If there's ever a movie that single-handedly ruins not only its own concept, but its predecessor's, this is it in the flesh. Symbiopsychotaxiplasm 2 1/2 takes on what was started in Symbiopsychotaxiplasm 1 and ruins the concept of both of them--by explaining itself too directly, by breaking its new fourth wall, by repeating things no longer needing repetition, and even by adding star power.
The real success of Symbiopsychotaxiplasm 1 rests in the fact that no matter how many times it reveals itself, breaks its fourth wall, falls into self-reflexivity, etc., it still leaves the question of "Is this real or is this fake?" to the audience, thus making its bigger question of "What is the role of the director?" much more important because the audience has to figure out whether it's being had or not. Such approach doesn't work here, because now William Greaves both explains what he did (understandable) and then does it again (! Fool me once...).
The key problem here? The same crew members taking up the same roles, sitting down in a similar room having the same debates. No longer does that use have the protest form the original 60s film has--now it only has the 00s pretentiousness and naval-gazing. No longer does Symbiopsychotaxiplasm feel like its questioning film roles, norms, and narratives, as now it's already given its answer and the roles have become reinforced. It's literally a disappointment, a "well, never mind," to the questions the first movie raised. And Buscemi appearing as producer, inquirer, and potential film editor only shows the interest of the overbearer in the construction, no longer giving the crew its unique chance to uprise and take the wheel, so to speak.
--PolarisDiB
The real success of Symbiopsychotaxiplasm 1 rests in the fact that no matter how many times it reveals itself, breaks its fourth wall, falls into self-reflexivity, etc., it still leaves the question of "Is this real or is this fake?" to the audience, thus making its bigger question of "What is the role of the director?" much more important because the audience has to figure out whether it's being had or not. Such approach doesn't work here, because now William Greaves both explains what he did (understandable) and then does it again (! Fool me once...).
The key problem here? The same crew members taking up the same roles, sitting down in a similar room having the same debates. No longer does that use have the protest form the original 60s film has--now it only has the 00s pretentiousness and naval-gazing. No longer does Symbiopsychotaxiplasm feel like its questioning film roles, norms, and narratives, as now it's already given its answer and the roles have become reinforced. It's literally a disappointment, a "well, never mind," to the questions the first movie raised. And Buscemi appearing as producer, inquirer, and potential film editor only shows the interest of the overbearer in the construction, no longer giving the crew its unique chance to uprise and take the wheel, so to speak.
--PolarisDiB