|
|
It's difficult, and somewhat unfair, to judge any artistic work based on the prejudices and attitudes of today, yet one can't go back in time and judge them from those of its own era. The best one can do is critique from known and accepted principles, in this case, a film, on acting, story and execution.
On acting, it's hit and miss. The best actor is evened out by the worst, so it's a wash. On story, it's an idea, not a plot; a rambling series of incidents portraying the time--to that, it's a disjointed mess. Sad instead of poignant; whimsy instead of humor; bathos instead of drama. On execution, well it is Arthur Penn so it does have a certain flair, a certain style, yet it never catches hold; the themes are muddled and unclear; the characters are at times more pathetic and irritating than involving; oddly joyless. The editing is also haphazard. If Penn was going for "a statement" he instead created "a comment;" a cinematic throat-clearing. It's fine to make a film that creates more questions than answers, but the viewer is left to puzzle things out that shouldn't have been a puzzle, which just creates more mud.
In the end, AR is of its time, one long past, and in hindsight perhaps best left on the shelf, for as the one thing the film does show is that "the hippie dream" was born in false freedom, filth, suspect mysticism and beliefs, and ended--like the movie--in confusion, sadness, heartbreak, and an eventual acceptance of society norms.
score 3/10
heathfilmore 4 August 2018
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw4267889/ |
|
1-4-2021 00:08:16