Whatever the fuss was over this film simply escapes me today(2003). I tried to assess it from a perspective of "new cinema" for the era it was made in, but that did not help the nagging feeling that this film maker was lazy and fundamentally deficient in film art when he created this boring exercise in arrogance. So why all the awards? An example of "emperor's new clothes" syndrome I guess. Some misguided critics jumped on an enlightened band wagon and the rest followed. This film is bad cinema: tight closeups of people talking without the sound. Out of focus shots. Black and white interspersed with color which was distracting, abstracting and foolish. Disjointed scenes that have no impact on the whole - what in heaven's name is the purpose of the dog on the beach running around at water's edge?) Structure is non existent, (and the critics here may intone "that was the intent, destructuralist cinema contravening the Hollywoodian schlock of the times), direction is erratic and puerile, and the subject matter void of any basic dramatic substance. So, in view of the opinion of those who are supposed to know better than I, I will assume that I did not get "it", and this angers me.
Review of A Man and a Woman
