Week 4

My comparative analysis for Daydream Nation was reminiscent of The Future’s, in that there were arguments as to the films being too ‘indie’. The negative reviewers claims concerning The Future were less warranted, because unlike with Daydream Nation there wasn’t an alienating intertextuality; which is to say, The Future was just deliberately odd, whereas Daydream Nation is steeped in deliberately obscure references to other media (films, music etc). This type of intertextuality requires viewers to have a back-knowledge prior to viewing, by way of comprehensively accessing its aesthetic choices. This can elevate the experience, but it can also detract from it; if the references are to media conventionally associated with exclusive subcultures, then logically the unaffiliated won’t hold the key (so to speak) to unlocking some of the films subtler aims. Admittedly, the films bizarrely salient Sonic Youth reference seemed an arbitrary ornament to the rest of the story, lending a bit of kitsch; and beyond that, nothing much really. Not to mention the cinematic and celebrity references, some of which were obvious (Roman Polanski, Atom Egoya), and some of which were stylistic, the bleak provincial setting for instant which stank of Twin Peaks. In a good way of course; I mean, for those who’ve seen it, who doesn’t love Twin Peaks? Though my review was positive, there were times when I thought writer/director Mike Goldbach relied to heavily on kitsch homage, when he’d have been better off delaying production to swap some of his stylistic flourish for one or two more original sub-plots.

I’m a lot more confident about review writing now; this one just rolled out. I don’t know whether its coherent writing though, being as I am without immediate access to a second opinion, so audience awareness is something I should be working on; but I feel like everything I wanted to say about this film got said, which is satisfying beyond words. Also, more and more the things I notice as praiseworthy in a film are often the same as those being recognised in the reviews I pull from Rotten Tomatoes; which is affirming in that it means my eye for cinematic detail is becoming more defined the more time I spend debating film pros/cons.

I don’t know if I’m being ‘reflective’ enough in these blog entries. They’re meant to be a reflective chronicle of our progress aren’t they, and I’ve thus far used them as a psychic dumping ground for all my thoughts and feelings regarding the films I’ve reviewed. I’ll continue as so until instructed otherwise.

One thing that’s really starting to bug me about the review-language, is that it’s nauseatingly high-brow. I feel I have to match their tone if my work is to be taken at all seriously. But if my review is anything close to an emotional response, then the ‘knowledge apriori’ speak of reviewing hampers that. I need to find some way of making reviewing more expressive, making it personal, and yet still relevant to the high-brow circles. Difficult.