Well, the critics liked this movie.
According to the film's IMdb page, it has a metacritic score of 79. This is an average value that indicates overall support by the critics. Usually, this score is much lower. Even films with solid reviews have a lower score as naysayers tend to drag this number down.
This high score (which indicates a positive consensus), and the fact that I'm a fan of Aubrey Plaza, made me search it out.
I understand why the critics liked it. It is both stylistically distinct and - VERY - open to interpretation.
I did appreciate the clever use of shifting tone but hated the bipolar shift in narrative (the "open to interpretation").
Aubrey Plaza does deliver the best performance of her career (admittedly I haven't seen everything that she's done).
Let's talk about the "open to interpretation" part: which frankly ruined the film for me.
The 'bipolar shift' has to do with how the film has two separate storylines. They are not logically connected. And I can see how a critic - someone who has made the study of film a career (including the unpaid blogger) - would get into this. Is there a connection? Is there no connection? I'm not superficial guy but was annoyed, not challenged, by this. Frankly, it feels like the filmmakers were playing with my head. While I honestly like being pushed by a film, I couldn't get past the feeling that the two plots were just gamesmanship: something calculated to appeal to the pretense of the critic and dismissive of the average viewer.
Did the film have a challenging message or intent? Or did it just want to want to give critics any opportunity to proclaim, 'I get it!' when - in fact - there really is nothing to get?
The first 1/3 of the film tells the story of Allison (Plaza) who is an auteur: a filmmaker who wears a lot of hats. She writes the scripts. She produces and - sometimes - acts in her films.
Getting ready to start writing her next film, she goes to an isolated airbnb: an amazing rustic home The property is on the edge of a large rustic lake with its own slip, a small wooden extension where small fishing boats could dock. I mention this seemingly small detail because recurring shots of the slip play an important part in the flow of the film and is presumably 'meaningful' (although I dismissed it as part of the pretension meant to appeal to critics). Again, this perceived pretention is why I ultimately hated the film.
There are a couple establishing shots. Allison is greeted by Gabe (Christopher Abbott) who walks her down a rustic unpaved road to the rustic-yet-palatial mansion. Gabe is flirtatious: Allison is both flattered and annoyed. After settling into her room, she lights up a joint (perhaps in preparation for a tense dinner with Gabe and his girlfriend, Blair (Sarah Gadon)).
Blair, it turned out, is late term pregnant. Much of the first story is Allison, Gabe and Blair having dinner. The tension between Gabe and Blair is palpable. Later on, after the dinner scene, Gabe confesses to Allison that he doesn't love Blair but feels trapped by the pregnancy. Not a surprise.
During the dinner, the hosts bicker about feminism (primarily). Blair is, well, pro-feminist. Gabe isn't exactly anti-feminist but maintains that there was more structure when traditional gender roles were respected. Perhaps, he is anti-feminist. Blair keeps turning to Allison for support. She basically says that her 'feminist-theme' movies don't mean anything and acts annoyed that an increasingly drunk Blair is pushing her on this. By the way, the fact that a heavily pregnant Blair is drinking heavily is another source of tension between the couple. It also foreshadows how Blair feels about situation.
Honestly, Allison comes off as somewhat dim. Ultimately, it becomes clear that she is showing contempt for her hosts. After the dinner party, Gabe and Allison talk. Around the same time that Gabe admits to being trapped by the pregnancy, Allison admits to toying with couple. This escalates into sex. Blair catches them. In the tension, she goes into labor. Allison ends up driving the couple to the hospital. But, in the chaos, she hits what looks like a bear.
And...
Story over.
Everything resets. Plaza, Abbott and Gadon new characters have the same names but are totally different people. The action takes place at the same palatial rustic home. Yes, the existentialist theme is clear. But, I didn't care. I really wanted to see how the first story would have played out. Also there was a clear opening to give the first story a horrific quality. While the thematic possibility of the dual storylines was clear, I was so PO'd at the first story being ripped away from me that I didn't care. I just got into the first story - with it taking a little effort to warm up to the largely talky segment - and left with the realization that the first story was not going to be resolved. And that sucked.
I'm not going to bother expounding the second story. Yes, it too was interesting, perhaps more so, but I didn't care. I felt pretty manipulated and simply could not bring myself to care again.
It is in this second story that Aubrey Plaza does were best acting. Did it win an Oscar? It deserved it. But, after having the rug pulled out from beneath me, it didn't care.
According to the film's IMdb page, it has a metacritic score of 79. This is an average value that indicates overall support by the critics. Usually, this score is much lower. Even films with solid reviews have a lower score as naysayers tend to drag this number down.
This high score (which indicates a positive consensus), and the fact that I'm a fan of Aubrey Plaza, made me search it out.
I understand why the critics liked it. It is both stylistically distinct and - VERY - open to interpretation.
I did appreciate the clever use of shifting tone but hated the bipolar shift in narrative (the "open to interpretation").
Aubrey Plaza does deliver the best performance of her career (admittedly I haven't seen everything that she's done).
Let's talk about the "open to interpretation" part: which frankly ruined the film for me.
The 'bipolar shift' has to do with how the film has two separate storylines. They are not logically connected. And I can see how a critic - someone who has made the study of film a career (including the unpaid blogger) - would get into this. Is there a connection? Is there no connection? I'm not superficial guy but was annoyed, not challenged, by this. Frankly, it feels like the filmmakers were playing with my head. While I honestly like being pushed by a film, I couldn't get past the feeling that the two plots were just gamesmanship: something calculated to appeal to the pretense of the critic and dismissive of the average viewer.
Did the film have a challenging message or intent? Or did it just want to want to give critics any opportunity to proclaim, 'I get it!' when - in fact - there really is nothing to get?
The first 1/3 of the film tells the story of Allison (Plaza) who is an auteur: a filmmaker who wears a lot of hats. She writes the scripts. She produces and - sometimes - acts in her films.
Getting ready to start writing her next film, she goes to an isolated airbnb: an amazing rustic home The property is on the edge of a large rustic lake with its own slip, a small wooden extension where small fishing boats could dock. I mention this seemingly small detail because recurring shots of the slip play an important part in the flow of the film and is presumably 'meaningful' (although I dismissed it as part of the pretension meant to appeal to critics). Again, this perceived pretention is why I ultimately hated the film.
There are a couple establishing shots. Allison is greeted by Gabe (Christopher Abbott) who walks her down a rustic unpaved road to the rustic-yet-palatial mansion. Gabe is flirtatious: Allison is both flattered and annoyed. After settling into her room, she lights up a joint (perhaps in preparation for a tense dinner with Gabe and his girlfriend, Blair (Sarah Gadon)).
Blair, it turned out, is late term pregnant. Much of the first story is Allison, Gabe and Blair having dinner. The tension between Gabe and Blair is palpable. Later on, after the dinner scene, Gabe confesses to Allison that he doesn't love Blair but feels trapped by the pregnancy. Not a surprise.
During the dinner, the hosts bicker about feminism (primarily). Blair is, well, pro-feminist. Gabe isn't exactly anti-feminist but maintains that there was more structure when traditional gender roles were respected. Perhaps, he is anti-feminist. Blair keeps turning to Allison for support. She basically says that her 'feminist-theme' movies don't mean anything and acts annoyed that an increasingly drunk Blair is pushing her on this. By the way, the fact that a heavily pregnant Blair is drinking heavily is another source of tension between the couple. It also foreshadows how Blair feels about situation.
Honestly, Allison comes off as somewhat dim. Ultimately, it becomes clear that she is showing contempt for her hosts. After the dinner party, Gabe and Allison talk. Around the same time that Gabe admits to being trapped by the pregnancy, Allison admits to toying with couple. This escalates into sex. Blair catches them. In the tension, she goes into labor. Allison ends up driving the couple to the hospital. But, in the chaos, she hits what looks like a bear.
And...
Story over.
Everything resets. Plaza, Abbott and Gadon new characters have the same names but are totally different people. The action takes place at the same palatial rustic home. Yes, the existentialist theme is clear. But, I didn't care. I really wanted to see how the first story would have played out. Also there was a clear opening to give the first story a horrific quality. While the thematic possibility of the dual storylines was clear, I was so PO'd at the first story being ripped away from me that I didn't care. I just got into the first story - with it taking a little effort to warm up to the largely talky segment - and left with the realization that the first story was not going to be resolved. And that sucked.
I'm not going to bother expounding the second story. Yes, it too was interesting, perhaps more so, but I didn't care. I felt pretty manipulated and simply could not bring myself to care again.
It is in this second story that Aubrey Plaza does were best acting. Did it win an Oscar? It deserved it. But, after having the rug pulled out from beneath me, it didn't care.
Tell Your Friends