FOR THE DURATION : Films can confuse, and are great because of it.

I was chatting to a friend today, a bearded green woodworker, who is beginning to take on the role of 'hippy councillor' to the production.  I was sharing my plan/ideas, and expressing my anxiety regarding the lack of a coherent narrative for the thesis film.

He asked if I'd seen 'Performance' (Nicholas Roeg).  He said he understood the first half, as it had a standard narrative, but the second half made no sense at all to him, but that this was not important as it in no way detracted from his enjoyment of the film.

I saw this film many years ago.  I think the incoherence was intentional, and complemented the themes and characters.

This may well apply to my own film.  It is not intended to be a conventional 'Hollywood' film in terms of narrative.  I am interested in the theatre of the absurd, which deals with existential angst, felt when one realises that all meaning in life is constructed by the individual, resulting in a terrible burden of responsibility.

Where the hell is this, and why are you looking at it?

I think throwing the audience into a state of confusion is actually a valid device.  I discussed this with another associate (who happens to be a university lecturer), and she labelled it as 'lazy Avant Garde'.

However, the surest way to make a film sequence that confuses an audience (in terms of meaning) is to make it pregnant with metaphor/symbolism, but be unsure yourself as to its meaning.  The discomfort an audience feels is caused by the film maker requiring them to do some work, to fully engage with the film, rather than to sit back in their velvet seats and be spoon fed their popcorn.

Disquiet also arises in the audience from them being accustomed to everything in a film making sense.  NOT EVERYTHING IN LIFE MAKES SENSE.  A film that embraces nonsense can be more realist (and more entertaining) than one that makes perfect sense.

So, hail the hippy councillor for reminding me of the tyranny of the Hollywood narrative.