Everything Everywhere All At Once

[Mister Six]

Metaphor and allegory are nice but they're not as powerful or hard-hitting as deep granular engagement with human experience.

Do you think they were going for "powerful and hard-hitting", though, or do you think they wanted to explore these ideas* in a way that was fun, heartwarming and ultimately accessible to the mainstream?

Again, you're criticising the film for not being something it's obviously not trying to be. And yes, you can know what the directors were trying to do. If they wanted to make a zero-budget character drama like Oxhide they could have done that. The kung fu and costume changes didn't happen by accident.


* And intergenerational tensions is only one of the things the film is about. It's also about the importance of compassion and openness to the experiences of others, about the toxicity of hatred and cruelty, about seeing the positives of your life as it is and not losing yourself in what could have been, about living for yourself and not for how you appear to other people, about embracing your own flaws and problems and embracing those of others, and how externalised aggression is often an expression of internal shame - among other things, I'm sure, but I have to go walk the dog and stop thinking about this for now.

[Mister Six]

And again, it's fine to say "I prefer other types of films that are more grounded and less frenetic," but to say EEAAO is bad because it's not doing what those other films do is really daft.

[MoreauVasz]

Do you think they were going for "powerful and hard-hitting", though, or do you think they wanted to explore these ideas* in a way that was fun, heartwarming and ultimately accessible to the mainstream?

I have no idea, and nor do you. Which is why intent is a completely absurd yardstick by which to judge a film.

However, assuming for the sake of argument that you are right about their intent here, I must conclude that the film is a crushing failure: It's not fun, it's not heart-warming, and it didn't successfully explore any issues.

[Dickie_Anders]

Why would it be "completely absurd" to assume that a comedy film is meant to be funny or a horror film is meant to make the audience fearful, for example?

I for one had a lot of fun watching the film and was moved by its portrayal of immigrant generational conflict and felt it did explore it in a successful way. Shame that you didn't but oh well

[Mister Six]

I have no idea, and nor do you. Which is why intent is a completely absurd yardstick by which to judge a film.

That's the most stupid fucking thing I've read on here in quite some time.

I for one had a lot of fun watching the film and was moved by its portrayal of immigrant generational conflict and felt it did explore it in a successful way. Shame that you didn't but oh well

Same here. Mrs Six loved it and it spoke to her - and she's an actual Chinese woman and immigrant who struggles with her own intergenerational parental conflict.

Shame it didn't work for others, yes, but @MoreauVasz's claim that you can't possibly figure out the intentions of an author (even if they're clearly right there on display in the text) are even madder when coupled with the definitive statement that the film was objectively a failure because they didn't like it.

[MoreauVasz]

That's the most stupid fucking thing I've read on here in quite some time.

Lot of anger there. Might want to try going outside mate.

[Mister Six]

Lot of anger there.

How do you know?

[Kermit the Frog]

Love this film, thought it was a bit of a structural mess near the beginning with some particularly clumsy and drawn out expository stuff, but it really stuck the landing and I was totally won over. I generally don't mind if a film is a bit of a mess, especially if it's as unapologetically silly and big-hearted as this.

Of all the various crimes against film discourse committed on this site (and there have been more than enough) the idea that authorial intent isn't a legitimate subject for critique constitutes a staggering new low.

[Sonny_Jim]

I generally don't mind if a film is a bit of a mess, especially if it's as unapologetically silly and big-hearted as this.

Yeah that's why I really liked it as well.  For me the worst film is something like 'Black Adam', where it's paint-by-numbers, technically proficient but utterly devoid of anything interesting or unusual.  I'd rather be watching something with Cameron Mitchell.

Kinda scared to rewatch this after reading some of the comments in here.

[a peepee tipi]

This is kind of a general response to the detractors.

It's been said that it's mawkish, isn't funny, has pacing issues, and quite a few people are put off by the zany/SF bent. I don't agree with any of that, but at least those are things within the film to criticize. Saying "this is shit" is already valid, but all of these preconceptions, it's all just bullshitting. Sex and the City 2 isn't crap because you can potentially think of ways to make it more appealing to you, it's crap because everything that's already there within the film is shit. It doesn't need to be different, it never will be, it's a crap film that is shit and if you think that of EEAAO more power to you. And I'm not going to wax lyrical about why that is, because saying you think something is shit is enough. Especially if all of your defenses are gonna be how the film didn't cater to you

As for the "tensions between first and second generation immigrant families", it's a framing device likely inspired by the background of one of the film's creators from what I gather, and likely settled on because of what they could wring out with these characters in service of its other themes as well. It doesn't feel intent on telling a hyper-personal story, and the family's overall situation is definitely not "yeeted into the subtext" considering it is clearly driving every interaction and ultimately ties the film together. Thematically, it's as much about everyone everywhere as it is this family, trite as that may sound. Which is why I personally think the plot and characters would have seemed thin without doing what the film does, another straight film about an immigrant family is beating a dead horse. And I definitely can not imagine thinking "oh this film is doing too much and everything's muddled" while also going "this was too intellectually accessible/wasn't imaginative enough". 

And guessing at a creator's intent is a huge part of interpreting art, how is this controversial? God's Not Dead is an outrageous comparison with regard to this because EEAAO isn't propaganda, it's just telling a fucking story. And the seeming intent behind this piece of art in what's trying to be conveyed and the technical aspects of how this is conveyed, some of the things that are big in the cultural zeitgeist that it plays with, etc, none of it is esoteric.

Liking only one thing, or nothing, and hating the rest is valid without wanting a film with such a colorful and concrete identity to be completely different, because the film is what it is. I don't want art I don't enjoy to be completely different for my sake, I don't need country music to be jazz. No need to dress up simple disdain. This film isn't just trying to do what Joy Luck Club did. And honestly if you: ignored all the marketing, the synopsis and shots before you pressed play, and really loved the beginning like, what, 10 minutes that much to base your desires so heavily on, well, color me suspicious.

[Midas]

A24 fans

[greenman]

I'm guessing really the driver for a lot of the criticism of the films intensions/tone may simply be that those are not especially obvious before watching it compared to a lot of modern cinema. These days you can typically look at how and by who something was made, read a quick description of it and then generally have a pretty good idea of its intensions and whether its something you'll enjoy or not.

I can imagine people going into the film expecting a more serious sci fi or a more subtle drama.

[Inspector Norse]

Surely the essential difference is between saying "I don't like the style" which is just a personal reason for disliking something and not a comment on its quality, and saying "the film was not a successful example of its style/didn't achieve its aims", which is a more objective criticism (insofar as that is possible)?

Personally, I enjoyed parts of the film and can accept that many people will have really liked the breathless wackiness which didn't appeal to me as much, and it was definitely trying to be its own thing most of the time, which is always to be applauded; I did, though, feel that a lot of the humour consisted of uninspired or misfiring lolrandomness, and that the messages and themes were a bit jumbled and overwhelmed by all the noise.

[a peepee tipi]

See, I'd take that over, "Why couldn't this just be  The Namesake with lighter skinned people, this particularly is a story I'm so intrigued by!"

[a peepee tipi]

Maybe too uncharitable a characterization, but there's been too much "discourse" over this fuckin thing that it's made me cynical

[Glebe]

I thought it was pretty good, quite inventive and top performances, but I just wasn't as bowled over by it as some have been.

Was wracking my brains trying to think were I'd seen Gong Gong before, it's James Hong who played Chew in Blade Runner among other things, innit?

[Toki]

Was wracking my brains trying to think were I'd seen Gong Gong before, it's James Hong who played Chew in Blade Runner among other things, innit?

He was in Big Trouble in Little China too, if that helps.

[Glebe]

He was in Big Trouble in Little China too, if that helps.

Oh yeah never actually saw it though!

[EOLAN]

He was in Big Trouble in Little China too, if that helps.

I was able to recognise him as the butler in Chinatown. Which reminded me he was also in the Chinese Restauarant episode of Seinfeld.

[Mister Six]

James Hong's been in everything (everywhere, over a period of several decades).

[shoulders]

that the messages and themes were a bit jumbled and overwhelmed by all the noise

At least one of the messages relates to the noise (and the struggle) though. They were doing a family drama set in a surrealist action comedy, so remove the noise and you lose the surrealism and action, which then loses most of the comedy.