MovieChat Forums > My Winnipeg (2008) Discussion > Self-indulgent tripe

Self-indulgent tripe

posted 14 years ago by paul4763
15 replies | jump to latest

Terrible. I haven't been this annoyed since watching Synedoche, New York.

Self-indulgent crap, apparently it's supposed to be funny/witty but not once did I raise a smile. I just spent the whole 80 minutes just trying to fathom what it was supposed to be. It was just hyper-edited black and white footage with a voice over. This isn't cinema. I didn't gain anything from this, I couldn't invest in either characters, granted it's a documentary, but I couldn't even invest in what I was being told.

I've learnt nothing of the place Winnipeg. Another example of a director who has license to do whatever he wants and produces something self-centered and detatched from any general audience.

Don't hit me with "You didn't understand" or "Well the critics seemed to like it". I don't care, this is my critical assessment, it wasn't a documentary, it wasn't a drama, I have no idea what it was, but whatever it was it didn't work.

[–] LearyFILM 14 years ago

I agree, could not watch past 50 minutes. I got angry at the film.

[–] OldSamVimes 10 years ago

I got angry at the film.

Did you punch it in the nose?

[–] Tybaltv6 14 years ago

I don't think it was supposed to be funny or witty. The aim was to show a personal view on the city, not the real city but the mental picture of it by a little boy which grew in it, that's all.
And more than that, it's a bit of an essay on how time flies by, and how we feel it, by noticing the drastic landscape changes of the cities we know well.

It think it's my 4th guy maddin and i would agree that the three first were a bit too self indulgent, even if i liked them.
But i liked this one, there was some very moving parts, and i would certainly not call it crap.

And i dislike sentences like "it isn't cinema". Oh yeah was is it then ? a book ?

Anyway, you're free to hate it, that's your right but be a little more objective, i'm sure you've seen much worse movies that have given you more accurate examples of waht crap is when it comes to cinema.

[–] bubba_blais 12 years ago

"And i dislike sentences like "it isn't cinema". Oh yeah was is it then ? a book ? "

hahahahahahahaha

[–] infinajt 14 years ago

Wow, the first sentence in your post and you had already managed to lose all credibility.

[–] Salads 14 years ago

1. The film is a memoir about Maddin's experiences in Winnipeg. Semi-autobiographies and autobiographies are generally self-indulgent.

2. Humour is relative.

3. Confusion isn't necessarily bad. I was confused while watching the film, too. But I liked it.

4. It is cinema. It is not character-based. It isn't quite a documentary because a lot of it is made-up. It's about Maddin's feelings more than objective facts.

5. The film isn't about Winnipeg in a literal sense. It isn't a travelogue.

The film is a semi-autobiographical account about how Maddin feels about his hometown, blending facts, legends and dreams in order to communicate his thoughts. It's supposed to be a long, weird dream.

[–] dimabbq 14 years ago

"I didn't gain anything from this"

Why should you expect to be given something in the first place?

[–] Spleen 14 years ago

It depends what you mean by "expect" - are you saying the OP should have sensed in advance the film would be worthless?

If someone goes to the trouble of making a film and inviting an audience to watch it then the audience can, at the very least, reasonably hope that they will benefit from so doing.

[–] dimabbq 14 years ago

It also depends on the way I see the cinematic art form. I suppose its more about the artist for me and less about the audience.

[–] jtdunlop 14 years ago

At 17 minutes, I skipped ahead to the beginning of the remaining scenes, one by one, and concluded that this piece of self-indulgent excrement was pointless. No regrets, maybe if you're numbed to boredom at having seen 74,000 films this might be workable, but I've only seen 5,000 and you can keep it and every piece of pretentious crap like it.

[–] SloppyJ30 14 years ago

Ah, JT . . I will keep it. And thanks for trotting out the good old "it was pointless" argument. That seems to be one of the favorite fallback complaints for every lazy, ADD audience member out there looking for nothing more than some nice, familiar entertainment from their movies. ANYONE who dislikes ANY movie ever made can trot out "it was pointless" and it would mean as much as it does in your comment. If you require your movies to have a nice, concise point that can be articulated in a sentence or two, I fear you're missing out on what makes cinema so rewarding.

And Guy Maddin, self-indulgent?? Hey, watch it, buddy!! That's . . completely accurate. And guess what? Who needs guys like him to produce palatable populist entertainment? There are plenty of Jerry Bruckheimers and Ron Howards and David Koepps in the world. Unrestrained self indulgence has produced many of the most singular films ever produced. It's called "personal filmmaking," and it can manifest in confounding ways when created by a guy as deliciously weird as Guy seems to be. You may you choose to avoid intensely personal films. I don't. Give me low-budget self indulgence and "pretension" any day over the massive coin and manpower that goes into so many of the Movie Events we're presented with in theaters. Or, rather, give them to me most days -- entertainment has its place too -- but it can't replace the feeling that comes from entering a completely foreign world created by the likes of Guy Maddin for 1-2 hours.

And to the OP, re: "I just spent the whole 80 minutes just trying to fathom what it was supposed to be." Really? You're that concerned with finding the right label? Why? It was a Guy Maddin film. That's what it was. It clearly wasn't a comedy or a documentary or a drama. It had moments of each, and if you didn't at least crack a smile at the concept of the "Ledge Man" TV show, I don't know what to tell you.

The fact that "Synecdoche, NY" and "My Winnipeg" both annoyed you is telling. That is, it tells me nothing about your intelligence or character, but it does tell me your tolerance for level for unclassifiable, and admittedly bizarre films is low . . as it is with the vast majority of casual movie fans. That's not meant as an insult (practically my entire family including my wife would no doubt agree with you about S:NY and MW), but I'm wondering why you'd seek these types of films out in the first place. As your final test, find a copy of Chris Marker's "Sans Soleil" and give it a go. If you're fed up by the 20-minute mark, then you're an "entertainment" guy. No shame in that, but let's be real.

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

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

[–] americanpsycho357 11 years ago

i agree with the op. this was one of the most pretentious movies i have ever seen. it doesn't mean anything to anyone except the filmmaker and while that's great for him, that's not what filmmaking is about.

[–] SloppyJ30 10 years ago

Once again, "pretentious" is used with no context, no elaboration, and no meaning. What makes "My Winnipeg" pretentious? The fact that it was odd? The Google tells me that pretentious means "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."

Guy Maddin made a weird little Guy Maddin film that has approximately the same appeal as his other films, which is naturally limited. What claims to cultural superiority did you detect? I'll answer for you: none, because they don't exist. He's definitely a committed prankster, jugding by the way he insisted in interviews that everything depicted in MW was 100% true, but that doesn't signal pretension.

It's perfectly reasonable to dislike MW, but to dismiss is as "pretentious" tells me you didn't dig it but can't pin down why with any precision.

The last line "that's not what filmmaking is about" is a head-scratcher. I am keen to be educated on exactly what filmmaking is about. I honestly don't know. Here I thought a lot of these little indie films were, almost by necessity, intensely personal in nature, but you imply that they all should be driven by the same definable motivation.

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

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

[–] russianinvader 9 years ago

^good point.

Being from Winnipeg, I connected with this. I think you need to have a certain background to understand. If there was to be a purpose to this film, it might be to initiate some sort of reflection on how you hold on to particular memories that define something in your memory such as your home town, even if inside you know that your memory is not always 100% accurate. Its about remembering something the way you WANT to remember it, which is why i think Maddin used to say of course the film is 100% true, to go with that theme.

seriously people, direct your hate towards starting *beep* with the ignorant masses that contribute to the sad state tinsel town is in and try stop that maddness. Leave the people like Maddin who just want to do their own thing alone, because he is not going to change and neither are the people who like his work

[–] franzkabuki 7 years ago

No sh-t it's "self indulgent". This is what the Guy Maddins of this world are for - to indulge themselves and offer their uniquely personal perspective, works of startling originality. The two films of his that I've seen are quite unlike anything else - starkly impressionistic, wonderfully imaginative and frequently very amusing. There's an amazing flow to his phantasmagorias, some top notch cinematography and editing. I can only wonder why it took me so long to get to this "Canadian David Lynch" - even though he really isn't much like Lynch at all. A perfectly nutty figure of his own design.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan