I just saw a movie by Mark Forster. I love the photography and the architectural look of it; how the camera plays a part in the movie, the visual clues. The scene transitions are great, and the music was very well chosen to enhance the general feel of the movie. Above all, I like the originality and unpredictability -you don't feel for a second that you are seeing a retelling of a hundred similar stories.
The critics are mostly negative. While it is true that the movie could be more, the style and atmosphere alone are worth watching. But I can see why people may not like it, be upset by it. The movie is not linear and logical, breaks a lot of rules of filming and story-telling, and there appears to be no point to all this, until the end. The problem is, I think, that most people assume a movie is always told in a sequential, logical way.
But what if the story is told from the point of view of an individual experiencing some kind of psychological disorder, or a dream. Does that make it any less valid as a story? Imagine you are attending an art exhibit: you thought it was about photography, but the pictures look nothing like reality, they are surreal, distorted. It turns out they are paintings -there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, other than your own wrong assumptions.
Luckily, artists need not be bound by their audience's comfort zone.
