I'm not sure what's to blame for the overwhelmingly negative reception--critical and popular--towards Only God Forgives. It seems too condescending and self-congratulatory to dismiss the critics by saying they "just didn't get it" or to slander audiences with the ADD-generation label. But still, I'm stuck without an explanation as to how such a fantastic (and admittedly challenging) film was so completely trashed by people who really should have known better.
Maybe it was due to Refn's preceding film, Drive, which arguably introduced him to American audiences. (Refn's earlier English release Fear X, which stylistically shares a lot in common with OGF, came and went relatively unheralded, perhaps for many of the same reasons this film was disliked.) While OGF shares the same leading man as Drive, there the similarities between the two end. Maybe critics and audiences expected or wanted a spiritual successor to Drive instead of the spare, smoldering film they got.
Maybe only a few critics were familiar with Refn's earlier films. The average moviegoer can't be expected to have seen Refn's earlier Danish films such as Valhalla Rising, but I have to assume at least some of the professionals were familiar with the director's body of work. If that's so, I can sympathize. As an introduction to Refn's directorial and writing style, VH was admittedly a challenge for me, though I ultimately loved the experience. Like OGF, the on-screen action (one almost wants to call it "movement" instead) unfolds at a surreal, disconcerting, and potentially frustrating pace, and the paucity of dialog and the shocking violence demanded the sometimes confused and frustrated viewer (and I was!) continue watching, putting faith in the director's abilities and intentions.
Or maybe--and I'm just speculating here--something about the substance of OGF repulsed viewers. The film's Bangkok exists as a nightmarish, neon-lit slum cloaked in an almost perpetual night. Violent crime seems not to be extraordinary or particularly shocking to its citizens. The major players are almost exclusively damaged, severely dysfunctional people, and some are outright monstrous. (Come to think of it, I am not sure there is a single shot of a person genuinely smiling throughout the entire thing.) And the violence, while sometimes only implied, is truly brutal. There seems, in my experience, to be a growing and reactionary political mindset/philosophy that rebukes all things remotely violent as unacceptable. I wonder if that's not the case here.
Honestly, I suspect it's a little bit of all of these things. I can see how OGF's oddly deliberate pacing, the director's off-putting style—as a friend well described it, the action seems to be driven by the camera's determined movements, not by dialog or character movement—and the deeply unpleasant and disturbing subject matter could all come together to convince someone they are watching a Bad Movie.
But violence in a film (or, indeed, anything depicted in any work of art) does not imply an acceptance or endorsement of violence on the part of the film or its director. From a professional, competent storyteller, an unpleasant experience can be assumed to be intentionally unpleasant and to serve a purpose. And the idiosyncrasies of a director's personal style can be either pointlessly spurned by the viewer or accepted, if only temporarily, as a part of the intended experience. Confusion and lack of perfect understanding do not have to mean the audience gives up and prematurely passes judgment in exasperated bewilderment. (I imagine some of these critics watching a Tarkovsky film and their heads exploding.) I think that these are all fairly obvious and widely accepted truths when dealing with art.
So I'm back to my original problem: why was OGF overwhelmingly hated by critics and audiences? I have no clear understanding.
But if you watch films for more than just entertainment, if you're comfortable with art even (or especially) when you don't understand it, I'm sure YOU should ignore the negative consensus and give Only God Forgives a try. In my opinion, Refn hasn't directed a single bad film, and I believe Only God Forgives is among his best. Just be prepared for the challenge.
Maybe it was due to Refn's preceding film, Drive, which arguably introduced him to American audiences. (Refn's earlier English release Fear X, which stylistically shares a lot in common with OGF, came and went relatively unheralded, perhaps for many of the same reasons this film was disliked.) While OGF shares the same leading man as Drive, there the similarities between the two end. Maybe critics and audiences expected or wanted a spiritual successor to Drive instead of the spare, smoldering film they got.
Maybe only a few critics were familiar with Refn's earlier films. The average moviegoer can't be expected to have seen Refn's earlier Danish films such as Valhalla Rising, but I have to assume at least some of the professionals were familiar with the director's body of work. If that's so, I can sympathize. As an introduction to Refn's directorial and writing style, VH was admittedly a challenge for me, though I ultimately loved the experience. Like OGF, the on-screen action (one almost wants to call it "movement" instead) unfolds at a surreal, disconcerting, and potentially frustrating pace, and the paucity of dialog and the shocking violence demanded the sometimes confused and frustrated viewer (and I was!) continue watching, putting faith in the director's abilities and intentions.
Or maybe--and I'm just speculating here--something about the substance of OGF repulsed viewers. The film's Bangkok exists as a nightmarish, neon-lit slum cloaked in an almost perpetual night. Violent crime seems not to be extraordinary or particularly shocking to its citizens. The major players are almost exclusively damaged, severely dysfunctional people, and some are outright monstrous. (Come to think of it, I am not sure there is a single shot of a person genuinely smiling throughout the entire thing.) And the violence, while sometimes only implied, is truly brutal. There seems, in my experience, to be a growing and reactionary political mindset/philosophy that rebukes all things remotely violent as unacceptable. I wonder if that's not the case here.
Honestly, I suspect it's a little bit of all of these things. I can see how OGF's oddly deliberate pacing, the director's off-putting style—as a friend well described it, the action seems to be driven by the camera's determined movements, not by dialog or character movement—and the deeply unpleasant and disturbing subject matter could all come together to convince someone they are watching a Bad Movie.
But violence in a film (or, indeed, anything depicted in any work of art) does not imply an acceptance or endorsement of violence on the part of the film or its director. From a professional, competent storyteller, an unpleasant experience can be assumed to be intentionally unpleasant and to serve a purpose. And the idiosyncrasies of a director's personal style can be either pointlessly spurned by the viewer or accepted, if only temporarily, as a part of the intended experience. Confusion and lack of perfect understanding do not have to mean the audience gives up and prematurely passes judgment in exasperated bewilderment. (I imagine some of these critics watching a Tarkovsky film and their heads exploding.) I think that these are all fairly obvious and widely accepted truths when dealing with art.
So I'm back to my original problem: why was OGF overwhelmingly hated by critics and audiences? I have no clear understanding.
But if you watch films for more than just entertainment, if you're comfortable with art even (or especially) when you don't understand it, I'm sure YOU should ignore the negative consensus and give Only God Forgives a try. In my opinion, Refn hasn't directed a single bad film, and I believe Only God Forgives is among his best. Just be prepared for the challenge.
Tell Your Friends