Like most people, I went in with no preconceptions and of course wanting to be entertained. Within the first scene, I started sensing that, despite the garishly 50s production design, stilted dialogue and vapid forced jollity of the characters, this actually wasn't a satire, as such, of suburbia, or capitalism, or whatever. Satire is usually biting and this is not. When Jill simply gives Lisa her baby as though it is a new item of clothing, it feels like a joke gone too far for its setting, rather than what I believe is an early sign that this is 'Theatre of the Absurd' territory. That's a very difficult genre to pull off in film and even theatre audiences familiar with, say, Ionesco or Genet would need to have this genre framed very clearly at the start and giving away the baby does not really do that. Later, Jill's son jumps into a swimming pool and turns into a dog, which would have been a better way of achieving this, but it comes too late in the film to frame the story and orientate the audience correctly.
So, after the opening scene, we are in uncharted territory and a story we are expecting to make some kind of sense, instead meanders through a series of set-pieces, gags etc, that actually do not really seem to be intended to be either funny or serious. They all drag the pace and have the same tone, and soon the film truly slows time.
So, as per my title, the best way to enjoy this is not as something as easily recognisable as satire. Absurdism is incredibly difficult to do without confusing the audience and the most effective use of it I have seen is when elements of it are used in a basically naturalistic setting - I'm thinking Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch and Harold Pinter in theatre. Otherwise it is wildly ambitious and you need to have a genius director on top of their game to have a chance of success. If you have an avant garde taste, this might be for you, but my 3 rating is based on what the majority of people will think, at a guess.
So, after the opening scene, we are in uncharted territory and a story we are expecting to make some kind of sense, instead meanders through a series of set-pieces, gags etc, that actually do not really seem to be intended to be either funny or serious. They all drag the pace and have the same tone, and soon the film truly slows time.
So, as per my title, the best way to enjoy this is not as something as easily recognisable as satire. Absurdism is incredibly difficult to do without confusing the audience and the most effective use of it I have seen is when elements of it are used in a basically naturalistic setting - I'm thinking Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch and Harold Pinter in theatre. Otherwise it is wildly ambitious and you need to have a genius director on top of their game to have a chance of success. If you have an avant garde taste, this might be for you, but my 3 rating is based on what the majority of people will think, at a guess.