back to work tomorrow; transient sunshine

[fflo]

3-day weekends make it especially hard for me to go to bed on time & get up for work.

With all the praises sung of it by my fellow workers and others, it's perhaps not surprising that my viewing of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind tonight was a let-down. I'm especially disappointed to have to report my disappointment to folks who enjoyed it so much, you know? Maybe my mood isn't right for it, but I kinda don't think I'da been bowled over in any mood.

I mean, it's ambitious and all, structurally, but I knew that going in. I do follow the shenanigans, but, well, for one thing, I never really feel that those two characters are in love. Or not in any kind of love I'd want to fight for (and I fight for love, believe you me). That's vague and subjective, I know, but there it is. (Of course everything's subjective, I feel compelled to add.) And no, my problem with their "great" love is not cuz it starts out with the sour end of things. I didn't buy the beautiful beginnings, and for that matter I didn't like either of the two characters. Then there's the gimmicky factor. The movie seems enamored of itself---there's THAT love.... Surprisingly I wasn't annoyed by Jim Carrey's presence(/face), and I did find a few bits engaging, and I like Mark Ruffalo, but in the end I'm gonna have to give it a pass.

Maybe part of my problem is that, well... Well, you know what? If somebody wants to erase a relationship, she can. All by her lonesome. Don't need no Lacuna. People do it all the time.

And there's the disconnect about how the process is supposedly unknown to our protagonist, but then he---half-heartedly set up as a cautious character, I gather to make his attraction to her be about her free-spiritedness---this guy needs only to be told "trust me" and "it's no more brain damage than a night of hard-drinking," and that's it. Yeah, I'm quibbling. It's late & I'm burnt & in no shape to get at my problems with the movie, let alone articulate them well (and thus get at them for real). But if it'd worked for me I wouldn't be quibbling. I'm sparing you a lot of it, honest. I fear I'll spark cries of outrage if I suggest that the movie doesn't seem to me, ultimately, to have a heart. Not that all movies need one, but one on this theme certainly does.

disclaimerwill, if you see this before I get in, will you break it to RLZ? I feel as if I'll have let you two down.

Comments

[crankyasanoldma.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I didn't get a sense that those two people had a real love. When I watched the deleted scenes, I saw more stuff that made me understand what they saw in each otehr. As it was cut, you get a sense of them being very different, and of them having a lot of problems. Neither one of them seemed terribly loveable to me. So the premise wasn't anywhere near as poignant as it could have been (and as it sort of needed to be, to have me rooting for them to find each other again).

[groovesinorbit]

Haven't seen this one yet, but it seems that in general Hollywood filmmakers don't know how to do characterization (or interesting plots that make sense) anymore. They seem much more interested in gimmickry. Granted, there's always been that side. Filmmaking by its nature is gimmickry, but so often nowadays, I find myself not really giving a damn about the characters involved cuz there's nothing there, or what's there is unappealing.

[fflo.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Y'know, I don't mind gimmicky if it's in the service of something. I even like it, well done, for the novelty that often goes with it.

I'm not opposed to Charlie Kaufman on principle or anything. Being John Malkovich didn't aim at a romantic vision, and I liked it. And Confessions of a Dangerous Mind gets my thumbs-up, though that's an adaptation, of course. Speaking of which, I didn't see Adaptation all the way through; H. & I had it but either I went to bed part-way through it or we both did. But I have a real distaste for Nicolas Cage any more.

The idea of Eternal Sunshine is super, really. Maybe in the end it's more the director and the players---and the final edit, as crankyasanoldma suggests---that leaves me cold.

[groovesinorbit]

I loved Being John Malkovich a lot. But then it had John Malkovich in it, and John Cusack not playing himself (or the young Woody Allen or whoever his stock character is) and proving that he could. And the concept was cool.

I agree. Gimmicks can be fine, even by themselves if good enough (I can't think of any examples right off the top of my head). I thought Memento was quite good, for example. And Fight Club, of course. But gimmickry wasn't all there was to those movies. The cast and crew made me care about the characters and want to know how it turned out. And that's the key to me, I think. Gimmick away, but make me want to know how things turn out, even if you're not writing a traditional linear plot. It's not that hard, although you'd think so from all the shabby filmmaking that gets done.

It's like baseball. Remember the fundamentals. Run out every hit. Catch the ball before you run with it. Learn to bunt and how to hit and run. Get the basic stuff right, and then tinker away. Ah, but that doesn't work for the bottom-liners who just want to make a ton of money.

I never saw Adaptation. Can't stand Nicholas Cage anymore either.

[fflo.livejournal.com]

I took in Matchstick Men, despite Cage, and didn't regret it. But heist movies & con games in film are a guilty pleasure of mine. Plus that one promised some character interest, and had Sam Rockwell.

But I was telling somebody the other day how Nicolas Cage is doing a lot to ruin Moonstruck for me, retroactively. Retroactive ruin is what happens when, say, Kevin Costner goes on to be such a schmuck and ruin Bull Durham, in which he was the weak link to begin with.

[groovesinorbit]

It's called "jumping the shark," isn't it? I really liked Cage when he was doing the romantic comedy schtick. Moonstruck for one. Raising Arizona for another. He seems to have gone the Bruce Willis/action route, though, that I'm not particularly fond of.

Haven't seen Matchstick Men, although I like heist and con game movies, too. Did you see Catch Me If You Can? I remember liking that one, even with Tom Hanks (who I don't dislike really, but am just horrendously sick of).

I can still watch Bull Durham without Costner ruining it, although I really don't like him any more. Field of Dreams stands up for me, too.

[maffick.livejournal.com]

I pretty much agree with everything said here, including cranky's comments...yet I still liked the movie...I think it touched some sort of sci-fi nerve in me that I've been missing for awhile. Not that it was even all that sci-fi, but I think you could safely say that the premise was. And I LOVE the kind of sci-fi that takes a situation that seems incredibly bizarre and out-of-time and makes you realize that underneath it all it's talking about us now in real-time, or any time...I guess. I feel like I'm not articulating well...maybe it's the pack of cryptographic oks full of unverifiable refs that took me half the day to complete...that could be sucking any creative juices out of me...but, I guess one thing you said earlier that I don't exactly agree with is that anyone can erase any relationship if they want to without help. I don't think you can and I think the beautiful point of the movie is that even if you could, you shouldn't because even the terrible memories are worth something (maybe they make you stronger or maybe they make you laugh one day inspite of yourself)...I think that you can't just erase a relationship, and in my experience, if you try to, it's just that much harder when you eventually face up to it. You have to take your lessons from the bad and good...and even then (if it's really intense, which I would agree was not established between the characters in the movie) it still doesn't go away...

[fflo.livejournal.com]

Hey, you don't seem so inarticulate to me! Though I know what you mean about some of those weird ref-heavy packs of galleys.

It's fully true that I can't erase a relationship, and would never want to, but a certain someone I used to know could probably be a foremost expert, conducting master seminars on it, if that didn't require some acknowledgment of the erased relationships. (ha, ha, she chuckled mirthlessly)

[madush69.livejournal.com]

Thank God I'm not the only one!!!!! I ended up walking out. You articulated how I felt. I thought the editing was annoying, and yeah, I just didn't like the characters. You mentioned Mark Ruffalo, now if you want to see a nice romantic comedy, he is in one. (I know I'll get berated all over for liking it, but...)
"13 Going on 30"
Sure, it's a commercial film, but the director is Gary Winick. He did alot of independent film before that, like "Tadpole," and Personal Velocity: Three Portraits.
It has fun, it has heart, and it has Jennifer Garner.

[fflo.livejournal.com]

I'd be hotter for Ruffalo than Garner, for sure! I could indulge my hetero- side a little.

I'm pretty sure I saw Tadpole. Is that the one with the teenager who sleeps with his mother's pal, played by that woman who was Lilith on Cheers?

[madush69.livejournal.com]

Yep, it was in theatre six.