You even make it sound like they're smug assholes with the I don't need to edit type of sarcasm.
With that type of attitude, I guess I wasn't exactly referring to this type of movie. That criticism might better be applied to something like Broken Flowers, where it seems that Jim Jaramusch is an accomplished enough filmmaker that he would have enough money to make a more polished film. (Note: I liked Broken Flowers.)
But then you can chalk it up to artistic vision, rather than the snobishness that I implied. I don't know, I mean I didn't really go into all the minute considerations when making that statement, it just seemed as though the lack of editing was a purposeful rebellion of sorts against the conventional filmmaking process and I just felt that was an idiotic way to assert their independence.
I've seen plenty of independent, low-budget films that I felt came out better than A Woman Under the Influence. I don't know if you've ever seen Narc, directed by Joe Carnahan, but that was another film where the director had to constantly stop shooting to try to scrape together funds and was never even sure if he could pay his actors and such and yet he's still able to display some really great camerawork, some really intriguing editing, and overall still make a great film that doesn't in any way display his lack of money.
Quote:
You don't always need flashy directions to pacify you.
This is true, although I felt they might have been neccesary in this film. In my opinion, if you're going to have very basic and simplistic direction techniques, you have to make sure that the story you're telling and the events you're displaying on screen are interesting enough to keep your viewers interest, which as you know, I didn't feel this film had. I mean I don't have ADD or anything, but I just had trouble concentrating and remaining interested in this film the whole way through.
And overall, despite certain aspects of the film I disliked, in the end I still did enjoy it.
