>the filmmaker deliberately leaves it ambiguous if it was the protagonist's mental illness, or supernatural events. It's up to the viewer to decide.
>>222376676>the filmmaker deliberately leaves it ambiguous if it was the protagonist's mental illness, or supernatural events. It's up to the viewer to decide.
>the movie was from a dog's perspective. It is up to the viewer to decide whether he was a good boy or not
>>222376676Sometimes it's lazy and stupid, but in the case of The Innocents (1961) it's KINO
>>222376676>ambiguous if it was the protagonist's mental illness, or supernatural events.I'm sure you're very familiar with this scenario, retarded frognigger.
>>222376676That's how you make good schizokino.
>>222376976I really wanted to like Good Boy but the owner being a complete asshole ruined it
>>222376676yeah but i still like beau is afraid
>The movie seems to have a very obvious interpretation but then the filmmaker says we got it wrong and it's the complete opposite of that
>you're supposed to interpret your own meaning!
>>222377889This. You have to tell me what the movie was all about at the end otherwise it's all going over my head
>>222376676Did you just see Relic (2020), anon? It was an allegory for Alzheimer's.
>>222377914Just fart out some slop on film that's incoherent and some faggot with schizophrenia will find some meaning. Lynchian.
>the reviewer deliberately leaves it ambiguous if he thinks it was the protagonist's mental illness, or supernatural events. It's up to the viewer to acknowledge that the reviewer is respecting the filmmaker's intent
>>222376676>viewer decides>filmmaker flips his shit and calls viewer a media illiterate moron. Filmmaker seethes and brings it up during interviews for the next several decades
