Kiss me deadly, schmish me deadly.
I'm sorry but if that movie was supposed to be an allegory to ANY aspect of human nature, I am sad for humans. Frankly, I find it hard to reach a deeper conclusion from the film. How about instead of interpreting every little potential allusion, metaphor, symbol, stylistic choice a movie offers, we just take it at face value. I'm sure the director did certain things to achieve a certain mood or theme, but what if we eliminate the director? What if we just watch the movie and let bygones be bygones? It would just be a really raw, violent movie with hints of nuclear waste, a heavily-panting woman and a machisimo protagonist with a machisimo first name. Mike Hammer? Come on, that name is just begging to be paired with a punch in the face or a smooch with a girl. He happens to be the most engaging part of the film; the only one I could remotely understand, even if it wasn't much. The plot probably was not supposed to be the strong point of the film, but a little continuity would not hurt. I still don't know what the conflict was supposed to be. I think the director just wanted to base a story off of an awkwardly moaning woman... even if it was based on a novel....ummm.... yeah.
I realize that if all movies (or any works of art in that case) were met with cynicism, their intended purposes would die upon contact with the scrutiny. I just felt like being a cynic tonight.
Who am I kidding? Hands down the greatest movie I've ever seen.
1 comment:
It makes me happy that even though you seem extremely bitter about this film, the photo you chose is freaking enormous. I realize that it probably has nothing to do with anything, but whatever. Cheerio. Who do you think would win in a fight: Mike Hammer or Jeff Bailey?
Post a Comment