Too many people act like movies should adhere to a strict, realistic narrative – that there should always be a clear series of events with a defined beginning, middle, and end, with characters acting/reacting logically. They don’t have to and they shouldn’t have to.
There’s nothing wrong with finding surrealist filmmaking not to your liking – if it’s not to your tastes, it’s not to your tastes. But when you insist that its bad – with no understanding of the genre – then you’re just being a narrow-minded populist.
You have just defended PT without noticing it.
Last time I checked SW was not an attempt at “surrealist filmmaking”.
Idk, the bubble opera of innuendo was pretty surreal.
A lot of films have surreal or abstract moments in them (f.ex. the Dagobah cave vision). However that does not make the entire film “surreal”.
Mulholland Drive is a surreal movie and the plot is very hard to describe (except for on a very basic level).
SW on the other hand is pretty straight forward as it follows a very normal story structure. It may have subleties, and even some weird moments, but all in all they’re all good vs evil action/adventure stories.I’d hardly put them in the same category ad Eraserhead simply because of the bubble opera scene in ROTS.
I wasn’t being totally serious (or serious at all really).