I can only understand people's aversion to this film if traditional standards of narrative cinema are applied to it. But, as Chloe Sevigny said in an interview, it's more of a "museum piece" than a Hollywood movie, and really should be treated as such.
What was remarkable:
--Much of the traveling footage, especially in the rarely filmed rural East, where Gallo captured the moody magic of the rolling hills and dense forests of states like New Hampshire and Ohio.
--A great, weird, almost silent scene with Cheryl Tiegs that spoke volumes about the main character's pain.
--Gallo's performance during much of the film, which is remarkably sober and truthful.
Less remarkable:
--The sparse dialogue, which had the self-consciously arty ring of an undergrad NYU student circa 1972.
--The oral sex scene. I understood Gallo's motivations for doing it, but the physical reality of seeing the scene before you eyes is much different that it must have been in the director's head. It supposedly speaks to the characters' sexual and spiritual emptiness, but just comes off as mysoginistic and slightly violent.
--
What was remarkable:
--Much of the traveling footage, especially in the rarely filmed rural East, where Gallo captured the moody magic of the rolling hills and dense forests of states like New Hampshire and Ohio.
--A great, weird, almost silent scene with Cheryl Tiegs that spoke volumes about the main character's pain.
--Gallo's performance during much of the film, which is remarkably sober and truthful.
Less remarkable:
--The sparse dialogue, which had the self-consciously arty ring of an undergrad NYU student circa 1972.
--The oral sex scene. I understood Gallo's motivations for doing it, but the physical reality of seeing the scene before you eyes is much different that it must have been in the director's head. It supposedly speaks to the characters' sexual and spiritual emptiness, but just comes off as mysoginistic and slightly violent.
--