Let's be fair...


Such a low rating is the product of thousands of people that read the Strindberg play and felt the film wasn't able to capture its naturalistic sensibilities or we have a good number of people whose commentaries would range from "too long" to "nothing happens"? That's the question.

I mean, you can say the film is overlong compared to the pacing of the play. You can argue that the actors failed to capture the dimensions of the original characters. You can even complain about flaws on Ullman's direction but I really doubt that this film is worse than Kung Fu Panda 3 and Triple 9 and deserves the same note as the universally panned Gods of Egypt. That's the problem with this rating system... Imdb is not like Mubi where most people are accustomed with dialogue-driven cinema and will not have a single prejudicial thought before watching a chamber drama, for an example. Here we have this crowd but also people that just don't like this kind of film because their visions on the art of film making are quite specific in nature, only valuing the more vulgar (vulgarity as in something brief and action-driven, not exactly bad or poor) aspect of entertainment for itself. There's nothing wrong with this but maybe an exercise on humility could actually convince these people that there are some kinds of works they can't get because they never wanted to be interested by them in the first place. And the decent thing to do is not to try to opine on things you don't like before even watchingor can't understand. It's a choice but, as in any choice, you have to give up some things. It's your choice not to watch a film because it's black and white or because it's silent, for an example. But you just lose the right to criticize since these aspects alone aren't reasons to completely dismiss a work of art (who would be able to criticize a book because the cover isn't appealing to them?). It's sad to see that people lack humility this much, in this post-modern bizarre idea that everybody should have an opinion on everything all the time. We have a lot of very productive threads on more blockbuster-friendly films, why even bother to waste time on a "boring" melancholic little indie drama?

Your mother cook socks in hell!

reply

All good points. The "vulgarity" in movies today is matched by the vulgarity of commentary. (Surpassed, actually, judging by the comments you see on this board.) Many people I know applaud the collapse of the system where professional critics were authorities. Everyone is an authority now. But everything is now rated by numerical values, number of clicks/likes, snark and shallow snap-judgements (the "bizarre idea" you mentioned).

Of course I've always said that the art-house film critics have also failed us in the last 15 years. They indulged in increasingly tiresome and repetitive formalist films (static camera, long takes) that were film-festival award-baits but that no one paid money to see. Once upon a time, as recently as the 90s, there was actually correlation between good cinema and favorable, thoughtful criticism. These days, I stay away from the stuff being championed by "Village Voice" or "Film Comment."

reply