BORING

BORING

Kelly Reichardt knows how to keep it simple and i really like how she captures her sories

Kelly Reichardt knows how to keep it simple and i really like how she captures her sories

I watched this movie three times in one night! And now am very surprised to hear some people think it’s boring?? I guess that’s partially due to it being marketed as a criminal-event type thriller and being compared to How to Blow Up a Pipeline. If someone goes into it expecting it to be explosive (lol) and explicitly ideological, I guess I can understand how it can feel a little unsatisfying. But even though there is an obvious ecoanarchist heist plot, I think this movie is about something else. Don’t get me wrong, this movie is very political, but it’s more about the subtle, capitalism-induced alienation, a result of living within the confines of a social system manufactured to protect institutions and not its people. It’s about angry, disillusioned young people who see a problem in their environment and refuse to accept it. What happens when they decide to mobilise their convictions, push for change? More often than not, these people who hold marginalised views lack the resources to organise a purposeful act. In combatting their imposed immobility, and setting out to do as much as they can, the overwhelming scale of capitalism squashes any meaningful disruption and the consequences end up more severely harming the powerless. 
In this movie, the characters find themselves overcome with grief and paranoia as a result of their dam explosion and the collaterally damaged dead camper. Their reactions continue to grow and spiral until more fucked up shit happens. 
I did find one insightful review of this movie that criticised the lack of representation of leftist solidarity. Which is valid, there’s hardly any between the characters. But also… only a man could so ignorantly draw that conclusion from this film. I’ve met a disturbing amount of radical leftist men who, at the end of the day, would choose their own wellbeing over a cause they allegedly “dedicate their life to” when faced with serious, individual threats.
Kelly Reichardt is such a genius when it comes to seamlessly capturing gender dynamics against the background of a seemingly unrelated movie. The side eyes, mansplaining and general dismissive attitude directed towards Dena evolve into a disdain for her and eventually culminate in her demise. Josh is a shitty guy. He never respected Dena, and it’s no surprise this movie ended the way it did. Whether or not that’s a result of his own shittiness or just another repercussion of his alienation and paranoia is up to interpretation. 
I think this ambiguity is why some people feel dissatisfied with this movie, because it doesn't come out waving a political statement, it doesn’t feed the audience an ideology or tell you what to feel. The emotions are all presented impartially. If you immerse yourself, this movie offers so much beauty, so much tension and anxiety that yeah even though there’s hella b-roll, every second is so captivating that it isn't boring at all.

I watched this movie three times in one night! And now am very surprised to hear some people think it’s boring?? I guess that’s partially due to it being marketed as a criminal-event type thriller and being compared to How to Blow Up a Pipeline. If someone goes into it expecting it to be explosive (lol) and explicitly ideological, I guess I can understand how it can feel a little unsatisfying. But even though there is an obvious ecoanarchist heist plot, I think this movie is about something else. Don’t get me wrong, this movie is very political, but it’s more about the subtle, capitalism-induced alienation, a result of living within the confines of a social system manufactured to protect institutions and not its people. It’s about angry, disillusioned young people who see a problem in their environment and refuse to accept it. What happens when they decide to mobilise their convictions, push for change? More often than not, these people who hold marginalised views lack the resources to organise a purposeful act. In combatting their imposed immobility, and setting out to do as much as they can, the overwhelming scale of capitalism squashes any meaningful disruption and the consequences end up more severely harming the powerless. 
In this movie, the characters find themselves overcome with grief and paranoia as a result of their dam explosion and the collaterally damaged dead camper. Their reactions continue to grow and spiral until more fucked up shit happens. 
I did find one insightful review of this movie that criticised the lack of representation of leftist solidarity. Which is valid, there’s hardly any between the characters. But also… only a man could so ignorantly draw that conclusion from this film. I’ve met a disturbing amount of radical leftist men who, at the end of the day, would choose their own wellbeing over a cause they allegedly “dedicate their life to” when faced with serious, individual threats.
Kelly Reichardt is such a genius when it comes to seamlessly capturing gender dynamics against the background of a seemingly unrelated movie. The side eyes, mansplaining and general dismissive attitude directed towards Dena evolve into a disdain for her and eventually culminate in her demise. Josh is a shitty guy. He never respected Dena, and it’s no surprise this movie ended the way it did. Whether or not that’s a result of his own shittiness or just another repercussion of his alienation and paranoia is up to interpretation. 
I think this ambiguity is why some people feel dissatisfied with this movie, because it doesn't come out waving a political statement, it doesn’t feed the audience an ideology or tell you what to feel. The emotions are all presented impartially. If you immerse yourself, this movie offers so much beauty, so much tension and anxiety that yeah even though there’s hella b-roll, every second is so captivating that it isn't boring at all.

Reichardt’s thriller - I need her to take on every genre. Where’s her ghost story? Horror film? SciFi? Noir? I want her to fill them all with her quiet and lulls.

Reichardt’s thriller - I need her to take on every genre. Where’s her ghost story? Horror film? SciFi? Noir? I want her to fill them all with her quiet and lulls.

Doesn’t quite live up to its musical counterpart—not enough soft rock. Kelly Reichardt continues to elude me. I feel like the critical acclaim is one big joke and I’m not in on it. 

I really struggle to see how narrative context or director aesthetics make up for any sort of discernible characterization. At the end of the day, movies come down to whether or not you actually do the thing. We can talk about directors’ abilities to create certain moods, or allow their stories to breathe, or whatever it is we’d like to say, but do you actually do the thing? Do you create a story that occupies some sort of substance? 

These guys are losers, right? And they blow up this dam, but why do they do that? Can you point to some legitimate reason as to why they make that decision; if your reasoning is that they do it cause they’re disillusioned losers then you suffer from roundabout reasoning. And genuinely what is the establishing context that would ever constitute a situation like this? Reichardt’s problem is that she is too understated in everything that she’s doing that when her “thing” actually happens, you don’t care. 

There’s a genuine avenue for this so be somewhat interesting in that the ironic path from environmentalist to eco-terrorist is funny and genuinely has something to be examined in the way of how societal rejects come to justify backwards actions. However, between the three of Josh, Dena and Harmon we’re already seemingly at the point of no return with these guys. Am I really supposed to be concerned with the moral dilemma any of them are facing after the explosion goes wrong when you start a day before the incident? You’ve placed us at a spot where they’re seemingly already borderline morally bankrupt lmao. Reichardt never creates stakes, she never does the thing. Send an apology to Bob Seger, we failed you big time.

Doesn’t quite live up to its musical counterpart—not enough soft rock. Kelly Reichardt continues to elude me. I feel like the critical acclaim is one big joke and I’m not in on it. 

I really struggle to see how narrative context or director aesthetics make up for any sort of discernible characterization. At the end of the day, movies come down to whether or not you actually do the thing. We can talk about directors’ abilities to create certain moods, or allow their stories to breathe, or whatever it is we’d like to say, but do you actually do the thing? Do you create a story that occupies some sort of substance? 

These guys are losers, right? And they blow up this dam, but why do they do that? Can you point to some legitimate reason as to why they make that decision; if your reasoning is that they do it cause they’re disillusioned losers then you suffer from roundabout reasoning. And genuinely what is the establishing context that would ever constitute a situation like this? Reichardt’s problem is that she is too understated in everything that she’s doing that when her “thing” actually happens, you don’t care. 

There’s a genuine avenue for this so be somewhat interesting in that the ironic path from environmentalist to eco-terrorist is funny and genuinely has something to be examined in the way of how societal rejects come to justify backwards actions. However, between the three of Josh, Dena and Harmon we’re already seemingly at the point of no return with these guys. Am I really supposed to be concerned with the moral dilemma any of them are facing after the explosion goes wrong when you start a day before the incident? You’ve placed us at a spot where they’re seemingly already borderline morally bankrupt lmao. Reichardt never creates stakes, she never does the thing. Send an apology to Bob Seger, we failed you big time.