I re-watched American Psycho, which was the review that got me the most disagreement from the people. I didn't "get" it, they claimed, and because of that, disliking it wasn't allowed. So I re-watched it with two years of perspective. And it was better. I still don't believe it to be a good movie, but the first time I watched it I was bored; this time I was more engaged.
I also don't think it's as clever or satirical as many claim. Sure, there are elements of satire, but if you have to read the book (which I was told to do, immediately, because it reveals all) in order to understand the movie, then the movie doesn't hold up. But I'll admit to not having completely understood it the first time. The comments, condescending as many of them were -- the worst comment I've ever gotten was one that essentially just quoted the dictionary definition of the word "satire" -- wound up being helpful. I missed the joke and the point over the first watch because of a complete lack of interest in the proceedings. This time, it was better.
I think it was the repetition that initially got to me. We see the same type of thing over and over again that I had trouble staying awake. You miss things when movies permit you to nap. It wasn't so much that the satire went over my head; it's that I wasn't awake to bear witness to it. Or I wasn't paying attention. This was two years ago. Do you really expect me to remember if I actually stayed conscious for its entirety? Anyway, that element was clear as day this time around.
Still, I can't get past the idea that the movie can't be disliked because it's "about something." When I got comments on my review, it wasn't that they were defending the filmmaking; they were defending the film's point. Sure, I found the film pointless -- and in retrospect, opening with that was likely a mistake -- but none of the other reasons I hated American Psycho didn't matter after that. It was all "you didn't get it and because it has a purpose it's a good movie." You look deep enough and anything has a point. Even the sequel, which is a more conventional slasher film, has a point. That in and of itself is not a defense. That the Defoe storyline is dropped for no reason, that it's repetitive, a lack of insight into the head of the main character -- even despite the voiceover narration (which itself is dropped for most of the film after being established as a key technique). That it's about something does not mean it is successful.
I dunno here, guys. Is it as bad as I initially said? No, but I'd be willing to bet that nothing is as good or bad as I initially say. You watch something for a second time and it rarely holds the same place that it once did. You work through the plot on a first viewing -- which is why my reviews often focus so heavily on the plot; that's what matters the most when you first see it -- and on a second you can pay more attention to other aspects. I do my reviews, 99% of the time, after a single watch. It's probably not for the best, but that's how it works when seeing something in the theater, so I've adapted it to DVD screenings. Maybe I'm a bad critic. I stick by this process. It is how the majority of the audience (both mine and that of the films I review) will watch something. For the few who want something deeper, they will see it again and discover that. So will I, eventually, as I have done tonight with American Psycho. Even the most boring of films can change your mind, ever so slightly, by being seen again.
This is a scrambled piece. I have a lot of thoughts and a lot of pent-up anger, some of which I recognize was likely misguided. I'll get mad, too, at people missing the point regarding something I really enjoy. I suppose I get it. Both the film and the comments.
Ciao for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment