and I can’t shake the nagging horror that he’s *actually serious*. I just can’t tell!

I would firmly recommend this film to both friends and enemies.
In fact, I would rave about this, invite them over to watch it and suggest it’s best watched stone-cold sober “so you can really understand it”, while secretly taking shots of Scotch at every opportunity. Any attempt to leave (and there would be many) would be met with “No! Don’t go now! This is the really good bit coming up.”
With my pretentious adversaries, the joy would be in watching them try and discuss the “deeper themes of bitterness and apathy”. Firstly, these aren’t deeper themes, they’re really obvious before the third shot of a fat woman’s naked “lap”. The deeper theme, if one exists, is “That’s right, you paid money to see this, you pretentious fool. NOW SUFFER FOR IT.”
With my down-to-earth enemies, the joy would be in the moment where they look at me in disgust and proceed to insult the movie and anyone involved in it, from the writer to the viewers. (See Missy H’s comment below for an expurgated example)
With my most deadly enemies (aka my best friends), the joy would be in watching them slowly realise what I’ve suckered them into. Yes they might punch me in the face for my audacity, but the amount of Scotch I’d downed would probably mean I never felt the blow. After that, I would let them share the Scotch.
To Conclude, here are a few of the reviews I read, while seeking enlightenment.
“You may find yourself clutching your ticket stub in a pathetic attempt to hold on to reality.” Well, Peter Scarlet of www.tribecafilmfestival.org, I’d have preferred Scotch to be honest. The ticket merely reminds me that I’m paying to sit through this, something that becomes more unbelievable with each passing second.
“He rewrites history; when that fails, he creates it.” – Again, I can’t be sure if Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times is kidding or not, although that final paragraph appears to be hinting that he is.
“I felt as if I too were sleepwalking, a theme in this over long film. A 20 minute documentary on the very interesting though questionable subject would have been enough. A feature...not!” – Thank you Missy H. of Metacritic, I feel this will have been a common feeling among the girlfriends of film students throughout Canada.
“Though it may feel undernourished to the faithful, "Winnipeg" is an easily digestible meal, for the uninitiated and fans alike, featuring Maddin's utterly individual worldview, suggesting receipts and ancillary on par with his recent work, if not modestly better.” - Someday, Eddie Cockrell of Variety will surely find himself in a compromising position with a donkey, under the belief he’s involved in a controversial art piece.
Who knows, maybe he will be. After watching this film, I can’t tell anymore.

reply

Okay, I read the full post. But, I have to ask: if you are actually asking someone to read something in its entirety to appreciate its nuance, why lead it off with the decidedly baiting "This Film is Crap-TACULAR"?

I also find it interesting that you assumed I'm a he. Then again, the Internet is a hard place to convey gender.

There are a few directors I would place in the "make fun of the achingly pretentious, while at the same time extracting respectable amounts of money from them" category. Michael Haneke is one of them, although I don't think he is completely in on the joke, because he has grown too convinced of his own genius. Guy Maddin, I think, displays a little bit of this tendency, although not with the overtones of cruelty you seem to relish in It's more of a gleeful tone, a willful embrace of absurdity.

I can't defend or explain the reviewers you cite. As for my own comment, I can say that it was made in seriousness, which is not to say that I didn't recognize the playfulness of its out-there hedging. I assure you that I never take myself so seriously that I can't laugh at myself, or recognize and appreciate the potential for deflation under cries of "pretentiousness" that even my favorite films have.

Although I'm sorry that you found a lot of the humor of the film cloying, canned, or "fake," as you put it. However, based on some of your comments, I can see that not all of the humor of the film was lost on you. Although you paint your amusement as the result of unintentional humor, I assure you that Maddin does not expect you to take the film seriously.

reply

"Why lead it off with the decidedly baiting "This Film is Crap-TACULAR"? "
It was my immediate response on exiting the cinema, and my original title, before I decided to try and get people to read at least the second sentence. Also, I was quite clear, I'm not expecting... non-anger(?) by the end of the post.

"you assumed I'm a he. Then again, the Internet is a hard place to convey gender."
AND there's no pronoun for indefinite gender. I had to guess, I chose "he". Clearly I'm part of the maleocentric manocracy, but until the words they and theirs are officially adopted as gender-neutral expressions, I go with the random dice-rolls.

"Although you paint your amusement as the result of unintentional humor, I assure you that Maddin does not expect you to take the film seriously."
Like I say, I found it hilarious, I'm just not sure if it was *good*, in any sense that I understand the term. I firmly believe that it could be used to torture some of the more down-to-earth people of my acquaintance, and it certainly confused the hell out of my dad and possibly other, who chose it over something more "pedestrian" like Wall-E.
I also found that I found it far more funny than anyone else in the audience, who seemed to be attempting the foolish and doomed task of working out what the meaning was. Occasionally it seemed like he was aiming for bitter and had hit lunacy by accident. Possibly it wasn't accident, but in many ways it would be funnier if it was, in an MST3000 sort of way.
It did seem slightly over-long, but I almost felt like that was part of its charm. It was daring you to walk out, without any offer of actual escape. You wanted to leave, but you felt like you might just get an explanation in a few seconds... nope.

"Although I'm sorry that you found a lot of the humor of the film cloying, canned, or "fake," as you put it."
Actually, it wasn't a lot of the film, just the few moments where other people were laughing, well, letting out confused "hehe"'s. It was like "Yes, yes, spooning amid frozen horses, it's silly, but COME ON! He's just made you sit through maddened ramblings about FORKS and his MOTHER'S LAP! The horse bit is nothing!"

reply

"occasionally it seemed like he was aiming for bitter hand had hit lunacy by accident"

Now that you've clarified some things, I do think that a lot of your assessment is spot-on, actually. I'm just coming from a different corner, the opposite, perhaps, because I *am* sure that Maddin is *good* in some sense, if not in every sense.

The above quote I think points to exactly why my views on this film, and Maddin in general, are different from yours. If you view this film through the lens of Maddin's other films, from TALES FROM THE GIMLI HOSPITAL and CAREFUL! through COWARDS BEND THE KNEE and THE SADDEST MUSIC IN THE WORLD, it's clear that lunacy is what he's all about. His films are extended examinations of the lunacy of practically everything in life, with special attention payed to the unique lunacies of Freudian theory and cinematic language. Broadly speaking, his films are all elaborate jokes. This doesn't mean that you can't take away serious things from them. It just means his first purpose is to convey humor, lunacy, and a special brand of lurid delirium. For god's sake, the guy's book on filmmaking is titled FROM THE ATELIER TOVAR. Lunacy is far from an accident for him.

I don't know your familiarity with his other films, and so I won't make assumptions here. But I will say that if MY WINNIPEG was the first I film I saw of Maddin's, I would have mixed feelings about it, to say the least. He does sound bitter and angst-y, all this ridiculous crap about "escape" and "forks" and "lap." But knowing Maddin's style, I can easily understand that the "bitterness" is just an act, a device to get from "A" to "B," "B" being, in this case, the utter absurdity of his Freudian reenactment scenarios. Maddin is all about the lunacy, and though it seems that he does hit "bitter" in MY WINNIPEG, I assure you it's all part of the crazy plan.

That said, I'm sorry about the whole "he" thing. Unnecessary, cowardly, and admittedly PC-ish. That said, do your self a favor and rent Maddin's THE HEART OF THE WORLD short. At 6 minutes, it's in no way over-long, and should give you a good idea of what he's all about without wasting your time. Also, WALL-E was in no way pedestrian. I thought the ending was a little too upbeat, but other than that, a top-notch piece of cinematic artistry, as nearly all Pixar films are. Cheers.

reply

[deleted]

Reading your post made me suffer more than any Guy Maddin film.

My Winnipeg is brilliant and I don't care who disagrees because it is brilliant for me. I laughed during the film, but in all the places that were right for me to laugh, not for anyone else. I am indifferent to whether you or anyone else liked this film and I imagine that the director is, too. Good for him!

reply

Hi!

I don't have much time right now, so i cannot explain my reasons. Only saying that i TOTALLY agree with you in every point, t_clark2510.
And I'm happy for seeing that i'm not the only one that think that this movie is a whole crap one.
Sorry for being so lame and not putting any explaination at this moment.

Best regards.

reply

Guy Maddin is AWESOME!!

reply

You seriously think that?

I really hate this movie, because i don't get anything (neither any feeling), except an incredible and stupid loss of time.

But I'll tell you only facts. Now here in Santiago (Spain) there is a non-comercial film festival, with movies like "Die Welle" (8.2 points), "Ha Buah" (8.4 points), "Il y a longtemps que je t'aime" (8.0 points).
Perfect.
"My Winnipeg" only gets 5.8 points.
http://cineuropa.compostelacultura.org/opinion.php

And don't talk me too much about the 8.0 of Imdb.com, because we ALL know that score is from only 800 persons (probably from cast, friends and really devoted fans).

I only found one person who really liked this movie (a 8 score, she said).
A complete and useless failure, in my humble opinion. Perhaps you're right: Guy Maddin is awesome, but making money.

Best regards.

reply

Jeje, Maddin isn't in it for the money. How can he be, making that kind of films?

I should shut my mouth, because I haven't watched "My Winnipeg", but i'm a great fan of his work. It can't be that bad. Have you watched any of his films and short films, apart of this one?

reply

I don't get this movie. I tried several times to finish it. I think I made it to about the seven minute mark before returning it. I joke, but I still don't get it. I don't mind slow paced films, but I draw the line at crap. And this was crap. That was the worst narration I have ever heard this side of a student film. The visuals were interesting at times, but then he would go from that grainy flat look to the glossy depths of current hollywood garbage and it would just take me out of it. Not that I was ever in it to begin with. I just don't get what's to like about this movie. I know it takes all kinds but damn. Sorry, this was my ostensibly unedited thoughts to just watching what I feel to be the worst film i have ever seen. And I am taking in to account Skinemax films.

reply

I can't imagine how anyone could view this and not find it, if not hilarious, then at least along that route. Granted, it's wierdo primal-scream humor, like the Marx Bros. or David Lynch, but it's pretty front-and-center nonetheless. I mean, come on: they couldn't agree over how to deal with the father figure, so they entombed him in the living room floor? That's funny. Some of you guys should lighten up, and the original poster should rest assured that, judging from his post, he (or she) probably 'gets' Maddin better than a lot of his fans.

reply

Why does everyone who watches any unconventional cinema instantly compare it to Lynch?

I like Lynch as much as the next guy but come on, Madden is nothing like him.

reply

And isn't it funny that there's a thread like this for every single Guy Maddin film, always running really long, always with an OP who states Maddin's a stuck-up, highbrow bastard who's laughing at us. I think it's funny. I also think all Maddin films are incredibly funny, hilarious at times, and, although they're in full knowledge of their middle-finger-up-status, or maybe exactly because of that, they manage to convey some pretty interesting messages. Not in a "The Godfather"-kind of way, of course.

------"Are you an American? I'm not an American, i'm a nymphomaniac"------

reply

Obviously Maddin's narrative content is not to everyone's taste. You must acknowledge the technical proficiency on display though.

reply

Maddin is obviously exorcising his childhood demons in the best way he can. Watch some interviews of him and you'll see that he comes across as very serious. Watch some of his older films, some of his shorter films like Sissy Boy Slap Party and see how funny they are.

There is no "off" position on the genius switch.

reply

Cliff's Notes version: "My Winnipeg" is not an ideal date movie.

Re: "the internet is a difficult place to express gender."

I'm a dude. That was easy!

-------------------------

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I must atone.

reply