I usually really like the cinema verite thing when it's done right. Problem with "DNDN" though is...it's not done right. The watchability of the docu-realism thing pivots on one very important factor: SOMETHING INTERESTING ON THE SCREEN. Though the lead actress has a lot going for her, she simply can't handle an entire movie with just a camera aimed at her face (not many could, in her defense).
Van Sant's films have an equal amount of minimal dialog but I never find myself watching the clock during his opuses, no matter how seemingly meandering (yes, I like "Gerry").
I like bits of this film too. It has a basically fascinating subject. I especially like the jagged bits of steam that get cooking in the last third of the film, when the lead's tension and frustration threaten to boil over, though I'd debate that anything "happens" at the end (other reviews seem to indicate otherwise).
I get the symbolism. I get the message. I just thought it could have used an editor's unbiased shears.
Van Sant's films have an equal amount of minimal dialog but I never find myself watching the clock during his opuses, no matter how seemingly meandering (yes, I like "Gerry").
I like bits of this film too. It has a basically fascinating subject. I especially like the jagged bits of steam that get cooking in the last third of the film, when the lead's tension and frustration threaten to boil over, though I'd debate that anything "happens" at the end (other reviews seem to indicate otherwise).
I get the symbolism. I get the message. I just thought it could have used an editor's unbiased shears.
