It was a very strange thesis.
Okay, I'm reading this thing, and it's really bugging the crap out of me. He dismisses the director's explanations fo the events of the movie out of hand. Like, "Eh, whatever. That guy doesn't know what he's talking about ."
WTF?????
Plus he includes Citizen Kane in a list of movies (like Fight Club and Jacob's Ladder) that exist entirely in the main character's head.
Ummm..... I thought the whole point of Citizen Kane is that the one place we never get a look at is inside Kane's head.
Another line from the idiotic essay:
(Aside: on the original DVD commentary, director Richard Kelly remarks how special it was to have Jake's real-life sister in the role. Why? He doesn't say.
Um, possibly because real life brother and sister play more convincing brother and sister, who have an actual family resemblance?
But it does add a little extra-forbidden sexual tension to the film.)
Except for the part where it doesn't, because they're actually brother and sister, and give off no sexual tension or chemistry at all?
Perhaps this guy actually wants to sleep with his own sister.
Wow, I sat and read the whole thing, adn while the guy was really good at finding hundreds of little supporting details, he was also pretty good at overlooking details that invalidate his theory.
And for the record, when I trash movie critics, it is specifically Roger Ebert that I'm thinking of (along with a few critics from Ann Arbor and Detroit papers). I will now be adding Jim Emerson to that list.
::note to self: in the future, when you feel like making a generalized slam against movie critics, remember to instead say what you actually mean -- "Roger Ebert and Jim Emerson bug the crap out of me"::
I hated Gone With the Wind, until I saw it on a giant screen. The story still doesn't do much for me, but it's positively gorgeous.
I'm kind of embarassed by how much I love GWTW.
Wow, I sat and read the whole thing, adn while the guy was really good at finding hundreds of little supporting details, he was also pretty good at overlooking details that invalidate his theory.
That sounds like every critique of my papers in British Romantic Poetry.
"Eh, whatever. That guy doesn't know what he's talking about ."
Well, given how much Kelly had to explain his plot outside of the movie to make anyone understand what he was trying to communicate, I can't really argue that he makes a lot of sense in general. But I'd take him at his word that he didn't cast the Gyllenhaals because he wanted some forbidden incestuous undercurrent in the film.
Also, Note to self: When you've seen both Ju-on: The Grudge and its American remake inside of two weeks, do not then hang an umbrella from your kitchen door so that it looks like a head of black hair peeking out from behind the door at crawling height as you open it. I think I shot my pulse rate up past 200 last night walking in from the eclipse.
Well, given how much Kelly had to explain his plot outside of the movie to make anyone understand what he was trying to communicate, I can't really argue that he makes a lot of sense in general.
Yeah. I think he made (in the 2001 cut, anyhow) a very good movie that does not say what he wants it to say. (Can a movie be good, if it doesn't communicate the director's intentions? Dunno, but it seems like this one fits the bill.)
Also, Note to self: When you've seen both Ju-on: The Grudge and its American remake inside of two weeks, do not then hang an umbrella from your kitchen door so that it looks like a head of black hair peeking out from behind the door at crawling height as you open it. I think I shot my pulse rate up past 200 last night walking in from the eclipse.
HAHAHA - That's funny! I would've jumped at the umbrella and then laughed my head off. (
Although I totally understand having my imagination run away with me like that and even more so if I'm alone.
)
