Posted by Isis at 132.236.35.61 on June 14, 2001 at 14:10:48:
In Reply to: Negitive Question posted by Mr.B.Root on June 14, 2001 at 11:06:58:
Actually, the main thing I don't like about Kevin's films is that they push right to the edge of what's acceptable, but then stop before there's a breakthrough. This may sound ambiguous so I'll try to explain. In terms of language, themes, characters, etc., the flicks are quite daring -- but when it comes to pushing through a definitive message, they always waffle.
Somebody's gonna kvetch when I compare Kevin to Stanley Kubrick, but whatever, here goes...nobody can say Kubrick's not a daring filmmaker, he presents things that are unusual and not generally brought up in the world of cinematic entertainment, but then he withdraws. Eyes Wide Shut is a bad example, since I believe Kubrick would have changed the ending if he had lived, but I'll use it anyway...the whole film builds up to the climax of Cruise confronting all the demons of desire at the orgy party and then -- nothing. He doesn't strip, he isn't exposed, he doesn't change, and all the threads of meaning building up to that point just fall apart.
I don't know why Kubrick made films that way; he rarely revealed anything of himself to the media. However, I think Kevin's films are somewhat hindered by his humility (ironically also part of what makes them, and him as a media personality, endearing). When I watch one, it's almost like I can see Kevin thinking "THIS is what I want to say...no, maybe that's too pushy, too over the top, maybe I mean something else, maybe I should tone it down". Or maybe it's the result of him having outrageous avant-garde tendencies, but coming from a fairly traditional background. Whatever it is, the films all seem to shift back and forth between grand statements and sweeping gestures, to small, unassuming comic-style actions. The films never really have to stand on their own merits, because no matter how intense the subject matter, it's always treated lightly, usually sarcastically. That's much of what makes it funny but it's also limiting. None of them are truly HONEST, if you understand what I mean, although all of them hint at honesty, particularly 'Amy'. And while ambiguity and letting the audience draw their own conclusions can be fun, it's a short hop to a rain of frogs, if you catch my drift.
I know Kevin doesn't particularly think of his work as important. THAT's something I think comes through and something I don't like. Sometimes too much humility can be as bad as too little (PTA, anyone?) -- I can't speak for the rest of the audience but I find it somewhat insulting that I enjoy Smitty's flicks and he talks about them like they're pure molten crap.
-- i
P.S. This was so long I forgot to talk about the Third Nipple in Mallrats. Well, that Third Nipple always bothered me. What is the point of that scene? Maybe third nipples are a funny inside joke in Jersey. I never got it myself.
: Okay guys, I want serious answers, if you're just going to slag me off for posting a negitive question then don't even bother. I have not done this to provoke response.
: Is they anything that you guys and girls (huge Smith Fans) don't like about his films?
: Just curious.
: Bob.