now first off i, kind of, agree with quite a few of the comments that have been said about this film. it is definitely quite unlike the majority of films that you are likely to be able to see this (or indeed most) year.
but there is just no way that i can salivate over it and call it a modern masterpiece. whilst the film is trying to say something, it is in the way that it says it that is most likely to arouse interest/hatred. yes the film is framed and yes the camera only moves once throughout the whole picture (perhaps we should ask why if the camera only moves once does it move at all?). but so what? is this done for aethestic reasons or because it helps to 'tell' the story?
this tied with blackboards at the cannes film festival in 2000 and one can only assume that the jury was so split in what films they wished to award that they chose a 'type' and could then not decide on either of these two. frankly i would have chosen this over blackboards...but it would have been close (oh the agony of choice or possibly the choice of agonies).
it shows that there was only one take on each scene and a non-professional cast was used but in films like these (i hate to put it in such a crass manner. but films like this are a type. they go out of their way to be different and obscure and as a result end up the same as all the rest of them) that is un-important. what is important is to deal with 'grand themes' and to be so oblique that it is very possible for people to read into whole scenes, if not the film, everything that they wish to see.
its hard to criticise as a film because it as a collection of short vignettes with no plot, very little links except in the case of one character and no character development. yes it is interesting but is it any good? well tastes being what they are it is hard to say. but the acclaim of being a masterpiece appears to be bestowed very quickly in this moderninst era (and yes, i got it. this is one of the targets of the film) but the only true test of any work of art is survival. so many films are made each year that the good are often buried under the weight of the advertising of the bad. but simply being bizarre is not enough. for films to survive they must be able to talk to people without knowing of them. which is why in the field of literature (much longer lasting then films will ever be) the true survivors are those that deal with humanity. films like this which attack modern society are doomed to be lost when the society is different. for this film contains little humanity in its essence within it. it is merely the struggle for survival in the current climate. you could show 'king lear' to a tribe in papua new guinea and they would understand it, you could not show this film to people from 30 years ago and maybe you wouldn't be able to show this film in 30 years time. it is marooned in the time in which it was made.
films like this are in reality 10 a penny if you are prepared to look hard enough. opaque and esoteric stories are always of interest but there are films that are out there that say more and are not so obsessed with being different about it.
if you are tired with hollywood then for sure give it a go but there are plenty of other films dealing with some of the subjects here that are a thousand times more coherent and in my opinion (and of course that means as much or little as you let it) are simply better. yes, family relationships are a struggle ('magnolia' and 'yi yi') and the modern world can be a trial of humanity but showing off modern society as quite happy to deal with human sacrifce and modern day flagellants seems to merely highlight the issues rather than offering any suggestions. either the emperor has no clothes or he does and you just have to close your eyes (and open your mind perhaps) to see them.
but there is just no way that i can salivate over it and call it a modern masterpiece. whilst the film is trying to say something, it is in the way that it says it that is most likely to arouse interest/hatred. yes the film is framed and yes the camera only moves once throughout the whole picture (perhaps we should ask why if the camera only moves once does it move at all?). but so what? is this done for aethestic reasons or because it helps to 'tell' the story?
this tied with blackboards at the cannes film festival in 2000 and one can only assume that the jury was so split in what films they wished to award that they chose a 'type' and could then not decide on either of these two. frankly i would have chosen this over blackboards...but it would have been close (oh the agony of choice or possibly the choice of agonies).
it shows that there was only one take on each scene and a non-professional cast was used but in films like these (i hate to put it in such a crass manner. but films like this are a type. they go out of their way to be different and obscure and as a result end up the same as all the rest of them) that is un-important. what is important is to deal with 'grand themes' and to be so oblique that it is very possible for people to read into whole scenes, if not the film, everything that they wish to see.
its hard to criticise as a film because it as a collection of short vignettes with no plot, very little links except in the case of one character and no character development. yes it is interesting but is it any good? well tastes being what they are it is hard to say. but the acclaim of being a masterpiece appears to be bestowed very quickly in this moderninst era (and yes, i got it. this is one of the targets of the film) but the only true test of any work of art is survival. so many films are made each year that the good are often buried under the weight of the advertising of the bad. but simply being bizarre is not enough. for films to survive they must be able to talk to people without knowing of them. which is why in the field of literature (much longer lasting then films will ever be) the true survivors are those that deal with humanity. films like this which attack modern society are doomed to be lost when the society is different. for this film contains little humanity in its essence within it. it is merely the struggle for survival in the current climate. you could show 'king lear' to a tribe in papua new guinea and they would understand it, you could not show this film to people from 30 years ago and maybe you wouldn't be able to show this film in 30 years time. it is marooned in the time in which it was made.
films like this are in reality 10 a penny if you are prepared to look hard enough. opaque and esoteric stories are always of interest but there are films that are out there that say more and are not so obsessed with being different about it.
if you are tired with hollywood then for sure give it a go but there are plenty of other films dealing with some of the subjects here that are a thousand times more coherent and in my opinion (and of course that means as much or little as you let it) are simply better. yes, family relationships are a struggle ('magnolia' and 'yi yi') and the modern world can be a trial of humanity but showing off modern society as quite happy to deal with human sacrifce and modern day flagellants seems to merely highlight the issues rather than offering any suggestions. either the emperor has no clothes or he does and you just have to close your eyes (and open your mind perhaps) to see them.