Paris, Texas is considered a masterpiece of cinema and one of the all-time greats. It comfortably sits in the canon of great movies with a Rotten Tomato score of 95% and a letterboxed score of 4.2/ 5, it has also been rewarded with the mark of “great film” by legendary film critic Roger Ebert, a title only a handful of films have received.
I am a fan of subtle arthouse films and I do not inherently hate slow-moving films, yet Paris, Texas rubbed me the wrong way. Since the film has been so beloved for so many years I find it safe to aim some criticism at it since great works should be able to withstand criticism.
The Good
Before I take my mighty criticism hammer and smash down on the film I will be fair and highlight some things the movie does well.
First off, the movie is shot and directed well. The scene at the end with Travis´ reflection imposed on his wife via the mirror is a 10/10 shot. The film has plenty of impressive shots, the opening with Travis walking in the desert is also very well-framed especially when he walks on the tracks.
The scene with Travis and Hunter walking home together is among one of the best father-son moments in cinema. It’s an incredible scene showcasing how much Travis cares and tries to connect with his son (This will be important later).
Harry Dean Stanton’s performance is absolutely incredible; he manages to say so much without saying anything. It is truly one of the greatest performances I have ever seen.
Wandering in the desert and empty metaphors
The film opens with Travis walking in the desert. The reason I GUESS is to show that he is walking away from something rather than walking toward something. His past is full of regret and trauma which is also the reason he doesn’t speak. The wandering in the desert is thus more of a metaphor yet we do not know this so it is only by a post-watch analysis we can conclude any of this. This is of course not really the issue since all films should be analyzed that way.
The problem is that you introduce a character with a metaphorical action with no context of why he is walking, who he is, and what has happened before. Without context, the whole metaphor feels empty and hollow.
Other examples
Eraserhead has something similar at the beginning, with the main character walking through a desolate industrial landscape. But in that film, everything is about mood. The sound design, the imagery, and the performances all work together. You understand right away that you are in a nightmare space where reality bends and the entire experience is metaphor. The film commits fully to that approach from the first frame.
In Possession, metaphors are central too. The film starts in a grounded, realistic way with a couple dealing with the breakdown of their marriage. But it is shot in such an off-putting and almost hysterical style that you sense something deeper is going on. As the film progresses into surreal horror, the tone fully supports this transition. The metaphors do not come out of nowhere, the film earns them through its visual and emotional language.
In The Lighthouse, the tone is set instantly. The 4:3 aspect ratio, black and white cinematography, mythic performances, and soundscape tell you this is not realism. This is a folkloric and psychological descent into madness. The film’s metaphors, such as the light, the mermaids, and the seabirds, all feel cohesive with the world that has been created.
The key difference is this. These films teach the audience how to watch them from the very beginning. Paris, Texas does not. It begins with a metaphor-heavy sequence of Travis wandering the desert, but shot in a realist and grounded style, with no clear signal that we are meant to read it as allegory. The tone of the rest of the film remains inconsistent with this opening, which makes the metaphor feel disconnected rather than integrated.
Travis also refuses to speak, but only until his brother gets mildly irritated by it. His selective muteness is dropped without any drama or explanation. Some have said it’s about the trauma of his past, but REAL trauma doesn’t work like that. You can’t just decide to speak after a traumatic event.
The first 20 minutes serve as setup — not for the characters or the plot, but for the film’s own mood and aesthetic. It feels like a director telling us how important the movie is before earning it.
This movie is definitely the type to smell its own farts. The whole beginning comes off as and I will say it….Pretentious.
My interpretation and how the dessert scene works for me
When Travis comes back he is kinda awkward around other people and Hunter. The dessert wandering is more a metaphor for being an absent father, that is kinda clever and I do feel the metaphor makes sense in that regard. This is of course upon reflection.
Had the film committed more fully to this metaphor, visually and structurally, it could have deepened the entire experience.
The American dream is NOT A THEME HERE MAN!
I have heard some say the film is about criticizing the American dream. However the film does not consider this theme at all, the film is obviously about family dynamics and what makes someone your family blood or caring?
Sure Travis has bought some land in Paris Texas, but this plot threat is dropped in the same scene it’s introduced. Saying the movie is a critique of the American is the laziest praise heaped upon a film I have ever seen. The movie is only interested in family emotions and never material things. It must be something lesser critics have said to sound smart, just like the film itself.
It's called show don't tell, is it not?!
So we are supposed to take away from the movie that Travis is not fit to be a father to his son Hunter.
The problem is that we are only shown Travis being a kind and warm father to Hunter. The mentioned scene before when he walks with him from school, the scene with him and Hunter watching old home movies and talking via walkie-talkies.
Yet we are told that he is not fit to be a father, but it’s called show don’t tell is it not? If we were told Travis hated pickles and throughout the film he eats one in every scene then we would not trust what we are told, since action talk is way louder than words, both in stories and in people.
When Travis backs out of Jane and Hunter’s new relationship since he is not a stable element the film shoots itself in the foot since it has shown him being stable through the film. It is true that in his past (which we again are only told or Hunter about) he was not fit to become a father.
So Subtle it forgot to actually say anything at all
This is a subjective point here, but I found the film to be too long and it really started to drag toward the end. The mirror scene with Travis and Jane is a masterclass in framing and how they both at separate times turn away from the other and then they tell their stories is so wonderful, however, I was so drained by the frankly over-slow pacing.
I’m a fan of arthouse films and as I said in the beginning I do not hate slow burns. I am also a very big fan of subtlety in film. I often find myself frustrated when a piece of media spells out everything. The thing with Paris, Texas is that I found it to be so subtle it hardly managed to say anything at all.
The film is also only truly appreciated when it’s over and you can reflect on it. That being said, I’m often very good at recognizing why something is popular and part of the cinematic canon, this one ultimately, Paris, Texas feels less like a deep film and more like a film trying very hard to seem deep. For me, that’s not enough.
Conclusion
Paris, Texas is not a bad film — it’s beautifully shot, well-acted, and has moments of genuine power. But for me, it’s a film that tries so hard to be important that it forgets to simply tell its story. I love subtlety in cinema, but this was subtle to the point of saying almost nothing at all. Maybe that works for others. It didn’t work for me. And that’s okay. Great films should be able to handle a little criticism now and then.