The Vast of Night (2020) - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6803046/ - is getting tons of good press:
91 critic score on rotten tomatoes:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_vast_of_night
And great writeups on IndieWire:
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/06/t...w-patterson-dazzling-debut-amazon-1202232583/
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/05/the-vast-of-night-review-amazon-1202234018/
With great anticipation, I checked it out.
Well, I can't really review it, because I wasn't able - despite my very best efforts - to last more than 17 minutes into the film. What is it, that everyone sees, that I am unable to perceive? I really question myself and why it is that I'm seemingly so unable to vibe with the general public respsonse. But filmmakers apparently are impressed too - Soderbergh for one. What do the folks here think of that movie?
Here was my problem - I hated it about 2 minutes in. The conceit and style were apparent and unmistakable and deeply alienating to me. OK, they tried for the 50's, cool... but that's where it ended for me. The patter of the main characters, especially Jake Horowitz, was extremely irritating, obvious in design and fake as all getout. He's talking a mile an hour his words obviously written by a sweaty writer - a wretched effect. But the worst of it was that everything about it was unengaging. I had zero interest in what he was saying, because what he was saying was meaningless - "witty" patter with repetitive effects, over and over again. I - DON'T - CARE. There are many ways to start a movie and pull the audience in. You are more than welcome to start a movie without the audience having any idea of what's going on - that's fine and has a long tradition in film. BUT EVEN IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING YOU MUST MAKE IT ENGAGING on *some* level. What the director seems to have done (to me) is that he decided to make it "non-obvious", but forgot that we won't watch unless there is something that catches our attention. I hated the lead guy - everything about him was highly irritating. Not just the fakeness, but even the way he was presented - you couldn't get a clear look at his face obscured by those stupid glasses - he did not engage me, I didn't want to spend a minute in his irritating presence. I was ready to bail after 2 minutes, but I stuck it out heroically for all of 17 - and let me say this, multiple, multiple times I wanted to bail, and it took all my strength to persist, until I just simply could not take it anymore.
I cannot say how interesting the plot was or the premise, because I didn't last long enough. Imagine that you are invited to listen to a piece of music, and you sit there and all you're hearing is minute after minute one continuous speaker feedback square wave noise... minute, after minute, after minute, after minute, until at minute 17 you simply must turn it off. No amount of promises about how musical magic happens later can possibly entice you. Because you wonder how much longer that square wave will continue to assault your ears, and if this isn't simply a musical version of The Aristocrats. That was the effect this film had on me - I simply could not last longer than 17 minutes.
And then I'm left with the dilemma - how is it possible that so many people go into hosannas about this film... and I simply cannot see it. I'm completely mystified. Does nobody see the fakeness and artificiality and the obvious "written" quality of Jake Horowitz's patter? How very unamusing it is, when it's obviously trying - and dismally failing - to be witty? Does nobody percieve the meaninglessness of all those interactions and the repetitive nature of: "interview" this couple, that couple, next person, this person - all of those interactions extremely flat and repetitive in effect? Boring as sh|t and without a scintilla of novelty or twist or interest? And the constant pushing of "squirrel bit through wire" and junk that YES WE HEARD IT THE FIRST TIME - AND WTF ARE WE GETTING OUT OF HEARING IT FOR THE 20TH TIME??? I'm flabbergasted. It strikes me as extremely juvenile. It strikes me as a "first effort" with all the sins of a writer who lives in the world of his writing not noticing what the effect is on the audience. It strikes me as the limitation of a writer who is unable to get out of his own head.
Reading about the film and watching it is like two different worlds. Reading about it - I like what I'm hearing, I love the DIY nature of it, I admire the pluck and intiative of the director, I love how it all came together, I love his ambition, I love his attitude. And then I watch the film - and I hate every second of it on every level. How do I reconcile these two worlds?
91 critic score on rotten tomatoes:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_vast_of_night
And great writeups on IndieWire:
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/06/t...w-patterson-dazzling-debut-amazon-1202232583/
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/05/the-vast-of-night-review-amazon-1202234018/
With great anticipation, I checked it out.
Well, I can't really review it, because I wasn't able - despite my very best efforts - to last more than 17 minutes into the film. What is it, that everyone sees, that I am unable to perceive? I really question myself and why it is that I'm seemingly so unable to vibe with the general public respsonse. But filmmakers apparently are impressed too - Soderbergh for one. What do the folks here think of that movie?
Here was my problem - I hated it about 2 minutes in. The conceit and style were apparent and unmistakable and deeply alienating to me. OK, they tried for the 50's, cool... but that's where it ended for me. The patter of the main characters, especially Jake Horowitz, was extremely irritating, obvious in design and fake as all getout. He's talking a mile an hour his words obviously written by a sweaty writer - a wretched effect. But the worst of it was that everything about it was unengaging. I had zero interest in what he was saying, because what he was saying was meaningless - "witty" patter with repetitive effects, over and over again. I - DON'T - CARE. There are many ways to start a movie and pull the audience in. You are more than welcome to start a movie without the audience having any idea of what's going on - that's fine and has a long tradition in film. BUT EVEN IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING YOU MUST MAKE IT ENGAGING on *some* level. What the director seems to have done (to me) is that he decided to make it "non-obvious", but forgot that we won't watch unless there is something that catches our attention. I hated the lead guy - everything about him was highly irritating. Not just the fakeness, but even the way he was presented - you couldn't get a clear look at his face obscured by those stupid glasses - he did not engage me, I didn't want to spend a minute in his irritating presence. I was ready to bail after 2 minutes, but I stuck it out heroically for all of 17 - and let me say this, multiple, multiple times I wanted to bail, and it took all my strength to persist, until I just simply could not take it anymore.
I cannot say how interesting the plot was or the premise, because I didn't last long enough. Imagine that you are invited to listen to a piece of music, and you sit there and all you're hearing is minute after minute one continuous speaker feedback square wave noise... minute, after minute, after minute, after minute, until at minute 17 you simply must turn it off. No amount of promises about how musical magic happens later can possibly entice you. Because you wonder how much longer that square wave will continue to assault your ears, and if this isn't simply a musical version of The Aristocrats. That was the effect this film had on me - I simply could not last longer than 17 minutes.
And then I'm left with the dilemma - how is it possible that so many people go into hosannas about this film... and I simply cannot see it. I'm completely mystified. Does nobody see the fakeness and artificiality and the obvious "written" quality of Jake Horowitz's patter? How very unamusing it is, when it's obviously trying - and dismally failing - to be witty? Does nobody percieve the meaninglessness of all those interactions and the repetitive nature of: "interview" this couple, that couple, next person, this person - all of those interactions extremely flat and repetitive in effect? Boring as sh|t and without a scintilla of novelty or twist or interest? And the constant pushing of "squirrel bit through wire" and junk that YES WE HEARD IT THE FIRST TIME - AND WTF ARE WE GETTING OUT OF HEARING IT FOR THE 20TH TIME??? I'm flabbergasted. It strikes me as extremely juvenile. It strikes me as a "first effort" with all the sins of a writer who lives in the world of his writing not noticing what the effect is on the audience. It strikes me as the limitation of a writer who is unable to get out of his own head.
Reading about the film and watching it is like two different worlds. Reading about it - I like what I'm hearing, I love the DIY nature of it, I admire the pluck and intiative of the director, I love how it all came together, I love his ambition, I love his attitude. And then I watch the film - and I hate every second of it on every level. How do I reconcile these two worlds?