Doubtful substance, yet compelling... Why? Can a film be compelling while remaining "uninteresting"? Can a film be "well-made", excite curiosity, effectively operate exotic imagery, garner praise from filmmakers, yet come across as empty? Can a film be excellent as film qua film, yet found lacking against the well-developed aesthetic criteria that have emerged from our understanding of good novels, moving poetry, insightful philosophical myth and uplifting philosophical understanding?
Grotesque, curious, edgy, provocative, tense... Could it be director Friedkin is provoking anthropological-psychological apprehensions about "What happens next?" Here do we find "true" human typologies? That is, could "hypnosis" be the defining approach to understanding Sorcerer? Not surprisingly sensationalism drives the spell.
In any event, there is ample material for critical analysis. An "excellent" subject for a paper, surely.
No comments:
Post a Comment