Originally Posted by
wiggin
So I guess my issue is with the nonlinear storytelling. It often seems like a gimmick to me rather than actually having a point. What's the film term Ebert uses? 'Hyperlink' cinema?
There are plenty of films that do it decently, no question - I enjoyed Pulp Fiction, Traffic, Crash, etc. But I feel like sometimes filmmakers get lost in the 'gimmick' and don't spend enough time on making a good film. The mystery of a seemingly disjointed set of storylines that then resolve together can be quite satisfying at times, but sometimes it just gets lost in the method and forgets to make a good story (I've heard this critique of Memento as well, though obviously it's a somewhat different story structure than what we're talking about). I think the filmmaker has to ask him/herself: if the movie was shown in a roughly linear and clearly connected format, would it still have something compelling to say? If the answer is no, then either the gimmick has got to be amazing or maybe you should revisit the story. I felt that Syriana failed this test - the underlying story was not that compelling, and the different plotlines did not tie together particularly well.
In Babel, I felt that it did a decent job of weaving a compelling central story (though the Japanese vignette seemed unnecessarily grafted onto the rest of the film). In 21 Grams, I never got to the 'resolution' phase; I just felt completely unattached to the first half of the film because of the scattershot scenes with no context. Since you enjoyed it, maybe I'll give it another try.
I don't think that movies need to spoon-feed the audience with a story - I'm okay with working a bit for it. But being obscure without purpose can get annoying at times.