I first separate films such as this (some refer to them as "art" films) into two categories. Does the maker(s) take the attitude, "I'm an insightful, sensitive genius and if you fail to notice you're an imbecile." or does he/she/they make an attempt to have the work be interesting and thought provoking to the average person? I put LULU in the latter category. It seems to me the work was truly trying to place some positive human attributes, aspirations, etc., above this life of suffering and sorrow. The acting was also exceptionally good.
But even if a film passes the sincerity test, it does not necessarily mean it works and/or is a great film. LULU lacks the sheer audacity of a David Lynch flick, the disturbing impact of a Von Triar movie or the passion of a Herzog effort (I'd throw Aranofsky in, but he's really mainstream). Its enjoyable enough to watch but I didn't find myself torturing myself later on to find answers because I just don't think there was enough behind LULU's creation to make examination efforts worthwhile. I am left with some pleasant thoughts of love and life angst. But LULU just doesn't qualify as a heavy; e.g., like BLUE VELVET, DOGVILLE, or GRIZZLY MAN. Would definitely watch another film by this dude though.
But even if a film passes the sincerity test, it does not necessarily mean it works and/or is a great film. LULU lacks the sheer audacity of a David Lynch flick, the disturbing impact of a Von Triar movie or the passion of a Herzog effort (I'd throw Aranofsky in, but he's really mainstream). Its enjoyable enough to watch but I didn't find myself torturing myself later on to find answers because I just don't think there was enough behind LULU's creation to make examination efforts worthwhile. I am left with some pleasant thoughts of love and life angst. But LULU just doesn't qualify as a heavy; e.g., like BLUE VELVET, DOGVILLE, or GRIZZLY MAN. Would definitely watch another film by this dude though.