Yes, there's certainly a vociferous fan-base that elevates it beyond what seems reasonable for a cheap black and white flick with a confusing story.

But why? What is it about the thing that inspires such devotion? It may not entertain everyone but it entertains them. I have the same relationship with Sudoku, I can't understand why some people are so passionate about them. If some of his fans treat him like Chris Nolan I think they're mistaken. Nolan seems to revel in puzzle-making. I don't think that's what Carruth is trying to do. (Although, I could be projecting.)

I'd agree that it's failure passed off as art if it were his only attempt but his second production shares many of the same approaches. Either he'll continue to fail or he'll refine his technique to support his as yet unachieved aims. By feature three, I might be in a position to assert with confidence: yup, he really doesn't know what he's doing. But note that it's the fans passing it off as art - Carruth himself has never appeared to do so.

Still, I admire the effort, even if it is tainted by too-rabid fans and even if it leaves me colder than I think it should. I've made my share of rambling, incoherent and retrospectively painful indulgences. I have learned enormous amounts from failing and, thankfully, no-one will ever see them. He's a brave fool for putting them out there.

Expanding the conversation: as screenwriters, how aware should we be of the bounds of the medium? How participatory should the audience's role be? Where is the line between eliciting emotion and abusing the trust of the viewer? Why are we doing this weird, rarely rewarded, Tantalan work anyway?