4 ms·
I didn’t approve of what Raskolnikov did, yet I could empathize with him thanks to the writer’s prowess. I don’t see why cinema would be different than literatu
by laserlight 4y ago
I didn’t approve of what Raskolnikov did, yet I could empathize with him thanks to the writer’s prowess. I don’t see why cinema would be different than literature. The guy in Breathless was a jerk and the director failed to make the audience empathize with him.
- coldtea 4y agoThe director didn't want you to take pity on the guy or feel morally superior to him. He wanted to you to see his viewpoint and his experience. With Rascolnicoff, Dostoyevsky wanted from the start to condemn the ideas he had (and his actions).
- laserlight 4y ago> He wanted to you to see his viewpoint and his experience. I don't think the protagonist has a viewpoint. My impression was that he was a random jerk. Why did I watch a movie about a random jerk who is not worth paying attention to. It was definitely a waste of time. If wasting my time was the intention of the director, then I would say that he succeeded.
- coldtea 4y agoWell, art cinema is not for everybody
- laserlight 4y agoYep, that's what I said to those who found my movie stupid.
- coldtea 4y agoWell, if it wasn't stupid, you'd be right to tell them that. More often than not, it's the audience that's stupid, especially the average viewer. Which is also why e.g. the Monkeys sold more than Miles Davis, and Bieber more than any number of much higher quality pop.