MovieChat Forums > La mujer sin cabeza (2008) Discussion > Don't confuse 'smart' with 'good'

Don't confuse 'smart' with 'good'

posted 14 years ago by izauze
10 replies | jump to latest

I think I understand what some of the upper-crust critics who loved this movie so much (and put it in their top 10) saw in it. It is a smart movie - it takes a subtle, unique, and contemplative look at big issues such as class/caste, and how this woman who is torn in so many directions repeatedly chooses inaction over action...

But just because something contains smart ideas and an unusual approach, does it make it a 'good' movie? ...Regardless of how effective it is in connecting with people and communicating those ideas? I don't understand this approach. Sure a film can occasionally toy with the viewer - frustrate their expectations, challenge them, but to disregard the viewer altogether seems nothing but wrongheaded and condescending to me.

And all along the way the movie shows its near hatred for the viewer. From the very beginning it tells me nothing, and shows me nothing. The film seems to think itself better for its daring to show us only what a paraplegic fly on the wall might see. Many viewers spend the first half of the movie not even knowing what's going on. You might say "that's brilliant, cuz she doesn't quite know what's going on either!," but I call bullsh!t -- a great film engages us, or at the very least considers us -- it is a communicative work that considers where we are and where it wants to take us.

But Headless Woman does not consider us - or at least none but those few overly-patient cineastes who are able to remain engaged solely on the ideas behind the story... those few who apparently spend an hour and a half not wondering what they might learn about the characters or the story or the world, but about the final puzzle pieces that might enlighten their view of the director's exercise of mental masturbation. Like masturbation, they seemingly don't care if it goes nowhere... so long as it affords them the opportunity to scratch their chins and self-congratulate themselves on being able to find something of worth in something which others below them find useless.

At the end of the day, the Headless Woman doesn't care for me, and I surely don't care for it.

...Please do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no absolutist, but this is how I see things at the moment.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] izauze 14 years ago

another trophy :)

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catpukecatplsswhatsthediff 14 years ago

"a great film engages us, or at the very least considers us -- it is a communicative work that considers where we are and where it wants to take us."

A great film is one that I like.

Why do I like The Headless Woman?

I liked the acting, the atmosphere, the directing, the cinematography, and the themes.

[–] CitrusWithFuschiaTrim 14 years ago

...so long as it affords them the opportunity to scratch their chins and self-congratulate themselves...

Alleging that one knows the real reasons—and they're always cynical reasons—why other people purport to like a film is far too common on IMDB and is rather odious and, I would have thought, quite unecessary.

Some people did find that "first half of the movie" engaging precisely because the overall meaning was somewhat elusive yet seemingly always on the verge of comprehensibility. And heck, even as a purely visual experience that long car/hospital/hotel sequence was pretty freakin' distinctive. (There are many different things to like about films after all; there are even films out there, shockingly enough, that don't even make any reference to "characters or the story or the world" at all, so count yourself lucky to have been watching this instead.)

It's perfectly fine that you didn't like it. Say what you like about the film doing nothing for you. But why the hell would you care so much that others apparently enjoyed it? I don't think I'll ever understand this particular "I didn't like it, so why must other people cynically claim to like it?" strain of obnoxiousness that IMDB seems to foster.
_____
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here.

[–] izauze 14 years ago

I think you are more harsh and confrontational with me than I was with you (or with "the viewer").

I did not intend to say that disliking the movie is the only valid response for *you* - I told you about how *I* felt about the movie and what I saw as an amateurish disregard for the audience. Please don't pigeonhole me into your fantasy stereotype of brainless imdb inhabitants.

My post was about how I felt the movie treated the viewer. You felt it encouraged you to remain engaged to discover that which was just managing to elude you - I felt that the work gave me no reason to think that what was hidden was in any way interesting or important.

I could have the meaning of life hidden behind my back, or I could have a moldy peach... and if I taunted you for an hour with "hey wanna know what's behind my back? wanna know what's behind my back?" I would expect you to either walk away or punch me. I found no real reason to think there was anything of value being "hidden"... even if there eventually was. I don't begrudge anyone for finding something I didn't find (I wrote the post precisely to find out if someone could articulate what they found that I didn't find), but it felt to me as if the director just expected me to stick around solely because its refusal was different - and that added to my disengagement and perhaps even my resentment.

And since you spent a good deal of your post condescendingly treating me like an "obnoxious" idiot, you might be surprised to hear that yes, I am well aware of films that don't deal in characters, stories, or the world. I've studied and published material regarding films by Brakhage, Michael Snow, Sadie Benning, Ryan Trecartin, Viconci, Warhol, etc. etc. etc. but the successful among those films DO address and consider the viewer - even films that some find profoundly distancing or confrontational. And maybe you find that Headless Woman does too in some way, but I felt it didn't and that is valid and should be respected.

[–] CitrusWithFuschiaTrim 14 years ago

I had no intention of pigeonholing you as anything, nor speaking in a condescending manner. I'm not generally in the habit of doing so, not least because (1) I know nothing of any consequence about the contributors here, and (2) I sure as hell don't claim to be an expert on film. I don't even claim to fully understand the film in question. If you perceived condescension then I screwed up.

My response was motivated purely by this part of your original post - the only part with which I took issue and perhaps the only point that you don't reiterate in your latest post:

"Like masturbation, they seemingly don't care if it goes nowhere... so long as it affords them the opportunity to scratch their chins and self-congratulate themselves on being able to find something of worth in something which others below them find useless."

Your post was otherwise a pretty eloquent explanation of why this film may disappoint.

But it was disappointing to find yet another post on IMDB essentially labeling those who purport to have found merit in a film as, essentially, snobbish poseurs rather than, well, people who just happened to have liked a film for its own merits. I may have strayed from that point slightly when attempting to explain a fraction of its appeal, and your thread may have served as a convenient place to decry a broader trend, of which your own post was not the worst example.

I do however remain bewildered by the frequency of those "self-congratulation" type arguments on IMDB, even on relatively straightforward films that happen to be "slow" or where "nothing happens". But now I risk straying off-topic altogether :)
_____
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here.

[–] burttheswimmer 13 years ago

I think you are quite right. I hate people telling others why they feel the way they do. I like the title of the thread as I'm sure there are sometimes people who do confuse the two, but it is just a matter of taste.

By the way, I found the film dull, even though I generally like "Arthouse" slow burners (my favourite films include The Leopard, Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter... and Spring,Lovers of the Arctic Circle and The Double Life of Veronique), so who wants to tell me why I like or don't like them?

[–] Mudsharkbytes 14 years ago

I really wasn't particularly pleased with this movie, however, after watching it I did recognise that it was singular and showed a high degree of mastery of the art of film making.

I can see the technique that it took to make this and I can appreciated the exceptional acting and I can appreciate the style - unfortunately, though all the earmarks of a great film were present, I had a difficult time being engaged.

Nevertheless, recognising that my reaction and my opinion is purely subjective, I would never pre-suppose to understand the intent of the director as to whether or not they have any respect for the viewer.

You would not believe the number of imdB members over on the board for the Coen brothers "A Serious Man" who think they were staging an elaborate hoax on their audience by making the movie, which I consider to be probably their greatest masterpiece, and that anybody who thinks its a good movie doesn't REALLY get it, they are just going along with the rest of the 'art house' crowd.

Often when somebody doesn't like a movie that is lauded by many they strike this 'people really didn't like it, they just act like they did because it's an art film' attitude. When somebody doesn't understand or appreciate a move I really like I sort-of feel sorry they missed out on quality entertainment. I don't particularly appreciate it when I am told I didn't really like it, I just pretended I did so I wouldn't look like somebody who doesn't understand high art.

I wish I enjoyed this movie more than I did. I certainly expected to like it more than I did. I agree with the main point of the OP in that a smart, well made movie doesn't necessarily make a 'good' movie. I do not, however, suppose that the director has a 'hatred' for the viewer.

Even defining what makes a movie 'good' is elusive. There are plenty of undisputed masterpieces out there - Salo and Henry come to mind, that are utterly depressing and make you feel awful after you've viewed them, yet as films go, they are top-notch, not 'boring' in the least.

Most likely this movie would improve with repeated viewing, much the same way movies by the Coen brothers improve with repeated viewing, unfortunately, it'll take me a while before I can steel myself up to devote the time to watching it again.

You have a wooden leg - you must be a table.

[–] rex_ilusivii 13 years ago

Right after having seen the film, and going back and condensing in my mind what I saw, it did all make sense. But, god, was I bored during the first half of the film. I'm not surprised; Martel admitted she subscribes to the view that real filmmaking is not about storytelling.

Martel is a striking woman of 41 with long russet hair, and is never seen in public without dark glasses. Although she understands English well, she prefers to express herself in Spanish. "I'm quite surprised by the bad reviews, actually," she said through a translator. "I thought this was my clearest movie, the one that's simplest. But apparently it's not, as far as I read." (You can listen to this interview here, although following the back-and-forth translations is a bit tedious. It's easiest to follow if you speak at least a little Spanish.)

When another reporter wondered whether audiences were simply confused about the characters we see pass through Verónica's life, often with little explanation, Martel said, "Well, that's right. Actually, it's not important to know who is who, but I'm quite worried about the movie coming out in Argentina, about the idea that what it creates will be somehow lost.

"Today in Argentina there's a very particular situation because our government is in favor of clarifying things in the past, what happened during the dictatorship [of the 1970s]. But the government is completely blind about current times, what's going on now. So I thought it was interesting to link that blindness about the past to blindness about the present time. That's why I made some aesthetic decisions. I chose music from the '70s, and the men have long hair, sideburns. Everything else is from today, the mobile phones and the cars."

What alarms her about Argentina today, she went on, is that the gap between social classes has only widened since the '70s. "There are two different social classes that live together, side by side, but they're not together," she said. "They function more like castes than like classes. I thought this movie was a good way to express that way of thinking. It's not so much to talk about what happened in the '70s, or a conflict between that time and this time. The movie as a whole is a process of thinking. For me, that's what cinema is about."

Most movies, she continued, mask that process of thinking behind stories about characters with whom the viewer identifies, characters who come to good or bad ends and provide us with a comic release or a tragic catharsis. Martel has enlisted herself in a different and less beloved tradition, the tradition of art as a deliberately provocative intellectual exercise designed to compel the viewer to face unpleasant facts about the world, or about himself.

"You know, I don't simply want to tell stories," said Martel. "Cinema, due to its characteristics, enables us to express a way of thinking through a story. But a story is a trick. It's something on top. It's artificial."

So, I tend to agree with OP.

no i am db