I enjoy revisiting films fter a certain amount of time has elapsed. HD has given me many excuses to re-look at a film that I may have watched as a teenager or younger film enthusiast. Sometimes my only contact with a film was via a small 4x3 television - and perhaps even an "edited for network presentation" version at that. So, when Empire of The Sun recently was given the HD treatment, I felt that this was the right time to take a peek at a film that I never saw in a theater, and my prior exposure was probably less than ideal. Overall I enjoyed the film, felt it lacked in certain places - but came away thinking that it probably deserves to be remembered as one of Spielberg's "lesser" films. That is until I stumbled upon this review. (Essentially the reviewer reveals that much of the film is not necessarily "real", but false memories and imaginations from the POV of the main character - not a single shot can be trusted.) I don't remember ever having such a revelation after watching a movie. I felt as though I immediately needed to watch it again, with the veil lifted from my eyes. Truly, this film has depth and stories that I was unaware of - but I don't feel alone, for I don't think many others caught on to the subtleties as well. But this led me to wonder: if a film is too smart for its audience is it still "good"? I suppose the definition of good can be debated, but essentially it seems that the point of this film may have been too ambitious for most viewers to catch on to. And if the audience doesn't "get" it, then perhaps it failed in communicating it's story or goals.
Certainly critical and commercial success help dictate the path that a film director must take, but it does make me wonder things like: what if Altman's Popeye had been a hit, or if Cameron's Terminator had flopped. We'll never know, but I'm guessing the films that followed would probably have been different.
