I know one critic's review ended with " White Noise has so much crammed into its two-and-a-quarter hours that it will take multiple viewings to unpack it all. Luckily, it's all so entertaining that the prospect of those multiple viewings is an enticing one indeed."
I disagree. There are many films that merit a second viewing. Or a first. This is neither. In trying to analyze what was so wrong with it, I was drawn to one of the "tidbits" here. It noted one departure from the DeLillo novel in that, in the novel, Babette did not get shot or go to the hotel or the hospital, and in the movie she did. I asked myself why they made that change, and how different the film would have been had they not made that change. My analysis is that it would not have appreciably changed the film. As an individual detail, it neither contributes to nor detracts from the film.
And then I started considering the other details, scenes, dialogs, characterizations, of the film, as to their individual contribution to the film. I feel that in each case, there were no observed details of the film that actually either detract from or contribute to the film.
In this way, it is somewhat holographic. Any section of the film contains the entirety of the film. The film is not a story, there's no action, there's no real goal or realization or conclusion. The whole thing is really just an existential moment.
Where I think the film fails, is that it exists. As a thought experiment, or an "I wonder what it would be like if they made a movie out of this," it might have been something good for a late night diner conversation among college students. But as a movie, spending what, $100M? To make a movie that would not gross a thousandth of that... I know some would think, "What do you care, it's not your money." But it is somebody's money, and, even though obviously everyone involved knew it would be a bust, almost deliberately, or by definition, they actually took it all the way from concept to distribution. Meanwhile, other film projects, or messages that could truly benefit from being presented through the medium of film, languish on the shelves, perhaps unread.
This is just silliness. But hey, I'm the guy who goes broke trying to help people less fortunate, to get a toehold in their lives. What do I know? How different am I from the filmmakers, who go broke trying to... what? I'm not sure what they're trying to do. Show the angst of the world today, via a film that is both the signifier and the signified? Is there a message there, or is it just an observation of self-observation? I don't know.
Near the end, I started checking to see how much time was left. First, it was 40 minutes. Then 32. Then 25, 17, 14. Then I figured I was close enough to the end that I stopped checking. I figured I would survive till the end. But... why put oneself through that? Unless you are a a DeLillo fan, which I guess I am not, I don't see the point of the two and a quarter hours to watch it. Just spend 5 minutes imagining what it would be like, and you'll probably nail it.
I disagree. There are many films that merit a second viewing. Or a first. This is neither. In trying to analyze what was so wrong with it, I was drawn to one of the "tidbits" here. It noted one departure from the DeLillo novel in that, in the novel, Babette did not get shot or go to the hotel or the hospital, and in the movie she did. I asked myself why they made that change, and how different the film would have been had they not made that change. My analysis is that it would not have appreciably changed the film. As an individual detail, it neither contributes to nor detracts from the film.
And then I started considering the other details, scenes, dialogs, characterizations, of the film, as to their individual contribution to the film. I feel that in each case, there were no observed details of the film that actually either detract from or contribute to the film.
In this way, it is somewhat holographic. Any section of the film contains the entirety of the film. The film is not a story, there's no action, there's no real goal or realization or conclusion. The whole thing is really just an existential moment.
Where I think the film fails, is that it exists. As a thought experiment, or an "I wonder what it would be like if they made a movie out of this," it might have been something good for a late night diner conversation among college students. But as a movie, spending what, $100M? To make a movie that would not gross a thousandth of that... I know some would think, "What do you care, it's not your money." But it is somebody's money, and, even though obviously everyone involved knew it would be a bust, almost deliberately, or by definition, they actually took it all the way from concept to distribution. Meanwhile, other film projects, or messages that could truly benefit from being presented through the medium of film, languish on the shelves, perhaps unread.
This is just silliness. But hey, I'm the guy who goes broke trying to help people less fortunate, to get a toehold in their lives. What do I know? How different am I from the filmmakers, who go broke trying to... what? I'm not sure what they're trying to do. Show the angst of the world today, via a film that is both the signifier and the signified? Is there a message there, or is it just an observation of self-observation? I don't know.
Near the end, I started checking to see how much time was left. First, it was 40 minutes. Then 32. Then 25, 17, 14. Then I figured I was close enough to the end that I stopped checking. I figured I would survive till the end. But... why put oneself through that? Unless you are a a DeLillo fan, which I guess I am not, I don't see the point of the two and a quarter hours to watch it. Just spend 5 minutes imagining what it would be like, and you'll probably nail it.