I'm sure that's entirely the point - dehumanising the subjects by turning their body tissue, organs, muscles and sinews into an abstraction and leaving the contiguousness of the autopsy entirely uncontextualised. Still, even if you get why he's doing it, it doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with his methodology.
nfh is wonderful. how shes able to communicate so much with so little i will never know! i adored seeing ny like that in the 70s, but ugh its so much more than just another document of a bygone era.. thank uuu :)
how many times have u seen it? i came away feeling like i need to watch it again quite soon. not bc i think i missed anything important, but bc i want to take a more objective look at it. first time around i probably fell under its spell a little too easily and lost all hope of any critical analysis :)
Thrice - and I know what you mean. My second viewing took a similar line of enquiry as your planned return. I also have a tendency to forgive and overlook deficiencies when reacquainted with certain filmic idiosyncrasies that channel pathos or existential transience. It's a bad habit, but probably one that I'm not too bothered about breaking.