The short take,
The characters were shallow and narcissistic. The film was long and ill-paced. Its direction was aimless and repetitive. It seemed never to end... But when it did, that was the high point of my viewing....
--------------------------------------------------
Now, the longer take,
I can infer the film was attempting to present a character study on the Americanisation and disillusionment of French youth. By extension, this cultural invasion may also account for the insidious moral/ ethical decay in the film's protagonists, thus explaining their soulless, shallow narcissism. Granted, its all very lofty themes indeed this film is striving to espouse.
But in my struggle with the notion of "arthouse for arthouse' sake", I question the execution of the film. Would the same themes have worked even better if the film was presented in a tighter, less aimless way? Will this thus increase its watchability, which will inturn punctuate the accessiblity and resonance of its message? I tend to lean towards a 'yes'.
IMHO, the film's well intended ideals were sadly wasted. Its arthouse facade conveniently excused its inability to salvage or explain its misdirection. Gently put, to me, this is a film that could have been. That and my frank admission that art house works triggers myriad responses from its perception varied audience(much like yours and mine).
Such, glad that there are people out there who liked the film. But for me, it failed to work its magic.
The characters were shallow and narcissistic. The film was long and ill-paced. Its direction was aimless and repetitive. It seemed never to end... But when it did, that was the high point of my viewing....
--------------------------------------------------
Now, the longer take,
I can infer the film was attempting to present a character study on the Americanisation and disillusionment of French youth. By extension, this cultural invasion may also account for the insidious moral/ ethical decay in the film's protagonists, thus explaining their soulless, shallow narcissism. Granted, its all very lofty themes indeed this film is striving to espouse.
But in my struggle with the notion of "arthouse for arthouse' sake", I question the execution of the film. Would the same themes have worked even better if the film was presented in a tighter, less aimless way? Will this thus increase its watchability, which will inturn punctuate the accessiblity and resonance of its message? I tend to lean towards a 'yes'.
IMHO, the film's well intended ideals were sadly wasted. Its arthouse facade conveniently excused its inability to salvage or explain its misdirection. Gently put, to me, this is a film that could have been. That and my frank admission that art house works triggers myriad responses from its perception varied audience(much like yours and mine).
Such, glad that there are people out there who liked the film. But for me, it failed to work its magic.