We all know that I'm a Letterboxd warrior. Whenever I watch a movie, I write my quippy two line review--or multi-paragraph stream of consciousness, if I'm feeling crazy--and check out what other people have to say. Sometimes I feel justified in my opinions, but other times I'm left baffled at the differences between us.
I'll be honest, I didn't "get" Chasing Amy (1997) the first time I watched it. I had seen Dogma (1999) a few months prior, heard that there was another Kevin Smith movie starring Ben Affleck, and jumped in head first. That's where I went wrong. Kevin Smith is a weird case where you have to have already seen all of his films (or all of the ones that matter) to truly understand and appreciate them. Of course I didn't like the movie because I hadn't seen Clerks (1994) and Mallrats (1995). All of his works exude a scrappyness that can be hard to look past, but by becoming familiar with the world he's created, you can see the trees through the forest.
My other mistake was expecting the film to be about Ben Affleck. Sure, he's the top billing cast member, and the story revolves around him, but he doesn't provide any of the emotional payoff. Many reviewers see him as an audience stand-in, and thus take offense at his off-color remarks. They don't understand that in many ways, he is the villain of this story. His actions cause the conflicts, and while that makes him frustrating and occasionally hard to watch, it's necessary for the plot.
More than that, Affleck's less than perfect performance emphasizes the effectiveness of Joey Lauren Adams and Jason Lee. Neither are classically trained, both landing their first major roles in Mallrats, but they try. Affleck has bought into his own mythos, beginning his long and illustrious career of phoning it in, while Adams and Lee fight tooth and nail to prove themselves. Lee in particular hits a little too close to home with his microexpressions. Were they purposeful, or was he unconsciously drawing on a similar experience? No matter the answer, he does a dynamite job at repression.
Five paragraphs in and I'm only now getting to the point of this post. To watch (and review) a Kevin Smith film correctly, you have to be biased. Let's take a look at some reviews and see how good they are, since I am the #1 Chasing Amy scholar and can objectively say whether their opinions are correct or not.
Roger Ebert - It's near impossible to hate an Ebert review. Even when it's obvious he fucking hates a movie--like his 1 star review of Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)--he goes out of his way to highlight his favorite performances. So when he gives Chasing Amy 3.5 stars, I can forgive him because I know he doesn't see that as an insult. It's a fact: Chasing Amy isn't the pinnacle of human achievement. Despite that, he recognizes something more than the typical sex comedy. Ebert says that Smith's filming techniques are rudimentary, which is why he believes Mallrats was such a flop, but he also describes his dialogue style as "verbal, passionate and poetic." When a man as experienced as him tells you what you're good at, you shut up and listen.
The Digital Bits - This is the review that inspired this post. After briefly touching on Affleck, Suarez moves onto the real stars of the show. He recognizes their faults, but they don't matter to him because Adams and Lee give performances that work. When talking about Lee, he says "God love him, he really tried his best," which I think encapsulates my entire point of view. This review is mostly focused on the Criterion DVD release, and his insights into the technical side are surprisingly interesting. People who know nothing about audio (like myself) can easily understand his critiques and praises of it. Suarez spent a lot of time with this disc, and I admire him for that. Review approved!
DVD Movie Guide - Sure, Jacobson likes the movie, but the entire review feels off. In the middle of praising Lee's performance, calling it "a minor revelation," he shits on his work in Mallrats. To me, the Jersey Trilogy is a complete body of work--you can't separate it. If you hate one, you're not allowed to love another. Ebert found beauty in something he believed to be okay; Jacobson's writing is tarnished by irony, and he isn't able to sincerely praise something he loves. He does touch on the Blu-Ray special features, which I appreciate as someone who will never stoop so low as to own a Blu-Ray player, but his self-important wittiness sticks for the entire review.
Rolling Stone - The interesting thing about this review is that it never crossed my mind that our difference of opinion was subjective. Travers believes that "after a failed stab at friendship, [Holden and Alyssa] try sex." His description feels much more crass and dismissive than what the movie tries to portray; before they have sex, there's a montage of their progressing relationship, as well as a soggy love confession. Textbook romance. While I don't think they were meant for each other, as seen in the weird back-and-forth avoidance during the montage, simplifying their relationship into friends to fuckbuddies undermines Smith's entire message. However, the nature of a big-time publication means that reviews are cut down to be easily digestible for mainstream audiences, and authors are motivated by employment rather than enjoyment, so the sincerity and understanding of the review can be hard to gauge.
DVD Review - This is another publication focused on the quality of the DVD release and its special features, so the movie review is brief compared to the rest of the article, though it's still longer than the Rolling Stone's. What's refreshing is Long's praise of Dwight Ewell as Hooper. Most reviewers (including me) neglect his contributions because he's not one of the main characters, but Long is right in saying that he has some of the best monologues in the film. The fact that he doesn't mention my favorite moment of the entire movie when listing examples shows just how impactful Ewell is.
If I wanted to, I could make this go on forever. But I don't! At a certain point, all reviews blur together, leaving us with a mess of Mallrats bashing and script praising. Critics make a living reviewing a lot of movies, while casual viewers have the luxury of focusing on a few, so my parting message is this: ask your friends about a movie that's stuck with them. It doesn't have to be their favorite, and you don't need to know anything about it, as long as you keep an open mind. The best stories are disguised by questionable acting choices that make you hold your head in your hands and scream did they know what they were doing? into a decidedly silent room.
No comments:
Post a Comment