UBU REVIEW 3

Film criticism is a very democratic tool where journalists have the opportunity to write a review on any given film. But as someone who reads movie reviews, I always question the legitimacy of some critiques.
The Internet has become an outlet for people to express their opinions, and some voices that once were ignored now I’m being heard. There are quite a few blogs that do film reviews, but many of the writers have not being trained to do this job so they don’t “understand why film works, how it works, what it means, and what effects it has on people.” I was confused when we watch (in class) the Beckett on Film.
People have to think out of the box when watching a film like this because all the characters express their thoughts out loud, but they don’t communicate to each other. In other words, there is no dialogue among them, but that is very confusing because they’re involved in a love triangle. In today’s society, who would write a review about this film? But recently there had been some movies that echoed the Beckett on Film. For instance, Paul Haggis’ Crash shows how many people coexist in the same city. Their stories are connected, although many characters do not take part of the same dialogue.
I have to admit that I was lost when I first saw the Beckett on Film. I wasn’t able to make any connection with anything in my experience. At times, I felt like the movie was being produced for a different audience. But the reality is that most people felt the same way I did because today’s films are all about action, comedy, and horror. The leave no place for critical thinking; the movies the we are presented in these days are pretty straightforward. Also, the majority of movies are very rational, not like Naked Lunch, where the creation of irrational thoughts is one of the main themes of the film.