I'll note first that this is not a movie for all tastes. One has to open minded and enjoy an unconventional outlook in order to appreciate or enjoy the mad genius of an artistic endeavor such as this. It seems like a lot of people were shocked at how bizarre it was, however I think if they knew who actor Julian Sands was, they would have known that this film would be ANYTHING but conventional! I actually thought it was an interesting experimental film and commentary. What perhaps stood out for me was smörgåsbord of avant garde dynamics that all contributed to a piece of very abstract but thought provoking cinematic art.
I liked how the approach seemed to emphasize not specific CHARACTERS, but CHARACTERIZATIONS, allowing the actors to slip in and out of roles like shadows. They almost seemed to be given a list of multiple, interchanging personalities and situations and continuously interchanged them- this created a platform for an interesting cascade of faces and intuitive acting to participate in a series of simultaneously linear events. I think the direction also enabled the audience to observe a strikingly potent display of certain overlooked dimensions to storytelling such as contrast of characters and roles (the movie had very unconventional and unpredictable role reversals, such as the woman having sex with the man behind him, the two women in the red dress as two examples), striking imagery that provided a very unprecedented look at events (the tap dance where we saw the same scene from all angles, and the story line told in for squares on the screen, also putting a seemingly tongue in cheek emphasis on the notion that we are in fact watching a series of simultaneous vignettes). The also showed us a very enriching and complex look at the plethora of physical and emotional dynamics that one person, moment or situation can provide). I also thought it fabulous how director astutely spoofed the two extremes of storytelling - dogme and the epic shakespearian-esquire tragedy, and allowed the two to coexist and foil each other through the film. (AND this is again another point of contrast the director displays for the audience.) Very tricky how he took all these dynamics, typically either too potent (extremes of contrast) or too subtle (dynamics normally assumed within the story that he isolated and exhibited for our intellectual consumption), to intermingle and provide a coherent piece of clever analytic work instead of a jumbled mess.
It was really, in one way, a brilliant film on storytelling, persona, and the art of contrast and comparison within these realms on an artistic and intellectual level that heightens and enriches our perspective and awareness. And all while not losing it's sense of humor!
I liked how the approach seemed to emphasize not specific CHARACTERS, but CHARACTERIZATIONS, allowing the actors to slip in and out of roles like shadows. They almost seemed to be given a list of multiple, interchanging personalities and situations and continuously interchanged them- this created a platform for an interesting cascade of faces and intuitive acting to participate in a series of simultaneously linear events. I think the direction also enabled the audience to observe a strikingly potent display of certain overlooked dimensions to storytelling such as contrast of characters and roles (the movie had very unconventional and unpredictable role reversals, such as the woman having sex with the man behind him, the two women in the red dress as two examples), striking imagery that provided a very unprecedented look at events (the tap dance where we saw the same scene from all angles, and the story line told in for squares on the screen, also putting a seemingly tongue in cheek emphasis on the notion that we are in fact watching a series of simultaneous vignettes). The also showed us a very enriching and complex look at the plethora of physical and emotional dynamics that one person, moment or situation can provide). I also thought it fabulous how director astutely spoofed the two extremes of storytelling - dogme and the epic shakespearian-esquire tragedy, and allowed the two to coexist and foil each other through the film. (AND this is again another point of contrast the director displays for the audience.) Very tricky how he took all these dynamics, typically either too potent (extremes of contrast) or too subtle (dynamics normally assumed within the story that he isolated and exhibited for our intellectual consumption), to intermingle and provide a coherent piece of clever analytic work instead of a jumbled mess.
It was really, in one way, a brilliant film on storytelling, persona, and the art of contrast and comparison within these realms on an artistic and intellectual level that heightens and enriches our perspective and awareness. And all while not losing it's sense of humor!