I'm Reed Fish....and I'm Confused - I'm Reed Fish (2024)

Member since February 2003

Seemed like a decent movie. It started off simply enough. Plus, Alexis Bledel is in it. Then the movie projector failed and there's no Alexis in that auditorium, but the other characters seem the sameexcept here's Shiri Appleby.

Then at the end there's a different Kate. And if Shiri is Jill, then who is Schuyler Fisk at the end?

Confused.

by

Member since March 2003

What you're seeing, exept when the projector fails and for the last 15 minutes or so, is a movie Reed Fish made of his life after it fell apart. Alexis Bledel is an actor he got for the movie. Shiri Appleby is the real Jill.

When the prjector failed, everything up till then had been the initial screening of his movie to the locals. It went briefly to real life with Shiri Appleby; then when the projector was fixed, it was back to his movie; then eventually his movie screening ended and it was again forward to real life with Shiri.

Member since February 2004

by

Member since May 2003

well, after reading wha you wrote, it makes sense. but i have to be critical here

props to HIM for knowing what he was doing in the movie, but he should have communicated it better to the audience. clearly others were as confused as i was.

i do understand he was probably going for shock value with the whole projector stops thing. and i get that. (applause) but, like so many do now, they overemphasize some personal objective (in this case the shock value) at the expense of the general viewing audience's participation.

if he makes a film, and if he wants me to watch it, even like it, he must tell ths story in a way i can understand it.

it was just too convaluted. (sp?)

Member since September 2007

Not to be cruel, but if you didn't catch that then maybe you shouldn't watch films like these. He communicated it perfectly and subtlety is an artist's best friend. If you want things spelled out then just stick to the summer blockbusters.

hitrecord.org

by

Member since May 2003

shroudoffrost,

no cruelty inferred.

but i wonder about your post, if you posted it just for the sake of being contarry. or, maybe you felt the need to be defensive because your family member is in the film, or something. anyway.

it was NOT communicated perfectly. perfect is a strong word, homey. i am glad it satisfied you (for whatever reason, but definitely not from clear storytelling). if you have a good grip on this film, why don't you answer the original posters questions about the girls.

and, can we agree, with too much subltety the information being delivered can go so deeply minimalist that NOTHING is understood.

i like subtlety too, but this was way beyond that. more like, CONVOLUTED.

it simply wasn't clear.

Member since September 2007

What more did you want the filmmakers to do? They said each characters name, they stopped the movie in the middle to show we were watching a movie inside of a movie. Do you want them to break the fourth wall and just explain everything for the audience? That would be absurd.

I don't know anyone who made this film, I am speaking as a person who just sat down, watched and loved the movie. IMO, it was communicated perfectly. As I said before, they give enough for the audience to grasp, all they have to do is use their minds and think about what they saw. What do you think of David Lynch or Charlie Kaufman films? They both use subtlety to reveal the truth to their films. And trust me, it's much more obscure than this. Sorry if I'm incorrect in assuming that people who don't understand a movie like this would find understanding something like Mulholland Dr. or Synecdoche, New York impossible.

So, in short, this movie was very clear. Just not for people who are not use to watching movies with unique twists.

hitrecord.org

Member since December 2006

Okay, I have to comment to mentioning Mulholland Dr. as an "understandable" movie. I don't care who you are, and I'm a filmmaker and an avid david lynch fan, and the switch in that movie made no sense until I heard it from the horse's mouth. Kind of a pretentious thing to have to name-drop some films. Well, at least they were good ones.

You didn't argue the understandability of, say, G.I. Joe.

PS:

I'm watching the movie now, and I did get the whole thing they were going for, but I could understand someone not understanding if they're not attenuated to certain filmmaking styles.

peace and love to all

by

Member since May 2003

thank you friend.

good level comments

drugschangedeverything..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MGBn3KawM&feature=related

by

Member since October 2006

by

Member since May 2003

by

Member since May 2003

hey shroudoffrost, seriously, if you like convoluted nebulous films i have one i know you will love.

(really i am not being a smart ass. i bet you a 20 that you will like it, if you liked reed fish so much)

Luca y el sexo

http://www.imdb.com/board/10254455/

it's right up your alley

by

Member since May 2007

Member since June 2004

Schuyler Fisk's non-Jill character was actually the real Kate, whom he was engaged to.

"Now I know what kind of man I am. I'm a man who doesn't give second chances." Doctor Who

by

Member since July 2004

by

Member since January 2006

blueseas is right. But it IS confusing.

For my part particularly because:

1. I thought that Shiri Appleby=real Jill might be movie-Kate=Alexis Bliedel a few years later (they were both darkhaired and I'm not that good at faces)

2. Movie-Jill=Schuyler Fisk was sitting in the audience. It would have helped my understanding if the actress playing movie-Jill hadn't been in 'real life' too (just as movie-Kate=Alexis Bliedel was not present in 'real life')

3. The other characters playes themselves (as far as I understand). Only Jill and Kate were played by other people)

And on a personal note I liked red-haired Jill and Reed so much together, I had a hard time accepting that he actually loved another girl ;-)

by

Member since November 2005

by

Member since December 2001