I apologize for not having replied earlier, i didn't see it on the overboard
>With Reygadas and some of his more degenerate inclinations, I can see that
He was an atomic bomb in the "getting your movie financed by the government" in Mexico due to the unnaturality of his appearance first hand experience via talking with two producers jaded as fuck who said nepotism got a strong part of it
the problem was not so much the act of pulling someone out of your ass, which happens very often in latin american ventures, but because he represented an artistic circuit most associated with deconstructivism (and the mostly-jews who represent it via a certain educational institution) which renders the abstract artistic justification much harder to explain because it uses the meta of it much more than the mere intention.
For example financing by the usual suspects might be easier to get if i make a movie about social criticism in its topic but the fact i plan to use the project as a criticism towards the state government in position (opposing the federal government) while also planning to give recycled toilet paper as napkins at work lunch as part of the ecological impact blablablah will grant it a lot more possibilities than someone wanting to do a road movie with a strong script that will also propel tourism in a certain niche area with mostly local businesses. This happens while the same judges give financing to big studios who didn't need any but used that said meta to push it, said meta being first used before in silly ideas to grant a justification that the nephew of the treasurer is the director of the winning entry.
In terms of artistic intention that's where the shallow and deep comes, he goes deep in the meta but the acts on screen are somewhat shallow or "trivial". Of course every director has his agenda, it is part of every artist, but there's mostly artistic agendas and then there's mostly social ones; one can say a small message of protest about civil security forces' uselessness while doing a very compact action movie while others can drag on two hours saying something very vane while showing three hobos loving each other under a public park's floodlights.
I think one leaves empty after seeing his works, many movies feel like that and that isn't the problem but one learns or particularly enjoys nothing at all after them, at least in a trashy kung fu film you enjoy chinamen kicking each other or learn that they fry with green onions for the flavor, in eastern european stuff you learn about crippling pessimism or enjoy great acting, with Reygadas work i don't even enjoy the lighting which is one of his trademarks, i see better stuff of the same vein in 00's skateboard tapes and their subsequent artsy stoner reels... and they don't have transgressive content for the sake of it like traditional disembodied mexican heads or grannies kissing chicks.
>I'm curious to know what types of movies you like
That's my suicide pill, i always think and fall into the same ones and i honestly think they all can be trashed yet i have strong opinions about them, in many facets they tailored liking or i saw them very young and use them as standards.
Very well, hang me because i might deserve it, i still believe a movie should have a digestible entertainment factor in it because that's the easiest way to make the common someone eat something (food being the message/agenda/the skills and our ego wanting to show how we do something). Will divide them in a) camera, b) story/acting and c) "because", mind you i think they also have flaws or even massive ones and i will name them. Also i like visuals a lot, bit hypocritical from my part while banging on someone's storytelling and narrative intention. They are my "top 10" as of right now and in terms of how i would define my tastes (not the best 10 i've ever seen) tomorrow i might change 3 or even 4 names, next week i might put them back and replace other two, you know how it goes but i think they are a good representation and i still need to watch many essential pieces which i sidetracked to watch other things that might be considered much inferior.
Tsui Hark's Knock-Off
(massive flaws: The Introduction, Protagonist's justification/backstory regarding his abilities, most of the Tritagonist's existence, Deuteragonist being Rod Schneider despite probably doing the best acting of his career) if i may add there's also an extended version seemingly lost which would skew the final act's timing a lot more but features things which would make it more unique than it already is. Certainly the most criticized movie of this list but also the most ignored, not in my case because i still think of it often, has the audacity and fearlessness that i can compare to stuff like Peewee's Big Adventure, as in unorthodox movies that spell death sentences to careers and the ballsy/mentally ill directors who still made them out of their own pleasure/craziness. Script is also a great exercise in overuse of a concept, done by one of the masters of action Stevee De Souza.
Kar-Wai Wong's Ashes of Time
(flaws: Dependency in knowing the source material to "get" the characters who are Dragon Ball-tier famous in Hong Kong but not anywhere else due to lack of translation, deleted scenes from the first version change the plot a bit and were excluded later for who knows why, bit extended at times to present us with feelings/narration rather than just using the natural discourse aka melodramatic timing, adding to this it does use narration too much which is a problem with Wong's works at times as he doesn't show as much as he should)
Message too long. Click
to view full text.