Misunderstood Films

Lost Highway was justly bashed because there wasn't much reason to try to comprehend it (compared to his other work, anyway). It was fun but the randomness seemed to be exclusively for its own sake, rather than both for its own sake and for the sake of the themes (OK, randomness is a theme, but not an interesting one).

Coppola's Rumble Fish - a lovely film, maybe the best teen film of the Eighties, with stunning photography and haunting performances - dismissed mostly because it's cool/convenient to say FFC totally lost it after Apoc Now.

Starship Troopers, which looks like a rather prescient satire in this day and age.

To Live and Die In L.A., a really dark and brutal thriller that was probably a little too twisted for people when it was released.

The Thing (1982) - A bloody and pessimistic masterpiece that suffered from being released around the same time as E.T. Predictably it tanked, but now it's regarded as something of a classic.

Casino - Not really bashed I suppose, but there were the usual dull criticisms that compared it to Goodfellas as how it was just a rehash, which was appallingly off-the-mark. Finished high on a Film Comment poll for best films of the '90s, so maybe people came around a bit on it.

And many horror films, no matter how well-crafted, will receive lesser marks from critics merely for their genre. Below is a recent film that suffered such a fate. It was a well-crafted, well-acted, beautifully directed ghost story (of sorts) that should have received all the hype Twohy got for Pitch Black (but alas, no Vin Diesel...)

Lost Highway has a clear theme and story, and once you get it it's kinda obvious. There are bits and pieces that don't exactly fit the big picture; that's because Lynch wants to keep at least part of the mystery unsolved, so you can never understand it thoroughly. But in no way is it a "random" film. If the critics didn't get it, that's their problem.

Possession (1981), because most people only saw the heavily edited version. and even the full version is excessive and polarizing. i loved it.

My kneejerk reaction is Steven Soderbergh's Full Frontal, a brilliant satire of the filmmaking process that died with all non-me critics because it demands reconciliation of the story with the act of watching. I called this the best movie of last year and I'm not backing down.

What's far more common IMO is for critics to bash a movie because it's not complicated enough to suit their tastes. My dead-horse example is - yes, I'm actually going to admit it - Can't Hardly Wait, which lays its themes bare, is packed with wall-to-wall music to clue the audience in, and features some glaringly unsophisticated comedy. I'm not saying that it's fair to ignore these characteristics, but if you mention them, you have to mention the film's effortlessness at paralell narrative structuring, which has the dual effect of drawing out most of its well-laid gags and setting up some really interesting contrasts between characters. It's a fucking brilliant movie, and I'm sticking to that too.

Oh, and hi.

Full Metal Jacket. It's not a "war film". Well ok, maybe it is to some extent, but it shouldn't be Balkanized that way.

I think it is a war film, just not necessarily a "Vietnam film."

Spider by Cronenberg...most of the people didn't like it, i don't know, i loved it...
Irreversible..also.

Irreversible is one of those that people seemed to dislike for bringing their own preconceptions and issues to it. Rendering a purely moral judgement rather than an artistic judgement.

I the RES interview where Noé says that he cries at melodramas like Titanic.

Funny Games seemed to be a bone of contention six years ago.

"Mary Reilly" was fab in spite/because of wotshername's bad brogue.

what's not to understand about "spider"? i thought it was too easy to understand.

Rollerball - the original 1975 Jewison version with James Caan.

What's there to misunderstand about "Funny Games"?

Now, granted this isn't a generic rule of thumb, but check out the comments index on Funny Games - and this is a foreign film that wasn't much hyped, so people who came to it came out of genuine interest. It's clear that a good bunch of them...just...didn't...get it.

Re: comments index - the one on imdb:
http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0119167

I read the first few comments there, and it seems like people did get it.

i "got" funny games but felt that it just wasn't that great. i liked it on a purely sadistic level but i wasn't shocked or anything like that.

I have to second "Full Frontal" as an entry into the thread. It was my favorite film of last year as well. Hilarious, intellectually incsisive, human. It should stand as a time capsule in its view of 21st century Hollywood and its relationship to the culture at large. It also migh be Soderberg's best next to Solaris, another misunderstood, interesting financial failure

I'll say:

-Showgirls -- Possibly the most widely misjudged film ever made--even more so than Verhoeven's other movies!

-Eyes Wide Shut -- As with the next film on my list, the criticisms leveled at Kubrick's "real" final film seemed to me to stem more than anything else from expectations of what it "should've been" preventing reviewers and audiences from admiring it for what it was--to my tastes, one of Kubrick's finest films.

-A.I. Artificial Intelligence Attacked unfairly from both sides--too sentimental/too heartless--it is, for me, easily the most fascinating film Spielberg's ever made and perhaps the best, as well.

-In Praise of Love -- Suffered a curiously patriotic backlash Stateside due no doubt to Very Bad Timing.

-Storytelling -- Sure, it's mean-spirited as hell but isn't that the point?

-The Portrait of a Lady -- Not so much misunderstood per se as simply very misjudged; I'd personally rate it as Campion's second-best film, after The Piano--even better than Sweetie!

A big agreement with Eyes Wide Shut. I think the problem there, though, was both a) Kubrick's obsession with secrecy to the point that the rumors became so rampant and sowild, yet there was absolutely no way to tell truth from fiction, and with Kubrick practically everything seemed a possibility. As there was no PR control, the rumors became so fantastic that anyone who caught a whiff of them was going to be disappointed. And b) Kubrick's death led to both increased interest by people who probably wouldn't have been interested in the film if they had actually been told what it was about to begin with, and an ever more aware group of cineastes probing the film to see what was and wasn't completed by his death.

And as far as Storytelling goes (having seen it with my then-new girlfriend in the theater on Valentine's), it was relatively unnoticed stateside, and anyone who went into it should've expected something like this from Todd Solondz. I mean, hell, he was coming straight off of Happiness. I thought Storytelling was a good (but not great) continuation of the Solondz mood.

Josh, Showgirls, Eyes Wide Shut and Artificial Intelligence form my own trifecta of misunderstood masterpieces of the last decade. Date me.

Another thing about "Eyes Wide Shut"-Many film critics took exception to the fact that it was re-edited after Kubrick's death by outside parties. I recall an outcry for a "proper" version to be issued on DVD which would be created through some process (perhaps from referering to Stanley's personal notes, or possibly a voodoo ritual or all night ouijaboard session) altough as we all know this never happened, and the "Theatrical Cut" is all that is availible.

I didn't think it was re-edited. I thought they just digitally added those shadow people.

The one thing I hated so much about Warner Bros. in regards to EWS was that when it was in production, Kubrick told them that it would be NC-17, and WB proudly proclaimed that they were going to do it Stanley's way. Then the second he dies, they immediately rolled in the digital standins to secure an R rating. They wouldn't have had the balls to make him do that if he was alive.

Was the American "censored" version any different then? Here in Europe I believe they showed the uncensored version, but the sex scenes were so brief I don't think any "shadow people" would've spoiled the the film for me. Then again, exactly because the scenes were so short and non-exploitative, I don't understand the NC-17 tag either. Here in Finland Eyes Wide Shut got the "K-16" rating (allowed for ages 16 over, and for ages 14-16 if accompanied by a grown-up).

"16 and over", obviously.

Yeah, I believe only the US and Canada got the digital standins. If there are always people who seem to be strategically blocking thrusting action, those are digital standins. As far as I know, that's the only difference. I agree, I saw a copy of the scene extracted from the uncensored version DVD (not available in the US on DVD uncensored either), and it really isn't that much more exciting.

*semi-random bile*
Since we're on a ratings bent - fuck Jack Valenti and his band of thugs.

Second that.

I like this question--"misunderstood" as opposed to "misjudged." I didn't get OR enjoy "Full Frontal," but will give it a second look. Masked and Anonymous strikes me as enjoyable AND incomprehensible...

Sometimes finding a new layer of meaning can actually save your opinion of a movie. Stuart Klawans arguing that The Man Who Wasn't There is a parable of closted homosexuality at least got me to think about seeing it again...

I've looked long and widely for a single review that seemed to get "Cast Away." From the title on down, it seemed obvious to me that it's about learning to let go of things, whether it be your job, the person you love, your purpose in life, the multitude of modern distractions, and just live. Cast away, not castaway. In a way it's the anti-It's A Wonderful Life x-mas movie.

so why does he keep the goddamn fedex package?

Cause it's artsy to leave it as a Macguffin! (note: I hated that - not because we never figure out what it is, not because he doesn't open it however illogical that premise is - but because it seemed like it was done on a solely gimmicky purpose. For a really excellent Macguffin, bar Hitchcock, see Ronin.)

Well again, I think it's pretty obvious. Here's a FedEx careerist, finds a FedEx package with wings printed on the outside. Is going to open it and decides not to. Maybe it's just a coping device at first: He doesn't need to open it yet. Maybe he'll deliver it. Maybe he's going to see civilization again. Granted we're all thinking, hey, there's probably an activated cell phone with batteries in there, or a lighter. But how likely is that? It's a light package. He shakes it a little, decides to just leave it, maybe for later. Maybe he would have opened it if he was starving and dying. But it's his hope that he'll get off the island.

Once he's back at work, there's that great scene after his welcome banquet, where his buddy's going to fill in all his paperwork to bring him back to work life again. He's looking at all the food, plays with that lighter. I think it's obvious that the job doesn't mean as much to him now. That he realizes it was something he used to give himself a purpose, but that he could as easily find something else to do the same.

Yes. But so?

I agree with you about Ronin, one of my favourites, but I don't know if the FedEx package counts as a Macguffin. It's symbolism (crappy symbolism if you ask me).

"So" it makes sense, given the (believable) character and the (unlikely) situation we're presented with in the movie, why he keeps the package. If it makes sense, then it's not some kind of extraneous or pretentious symbolism. It actually plays a natural-seeming part in the story.

I mean, it's equally unlikely that part of a portopotty would wash up on the island. But I rolled with it. His reaction struck me as real.

This movie, more than a lot of the ones I love, seems to be a case where people whose opinions I respect simply reject or refuse to engage the reality of the fiction AT ALL, maybe because it's Tom Hanks, maybe because the music assumes you're feeling something. (I was.) Kind of like I gagged on Full Frontal, which struck me as masturbatory because it's about actors and stars and Hollywood filmmaking, has Julia Roberts, and is directed by Steven Soderberg...

David Thomson's Salon review was typical:

http://dir.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/01/12/hanks/index.html?sid=1006382

No, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense as symbolism, but I'm just saying it's not very good or interesting. Like the end of the movie---he finds himself at... a CROSSROADS!

Right, I'm arguing it's not "symbolism" at all. A symbol of what? And I thought the crossroads shot was funny. Like I said, I think the movie is pretty obvious. It's not just a scene that shows the crossroads (again, not pure symbolism). It shows his face, that he's happy to be there, that he's amused to be able to go in any direction. That's not the usual meaning of "crossroads," where it's an important decision or event or crisis that will decide the rest of your life. It's an important scene, but because of what we're seeing in the character's reaction to the situation.

So what's so misunderstood about Showgirls? That it's actually a joke? I mean, Starship Troopers was a satire that really did rely on being misunderstood (enjoyed as action--get the evil bugs!), and that's probably part of why we like it. If Showgirls is satire or a joke, I'd be curious to know what you think it's satirizing, and what's so funny. As camp it seems Mommy Dearest uninentional to me. I did enjoy it, though, in part because its crappiness DOES seem on purpose.

Also, where do you guys fall on the question of that Kevin Bacon invisible man movie? Wow, there's no better way to fuck with audience expectations than by making a COMPLETE TURKEY.

So you're saying we're supposed to relate to the package in terms of how the actual character in the movie would actually relate to it, instead of what it might mean to us? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere you're not supposed to do that anymore.

Pete, the package seemed to me to be a very plain symbol for what remained of dude's "civilized" nature--as long as he didn't tear into it he would retain a vestige of his former self (ie the self that exists beyond pure survival instinct).

The movie still sucks.

Pete Scholtes wrote: Sometimes finding a new layer of meaning can actually save your opinion of a movie. Stuart Klawans arguing that The Man Who Wasn't There is a parable of closted homosexuality at least got me to think about seeing it again...

***SPOILERS***

I haven't read the Klawans article, but I think the film always tried to demonstrate that Ed never really actively participated in anything - the dry cleaning guy makes a pass at him, and he lets it slide. Birdy tries to blow him, and he doesn't want it (and says "Heavens to Betsy!"). When he teams up with the dry cleaning guy, he simply supplies the money as a silent partner. He wants Birdy to succeed as a pianist and is willing to pay for lessons - again, a silent partner (and the attempted blow job scene is actually an important one, since it shows that Ed did not have a sexual interest in Birdy, which was ambiguous before.) So it's not really showing the whole picture if you simply theorize that Ed was a closeted gay man - he was just closeted, period, not doing much of anything at all. Because he was hardly anything, the UFO (presumably looking for a human specimen) passes him over, to look for a more substantial human.

But wouldn't you be more likely to be closeted in general if you're as deeply closeted as this guy? Here's Klawans's review:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011224&c=3&s=klawans

To Slutsky: Maybe it took on that meaning to the character, but that doesn't make it symbolism. If you think the package is symbolic of his "civilized nature," whatever that is, that's your interpretation, which is fine, but it doesn't seem plain to me. But I think the delivery for him is about having a purpose: that he needed to have a mission and now he doesn't, or can find a new one. I think that's why he wrote (I could be misremembering) on the package that it saved his life.

Cast Away basically said: Look, you might love somebody, but the notion that he or she is The One, and that he or she is Your Reason for Living, is JUST FALSE. How radical is that? Love is partly your own personality or projection (see Wilson); it's having a mission that's immediate as well as longterm (see the FedEx package everyone here hates so much); it's caring about somebody, but sometimes that means letting go of them as well (see the big rain scene no reviewer seemed to get).

This film defied two huge religions in Hollywood: the cult of We Were Meant for Each Other (see Sleepless in Seattle and every other romance) and the cult of Guys Really Good at Their Jobs (see Apollo 13, any cop film, etc.). I think that's why it's been interpreted so far outside of the actual drama of what's happening onscreen, because what's really going on is pretty alien to mainstream entertainment...

Fair enough, we can't really argue whether something is a symbol or not if we both see it differently.

(but you do admit the crossroads is a symbol right?)

A symbol....or a sign?

Uh, no [laughs].

Anyone remember Steve Vai in Crossroads with Ralph Machio? Just wonderings...

hey! i thought the package = faith. as in you cant open it. and for the record i think Castaway was a great and underrated movie.

Even though the symbols were over obvious, the interpretations were muli-layered and faceted. Each of you came up with a different equivalent that the package represented. To me, the package represented hope. If he opened the package, then he had nothing to look forward to, which would lead him to despair. Despair would cause him to become physically and emotionally sick, and ruin his chances of survival. By leaving the package unopened, he had something to look forward to every day...a reason to keep on keepin' on.

I take offense to the idea that the symbols were crappy because they were too apparent. They were apparent; what they stood for was where the layers issue comes into play. Think Coleridge's "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." Very obvious symbols, but their interpretations are still being argued today. The fun is in discovering the layers! Like a good mystery, the clues just keep coming. I loved the movie...by the way, does anyone know exactly what the symbol on the package looked like, or where I can get a copy of it?