nex3
@nex3
Southland Tales Review

ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…Ā½

Watched Aug 20, 2024

Watching this is the experience of 2006-era America looking at itself from every angle at once, overloading the rational mind and forcing itself directly into the id. But for all this film is so supersaturated as to be nearly incomprehensible on a first viewing, it's not actually nonsense—sitting down and parsing through the plot after the fact with the squad I watched this with, we found that everything one of us had missed or failed to understand someone else had a good explanation for this.

The superstructure of this film is the Christian book of Revelation, and it asks viewers to approach it in the same way: as a text to decode, to dig through the overwhelming mass of details and uncover meaning within whether it was intended or not. And there's a LOT here: the mythmaking around capturing extrajudicial killing on film, the way guns are used as pure symbols of power, the particular political fascinations of that moment.

This is rarely a smart film, and if anything that's a strength. It's an unfiltered vision of the moment, condensed as much as it can possibly bear into two hours and thirty-eight minutes, and left as a gift for all who come after with a desire to understand the psyche of a nation just beginning to die.

(cannes cut)


nex3
@nex3

the more I consider it the more I think the most subtly deranged thing this film does is to play the entire second-to-last movement of Beethoven's Ninth, a symphonic structure designed to build towards one of the most iconic and bombastic moments in the western musical canon, and then just never actually pay it off by playing the ode to joy


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @nex3's post:

šŸŽ¶ I got soul but I’m not a soldier. šŸŽ¶

not me six beers in explaining that’s the song that was playing during the friendly fire incident between Abilene and Taverner because they were bleeding into each other at the time because the army was experimenting on them with fluid karma

would be cool if Richard Kelly actually gets the graphic novel prequel adapted to the screen as he’s said in interviews recently but at the same time i worry that explaining too much (like it does at times) diluted the incredible energy that the film has

Such a shame what happened with The Box, feels like bad marketing and an awful title needlessly sank what could have been a slam dunk— it’s biggest crime is it feels like a movie that came out in 2014, not 2009.

It’s not my favourite but it shouldn’t have been the second strike that sunk his directing career. He’s still young though and word on the street is he’s been getting steady work doing uncredited punch ups since then so I kinda remain hopefully optimistic he can get a $10 million or so a24 or blumhouse type deal to mount a comeback.

in reply to @nex3's post:

I unironically love the hell out of that movie, despite / because of / in gleeful recognition of all its myriad faults, contradictions, and just wild contrivances. Also, for the fact that it somehow launched Dwayne Johnson's post–The Rock career, gave us yet another iconic Wallace Shawn hypercapitalist villain, Sarah Michelle Geller as a porn star, and a pivotal plot point involving two cars fucking each other.

i started working on a recut of this film combining pieces from the very different theatrical and Cannes cuts

i found that information about the film was very thin on the ground, but ended up with a shot list and comparison of several script versions and contradictions between the comics and two film releases

i like that the film is chaotic and absurd, but i felt like it litters in a lot of red herrings by accident due to shots that were in the script(s) but either never filmed or were lost to editing, so the payoffs never come and this makes a film that is supposed to be complex nearly incomprehensible at points

despite what it might sound like, i love this film and have watched it dozens of times