As always, in this essay you reward your readers with intricate thoughts and witty prose, but it seems to me you let Reichardt off way too lightly.
Here’s what I mean about the former: "It’s the crown dropped on the floor, the wad of paper dropped in the safe, the ladder knocked to the ground. The truth of the heist is the fuck-up, the only connecting fiber of all human experience."
Nice!
But here’s what I mean about the latter: Way down in the footnotes, which only the hardiest of nerds like me ever read, you acknowledge, “I fell asleep at least two times watching it. … She makes me really sleepy…”.
Granted, you go on to say “which I think is totally OK: I love the surreal-ish space of low consciousness where I almost always end up watching slow cinema. If you know this is where you’re headed when you go into The Mastermind, you can probably allow yourself a better time than if you sit around waiting for something to happen.”
Okay, maybe you find sleep-inducing movies (shot partially in darkness) better than Ambien, but
don’t you think that for the rest of us, the MPA’s rating system should be expanded to include “SID” for “self-indulgent director”?
Your descriptions of The Mastermind add to my growing frustration with artists who forget a fundamental truth: by presenting their work, they are asking for the most precious reward we can offer. Not crowns or gems, but time. I don’t ask that all art be easy, but I have no patience for artists who waste my time to no good end "because it's art." (I'm looking at you, Lars von Trier.)
Oh, I don’t think Reichardt is self-indulgent at all, starting with the fact she’s never made a movie over two hours long. She’s restrained and takes a slower and less narrativeapproach toward storytelling that goes against what we’re usually geared to seek out as entertainment, but I don’t think she’s trying to test anyone. I find that her movies ask the audience to pay attention to things they usually don’t notice for longer and with less direction than they’re used to, which comes at the risk of drifting in and out of sleep. Overall its a gentle and pretty sympathetic approach to telling stories that are easy to pass over and ignore. But if we want to talk about self-indulgent European directors who abuse their audiences, I’ve got some takes in the chamber.
I bow to your view -- after all, you're the one who saw the movie! It would be arrogant of me to judge without seeing (and sleeping?) it through. Cheers.
As always, in this essay you reward your readers with intricate thoughts and witty prose, but it seems to me you let Reichardt off way too lightly.
Here’s what I mean about the former: "It’s the crown dropped on the floor, the wad of paper dropped in the safe, the ladder knocked to the ground. The truth of the heist is the fuck-up, the only connecting fiber of all human experience."
Nice!
But here’s what I mean about the latter: Way down in the footnotes, which only the hardiest of nerds like me ever read, you acknowledge, “I fell asleep at least two times watching it. … She makes me really sleepy…”.
Granted, you go on to say “which I think is totally OK: I love the surreal-ish space of low consciousness where I almost always end up watching slow cinema. If you know this is where you’re headed when you go into The Mastermind, you can probably allow yourself a better time than if you sit around waiting for something to happen.”
Okay, maybe you find sleep-inducing movies (shot partially in darkness) better than Ambien, but
don’t you think that for the rest of us, the MPA’s rating system should be expanded to include “SID” for “self-indulgent director”?
Your descriptions of The Mastermind add to my growing frustration with artists who forget a fundamental truth: by presenting their work, they are asking for the most precious reward we can offer. Not crowns or gems, but time. I don’t ask that all art be easy, but I have no patience for artists who waste my time to no good end "because it's art." (I'm looking at you, Lars von Trier.)
Oh, I don’t think Reichardt is self-indulgent at all, starting with the fact she’s never made a movie over two hours long. She’s restrained and takes a slower and less narrativeapproach toward storytelling that goes against what we’re usually geared to seek out as entertainment, but I don’t think she’s trying to test anyone. I find that her movies ask the audience to pay attention to things they usually don’t notice for longer and with less direction than they’re used to, which comes at the risk of drifting in and out of sleep. Overall its a gentle and pretty sympathetic approach to telling stories that are easy to pass over and ignore. But if we want to talk about self-indulgent European directors who abuse their audiences, I’ve got some takes in the chamber.
I bow to your view -- after all, you're the one who saw the movie! It would be arrogant of me to judge without seeing (and sleeping?) it through. Cheers.