I’ve been getting relatively negative reviews about the movie Dark Water whilst I was in camp. No one seems to appreciate the movie for the very cinematic elements ( set design, camera work, editing and music, sfx ) that contribute to its moody and dark atmosphere. All my campmate’s attention were pretty much centered on “only the last part was scary” or “i was only scared when those bumbs appeared on the watertank” and in the worse case, “its a lousy show !”. Suddenly I found myself a self appointed defender of the movie as I argued for its worth, as I would argue for a thousand other movies my friends all deem to be bad. Yes, i agree its a horror movie, scares are necessary, but those few scenes are what I would label as “in your face” scares and had the least impact on me.

Which brings me to the debatable point here : Are movies in general, esoteric ? That means to say that they are only intelligible to those who have special knowledge, and in this context those who have a slightly better understanding of film aesthetics. Shouldn’t a movie be crafted in such a way that the majority of the audience would be able to appreciate its elements without prior acquired knowledge ? It certainly didn’t seem to be the case here. Or perhaps movie audiences here are just so awashed by mainstream hollywood movies that their acquired tastes are conformed to certain treatment, and they quickly reject alternate or different styles of work when they see one ?

I can’t help but relate this to the art scene in the early 20th century where the Paris Salon, the most established academy that exhibits and showcases art pieces, judges entry works by a certain predetermined standard and those not conformed to those are labelled as bad or unorthodox, unrefined. It was also here that the Impressionist painters, Cezzance, Renoir and the like bear the full brunt of the criticism by been different and it was not until much later when they recieved full acclaim for the pieces.