too powerful for most, spoilers (Part 2)

Rating: Null/10 (13 January 2004)

I most especially enjoyed how it combined everyday life with what I'm talking about here. I'm a philosopher, and this stuff is in my head 24/7 believe it or not, always there, glaring at me, but of course I go outside, I do my thing, and sort of set it aside. Even though it's always there, I'm still the 90% of me during the day who goes around like every average human, shakes hands, says "thank you," smiles for the camera, etc. The essence of me, that which is not buried under the superficial society of fast moving hummers, jet engines, money, mtv, that essence comes up very rarely. This movie captures this essence quite well, but if it did only that, it would be a bad film, simply because, in reality, it's NOT always on the surface. You still have to catch a taxi, you know? Therefore, the constant shift from those quiet moments, when you "see it" that abysmal gnawing inside your empty self, to the loud moments when it becomes silenced by the loud music at some party, that constant shift is rather perfect.

But because, those who do not feel the emptiness or do not "get it" (which again is not a bad thing, it's actually a good thing, it means you're happy), they will be bored, and rightly so! The "empty" scenes are truly empty, now that I think about it. Murray and Scarlett sit on a bench. That's it. I didn't think of it during the movie, nor when I was thinking about it, because to me, it is NOT empty, but looking over some of these reviews, yes, I agree. This movie is full of these boring scenes, which you will probably sleep through. It cuts from some scene where some action is taking place to another scene, where virtually NOTHING happens, and then to another scene, and you're thinking... "what was that?" Well, it was life. And yes, life is usually boring, so movies that try to depict life, like the many failed independent films, they're simply stretching it. If a movie that depicts life well is a good movie, why not just press the record button and have the camera man follow you as you go about your day? Well, there surely is more to it. But I think most good movies, at least in their essence, ARE about life. This one, seems to make that underlying essence its outer everything, and the usual outer everything (plot for example) as minor pawns.
In any event, it worked for me. I would like to say one thing in the conclusion, another minor retort to a few things I've read here. I noticed that people said how those who are in love, will enjoy this movie, whereas those who are not, will not. Well, I don't know about the latter, but the former is a bit baffling to me. This movie is never about love. If it was meant to be about love it horribly failed. This movie is not ambiguous at all. Throughout my years I've read hundreds of books, and when something is ambiguous I sense it off the bat. Here, it was rather obvious from the start, which is why the comments baffled me, for if I don't find it ambiguous, I'm very surprised other may (with enough philosophy you learn how to see every angle, after all). I've also heard critics claim the film is about a platonic relationship, blah blah blah. Nah. It's not about any relationship at all. The relationship is what drives the film, in some sense, and is rather quite nicely done. But it's more about WHY the relationship is there in the first place! It's the type of character that Murray is, the type of woman that she is, not about how they get together and hook up. In other words, the culmination of this movie is not in its so-called "conclusion," but in virtually every scene. The "process" here is what's important, not the end. At least in my humble view.

Murray doesn't look for her. She doesn't look for him. This movie makes this happen. It uses a lot of fairy tale type of "accidents," like the fire alarm at the end, to bring them together. They're not actively seeking friendship, nor actively seeking romance. They are just living their lives. Their purposeless lives. And this latter part is what this movie is about. That is why I enjoyed it. The last scene, I felt, was rather awkward within the bigger sphere of the film. I'm quite sure it's because the director had a rather different idea of where to take this film, than the one I've described. However, it is the one that I described which makes this movie work for me, not the ones I've read here. If this was about a platonic bond, it did a crap job of it (compare to Stand by Me, Habla Con Ella, or in some sense, Fight Club - I reference the movie, but in all fairness, I'm talking about the book, to which the movie did no justice). If it was about romance - then it's a bust. If it was about the cinematography, I also laugh. If it was about acting under the influence of a weak plot, I again, chuckle. Acting was good, but not THAT good. Even if you take all these things together, and especially if you do (because a lot of little things that fail on their own, taken together, make a philosopher grind his teeth rather nicely - i.e. Waking Life, what a painful experience that was), the movie flops. So, rethinking it, why I took so much away from it, I can only claim it is because of the "real emptiness" which I've described in this review.