| |
|
No, didn't mean to say something like that. Even though, I would say Cinema can be literary, but it's not literature (the visa-versa is true).
I was saying that had Kelly obviously lacks some of the ability to articulate himself and a more finely-honed style of writing and storytelling that could potentially develop if he had read more poetry and prose (nonfiction and fiction).
He has great sensibility and style, but I find that his work is like someone who is on the brink of saying something smart, revealing, and powerful, but who can't clearly express the thought in such a way to leave you astounded and enlightened or even on task.
This is the opposite feeling I get watching a David Lynch film, which actual seem very literate despite their surreal nature and essentially cinematic narratives (Plus, I trust David Lynch. He won't touch my children in bad ways...).
With Lynch you always feel like you have seen something revelatory (even if you can't express with words what has been revealed); however, with Kelly, I get the sensation is that we (the audience) fall just short of understanding and that the creator falls just short of actually making as strong and as powerful of point as he wanted (maybe he just needs to kill some darlings, though).
---
Okay, another side of my dislike of Kelly (which isn't a criticism of his art and not really germane, nice, or mature, but is just my own bias) is that I don't really like guys like him. I think that he inhabits this weird place that is self-satisfied on the surface, projecting this intense sense of confidence and creativity which is really a cover for the areas of his own insecurities about his lack of control and clear ability to express himself.
Have you seen the movie "the Bridge," the documentary about the people who jump off the Golden-Gate Bridge in San Francisco and killed themselves?
In it the filmmakers interview a kid who survived his suicide attempt and who was kept from drowning by a dolphin who happened by him in the bay (something exceptional and amazing in and of itself).
But the kid's own description of the incident is the most pathetic thing in the world. He is boring, unoriginal, and only can access a very limited stable of words and popular culture references to express himself. He is still a likable kid for all that, though (if you get past his vapid quality).
Richard Kelly reminds me of that kid.
I hate that type of kid. I used to be that kid. And in some ways I am still that kid. But I really hate that kind of kid.
The artist who I appreciate all have an exceptional madness or perspective. Richard Kelly and this kid seem to have basically mundane madness and inability to express themselves at a more meaningful level.
That was way too fucking harsh.
No, one better: Richard Kelly reminds me of Kid-without-a-Knife in "Phonogram." Only less cool and fun with ten ounces more self-awareness. |
|
|
