How far can you extend a nuance before it turns into total bullshit and a trickery? In an art world, how far could you meta-phorize a theme before an art piece turns into a self-referential soliloquy instigated by semi-random stimuli? Where should one draw a line, or how far should one be allowed to be drawn into it?
I must admit, the movie “Killing of a Sacred Deer” left me a bit perplexed, so I decided to see what other people had to say about it and whether I missed something (and apparently I missed a lot! lol!). I came across this discussion on YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=1kPvLV1fj1U
The key to understanding this movie, according to many, is paying attention to unrelated and random details that act as symbols (the use of different straps of a watch of the main characters, the act of taking off bloody gloves, the act of eating french fries with ketchup, or particular way of eating spaghetti, repeated references to hair and puberty, etc. ), as if to say that every detail of the movie is somewhat relevant to the overall understanding of the movie, but in symbolic sense. The reviews are basically divided into haters and lovers (mostly lovers). It’s either garbage or it’s brilliant. Maybe like the Duchamp’s urinal. In the end, I tend to lean toward the opinion of the commentator “Fried Pancake” (who’s not me, just so you know) who basically pointed out that the movie amounts to nothing more than a mindfu*kery/mockery over the audience who, left to their own devices, (which they basically are), simply keep trying to make sense of the movie in any way that they can.
For me, the big red flag is that the movie draws the attention of the potential viewer with a shiny lure (famous actors such as Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell - look, famous actors, the movie can’t be that bad, right?) and then plops a puzzle: “Looks what’s here!”, “What is it?”, “Ha, I’m not telling you, you guess yourself!” This kind of ambiguity really does kind of piss me off; and maybe I’ve actually fell into a trap, like so many other viewers, in that I was willing to give it more credit than it actually deserves. I am still talking about this movie when I should not even be. It seems like a win-win situation for the artist no matter how you approach it: so you know you were fooled, but whose fault was it? Ha! You’re welcome! (It’s like a vicious circle!)
There is really even no need to watch this movie to understand the underlying dilemma. How far can ambiguity or symbolism be drawn out from the subject matter (like in modern art, or art films) before it turns into a mind trick and an implied compliment is really an insult to one’s intelligence, (or rather awareness), and in which the artist still comes out on top?