Home Artists Posts Import Register
Join the new SimpleX Chat Group!

Content

Couldn't finish it; made it just over an hour in.

In a discussion on Twitter, a number of folks whose opinions I really respect (Sean Burns, Steve Carlson, Nictate) have suggested that the essential secret of Eggers' film it its inherent humor or "silliness." Several people have even compared The Lighthouse to Guy Maddin, which I understand up to a point. While there are moments of obviously deliberate comedy (e.g., Willem Dafoe's crusty Mr. Wake seeming genuinely hurt that Robert Pattinson's Mr. Winslow doesn't appreciate his cooking), too much of the film seemed designed to evoke "mysteries" that simply were not compelling.

That's not to say that Eggers was taking The Lighthouse seriously, per se. And the demise of one particular shorebird did seem like a possible nod to Maddin's story about his mother in My Winnipeg. But there was, to me, a kind of slackness pervading the film, as if the dominant thematic question -- is there something supernatural afoot, or is Winslow losing his mind? -- made any sort of coherence beside the point. It was too logical to be Surreal, too nonsensical to be a satisfying horror film, and not especially adept at working with the medium. Yes, the sound design was noteworthy, if overbearing. But the introduction of the possibility of lost time, out of nowhere, suggested that Eggers could not really use cinematic strategies to convey that sense of dislocation. He just had to announce it. 

The Lighthouse felt less like a well-crafted piece of cinema than an overextended picture book.

Comments

No comments found for this post.