MovieChat Forums > The Future (2011) Discussion > Are People Really This Stupid?

Are People Really This Stupid?

posted 12 years ago by emvan
9 replies | jump to latest

Not the people in the movie. All the people who've watched this and hated it.

(Spoilers for the first few minutes only here ...)

You can't watch this movie for more than a minute and think to yourself, "people don't act and talk like this." If there's any doubt that the movie is not intended to be "real," when the main characters quit their jobs because they expect to care for a stray cat for as long as five years instead of the month they expected ... well, there's no question that the movie is making no attempt at realism. No real people would ever do that.

So we have a sizable percentage of viewers who apparently believe that the lack of realism is a mistake on the part of the filmmaker rather than intentional, and complain that the movie is unrealistic.

Have these people never heard of satire, or comic exaggeration? Are they completely incapable of recognizing deadpan black humor? Well, I guess they are.

It's just sad, really.

The fact that many people are also entirely uninterested in any movie where the protagonists are deeply flawed bleep-ups is another can of worms entirely ... as if that doesn't describe all of us, in some way, shape, or form. Yes, our main characters bleep up royally at the end when they let a stray cat get euthanized because she loses track of which date they were supposed to get the cat because it was written on a calender in an apartment she's moved out of, and he loses track because he's completely paralyzed with depression after she left him. Let he or she who has never done one thing as bleeped up as that cast the first 1/10 vote.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

[–] DrWhen 12 years ago

Because we all know name calling is very intelligent.

[–] prom887 11 years ago

So we have a sizable percentage of viewers who apparently believe that the lack of realism is a mistake on the part of the filmmaker rather than intentional, and complain that the movie is unrealistic.

David Lynch and Charlie Kaufman are able to make the unrealism in their films believable and engaging to viewers. This movie doesn't. In fact, it was laughable and unconvincing.

Have these people never heard of satire, or comic exaggeration? Are they completely incapable of recognizing deadpan black humor? Well, I guess they are.

Todd Solondz and Terry Gillman are able to make the black humor/satire in their films humorous and interesting to viewers. This movie doesn't. In fact, it was cringe-worthy and dull.

The fact that many people are also entirely uninterested in any movie where the protagonists are deeply flawed bleep-ups is another can of worms entirely ... as if that doesn't describe all of us, in some way, shape, or form.

Harmony Korine and Darren Aronofsky are able to make their flawed characters likeable and producing sympathy in viewers. This movie doesn't. In fact, they were unrelatable and annoying.

NEXT.

http://behindtheveilofsociety.blogspot.com

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

I like all the filmmakers you named but I like this too. ::shrug::

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] emvan 11 years ago

Your evaluation is completely valid and a function of your taste, which clearly differs from mine. I think that reaction to this sort of thing is often highly taste-dependent.

But I wasn't talking about people who, like you, figured out what Miranda July was trying to do and thought she failed at it. I was talking about about people who couldn't even figure out what she was trying to do; who complained about the lack of realism, which was clearly intentional.

And, incidentally, the lack of realism here, and the nature of the satire, is tangibly different from any of the examples you cited. In the early going there's nothing as overtly weird as anything in Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive or Being John Malkovich or Synechdoche, New York; there's no lady in a radiator or office floor with a three-foot ceiling to tip the viewer off that they're not in the real world, there's just the characters and their reactions.

So what's being attempted here is something very different, and all it has in common with the examples you cite as superior is a lack of realism and a presence of satire, which are very broad criteria indeed. It certainly fails at trying to be like any of the directors you like better (most of which are favorites of mine as well). But it clearly wasn't trying. It has its own brand of quirk which people either love or hate, and I think both reactions are valid (although if you really think that having the latter reaction indicates the movie was objectively bad and that people like me who love it are wrong, you're sadly deluded; note that I don't think you're wrong to hate it.) But this post was about the people who didn't even get that it was trying to be quirky.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

[–] rooprect 11 years ago

Surrealist comedy is hard for people to swallow. How else can you explain why great surrealist comedies like "Being John Malkovich", "Arizona Dream" and "Synecdoche NY" aren't as big as "When Harry Met Sally"?

You're right, the audience must accept up front that these are NOT REAL PEOPLE. They are a parody of humanity, a dreamlike invention created for the sake of telling a dreamlike story.

Funny how audiences can readily accept hobbits and orcs running around, but they can't stretch their imaginations enough to accept a bizarre, socially inept tech support guy and his flakey dance instructor girlfriend. I thought they were the funniest thing since Bill & Ted.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Scatologist 11 years ago

Even black comedy should be amusing or at least ironic. This was neither. While I truly feel it was a creative endeavor, I have to say I didn't really enjoy it all that much. I just left me saying, "So what."

[–] emvan 11 years ago

No problem with any of that, if I take "This was neither" as "I didn't find it to be either." Because I found it laugh-out loud funny, and ironic to the point of near grief.

I showed it to a my regular weekly TV / movie watching gang and they all loved it, too. Tastes differ. But in general, complaints that a movie that everyone admits is a quirkfest with limited appeal -- those really aren't that interesting or helpful unless you can take apart, using your own psychology and the content of the film, why it didn't work for you while seemingly working for others.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

[–] dvalukis 11 years ago

This movie tickles my brain. Takes me to a place that even I don't know how to get to. It's lovely. It's retarded-good. I wish it were longer.