Do You Give Any Filmmakers the Benefit of the Doubt?

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments about the Coen brothers, and in particular, your experience with No Country For Old Men. Upon my initial viewing, the abrupt ending left me somewhat flabbergasted...which, in turn, I think left somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth; not because the ending is bad, but because it was just so damned unexpected. After seeing it again, however, I came to like it and (I think) understand it a little better. I think that once that initial shock wore off, I was able to appreciate the entire movie as a whole, and to this day, continue to love the film.

On the flip side, while watching Synecdoche, New York, I found myself actually ANGRY at Charlie Kaufman for making such a confusing mess of a movie. I can understand wanting to craft something that is totally new and different, but I felt like without the watchful eye of Spike Jonze (or the like), he let the weirdness go too far. I appreciate the originality of it, but I sure wish that I had ANY clue what happened in that film. There are certain films (David Lynch films, etc) that are confusing, and I often choose to seek out others' explanations and theories about the meanings/events/themes of because I at least found the films interesting and intriguing. The research helps to open my eyes and mind and can actually help increase my enjoyment of a film upon repeat viewings. Synecdoche wore me out to the point that I did not even feel like putting in that effort to learn more about what I had just seen. To each his own...

Reply

Depends on the film/filmmaker. It took me two viewings to make some sense of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD, and I still certainly don't have all of it. I've seen PRIMER four or five times, and I still don't have a clue what happens in it. I've read explanations spelling out what happens, and I don't get it. But both of those films work for me on a visceral level and the FILMS seem to know what they're doing, so I just roll with my confusion. It's half the fun anyway. Godard once said that all great films are so because of some sort of misunderstanding, and I tend to agree with him.

On the other hand, TRANSFORMERS 2 doesn't make any sense at all and I don't for a second believe it knows better than me.

On the other hand, THE BIG SLEEP quite literally doesn't make any sense at all but I love it anyway.

I only expect that by the end, the film has satisfied me in some way; it just might not be through the story.

Reply

I don't think I give passes to filmmakers, regardless of what they've accomplished, so much as just accept whether I enjoyed the film despite not knowing exactly what it meant. There are some films that are interesting precisely because they're confusing, and others that are just as confusing but somehow less enjoyable. I don't think I'll give one film the benefit of the doubt because of who made it, I just assume that there is an explanation whether I find one or not. If the film has nothing really going for it to pull me in, and is confusing on top of that, then I could care less whether there's a reason for certain aspects of the film to be included and I just couldn't connect the dots. However, I do find that I will think longer on the pieces of the film that I couldn't fit in if I in fact enjoyed the movie. I don't do that to movies that I didn't like.

Reply

I think there are film makers who want their work to make us think. The Coen brothers fall in that category. I give them the benefit of the doubt when things don't quite add up, because I think they want us to have that conversation over lunch or drinks. I have had great discussions with friends after a film, and often thought that was just what the film maker wanted.

Reply

sereval coen movies are smarter than i am (starting with barton fink). i admit it.

Reply

No, I do not give accomplished filmmakers the benefit of the doubt. In fact, if I do no understand the film (and I am person who loves complexity), my first thought is not "Oh, I am just not smart enough to get it." My first thought is "oh, they left it out, but some people are going to project onto the film what's missing because they are a known talent." That's a big mistake. Either it is there in the film or not. It is a disservice to their prior works and talent to not hold them to a higher standard than "Oh they must be smarter than me." I would not have loved their prior work if I was not open to what they have to say. But- they got to say it. By the way, I saw "No Country for Old Men" twice as well, and my view that it was not a great film remained. I think you projected onto the film what you wanted it to be. Indeed, I think that the habit is to do this especially where others are telling you how brilliant something is. I have seen critics at first pan a movie, and then remember having liked a movie years later. The memory does what it does when it wants to address conflict.

Reply

I disagree with the idea of GIVING filmmakers the benefit of the doubt but I completely agree that some filmmakers have EARNED the benefit of the doubt & yes the Coen Brothers definitely fall in that category. Paul Thomas Anderson is another one, I'm not sure I really understood why I liked the bizarre way 'There Will Be Blood' ended but I know that I liked it & upon a couple more viewings I believe I've come to understand my reasons for liking it. Now the Coen Brothers & Paul Thomas Anderson had made previous work that was good & easier to grasp which allows them the right to do some crazy $hit.

But once you earn your benefit of the doubt it's harder to keep because you can lose it just as quick. M Night Shyamalan =(

Reply

I'll give any filmmaker the benefit of the doubt but only as long as they've entertained me - specific examples include Donny Darko and Altered States. On first watch I had no clue what had happened but enjoyed them immensely. But no matter who is involved, if the film has been confusing but also not terribly entertaining/boring then I'll mark it down as dross and not look back - like Solaris or Pi - I don't care how 'clever' the filmmakers are, both films are just plain dull.

That doesn't mean they're blacklisted forever in my eyes, just that specific film, because all Directors want there 'arty' moments, but I'll be wary of them if it happens twice.

Reply

I don't think I've ever had the experience of wondering why a scene was in a movie. I've occasionally had trouble following a plot, but that is usually because the makers are either intentionally being clever or obscure, or else incompetent.

Reply

There have been several movies that I find myself speechless after. Either I am still absorbing it or I simply didn't get it. Either way a repeat viewing is necessary. Sometimes it takes me several repeat viewings to "get it", and sometimes I never do.

Just like there are difficult books, there are difficult movies.

There are always disappointments with movies. While I still plan on seeing this movie, perhaps I can defend the Coen Bros. by proposing that they are reacting against their recent success with "No Country For Old Men"?

Reply

The best reason to sit through the end credits is the final tagline:

"NO JEWS WERE HURT IN THE MAKING OF THIS MOVIE"

Reply

I give Jim Jarmusch the benefit of the doubt quite a bit. Although I was thoroughly entertained with the first viewing of Limits of Control, it took me a lot of dwelling afterward before I really felt like I understood it. And I feel that, like the Coen brothers, he's an exceptional filmmaker who does everything deliberately, and its up to me to figure out the deeper meaning behind certain elements in the movie.

Reply

one film that i can watch over and over again and i still find such a multilayered movie is the Departed. I am still finding new and interesting things about the characters. I thoroughly loved the movie the first go threw, but there were ideas and themes that I didn't catch the first round and now the movie firmly rests in my top ten films.

AS for giving a pass to filmmakers, I agree with angel. Passes have to be earned.

Reply

Let's turn the question around - are there directors you would *never* give a pass?

That is, directors who are provably capable of Great Things who fail to achieve the?

M Night Shyamalian has been mentioned - i'll add Spielberg and Tim Burton.

Reply

Lynch, everytime without fail. I consider each one of his films a masterpiece even though I don't fully understand any of them. But even if I can't make plot logic out of something like INLAND EMPIRE, I can certainly attain emotional logic from it. The same with the work of Stanley Kubrick.

Reply

The first comment is right on. I don't have to understand a film at all...as long as it is "interesting and intriguing." I can sit in a David Lynch film and just let the images wash over me, enjoy it, contemplate it a bit.
Sometimes I think there is nothing to understand. Sometimes I think we try too hard to "get" something when we should just be enjoying it.
And if you don't enjoy it? Then the film has no merit...for you anyway.

Reply

Directors are inclined to tell a story in a way that keeps people from estimating everything that's going to happen or is happening. How can giving them the benefit of the doubt salvage what they really meant to say? The reason you give them the benefit of the doubt is because your understanding of it differs from their so-called intended meaning. There's also the benefit of the doubt where you're thinking about it from a different angle in order to "get" it, but that's a genuine effort in which you don't know if you'll really, truly find the meaning...that's what these filmmakers, such as the Coens and Lynch, like about film. They have reached a point where plot devices are like clay to them. If you don't understand something about a film, then brushing it off or declining the opportunity to "get" it is a form of giving them the benefit of the doubt because in one way or another they've told you or guided you into not thinking of it conventionally.

I think it's important to give filmmakers the benefit of the doubt because your experience of their film is unique. It may not be the "right" interpretation, but it's an intelligent piece of your reception of the story. Though it's possible that you didn't put much thought into the filmmaker's real purpose, it's also important that you gave their work a chance to affect you.

Reply

The Coens are certainly among those filmmakers to whom I bestow the benefit of the doubt; also: Paul Thomas Anderson, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, Quentin Tarantino, Brian DePalma, Spike Lee, Mike Leigh, Oliver Stone, Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, and others...

Reply

I actually had this discussion with my father when we watched Lawrence of Arabia. Clearly David Lean is incredibly talented, but there were sections of the movie that did not add up to me; things that appeared out of character or confusing. In talking with my Pa, he could not explain them, but rationalized possible scenarios in which they would make sense. I commented that it's funny how when a film/filmmaker is considered great, we assume any confusion is our own fault. But had Lawrence of Arabia not been so highly lauded, we would likely be criticizing its lack of clarity.

That being said, certain filmmakers absolutely get a pass with me. Coen brothers are a great example, but I also give the benefit of the doubt to Christopher Nolan (not sure everything in Memento works, but I just don't care, it's so interesting). Tim Burton gets a narrative pass at times because his work is so visually arresting. And I'll dig deep to find the meaning in a Tarantino film, even if some feel he no longer deserves his cred (I think he redeemed himself with the highly tense and entertaining Inglorious Basterds).

However, I can't overlook directors who may have earned a pass on my part, when the work they put out is clearly subpar. Scorcese is brilliant, but can definitely stumble (Bringing out the Dead; the Age of Innocence). Michael Mann gets NO love for the appalling mess that was Miami Vice (although he almost tricked me into liking it because it looked so pretty - too bad about the characters, dialogue, and hackneyed plot).

Reply