Like many of the films made in the past fifteen years that seem to take after "Jacob's Ladder" (which, as one reviewer here has pointed out, is merely hearkening back to Bierce's "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"...), there is ultimately no point to the 'twist' at the ending of this one. With the better films of this genre (like "Jacob's Ladder", "Mulholland Dr.", etc.) the dream/fantasy/afterlife scenes actually reflect something of the psyche of the character whose internal states we're experiencing an externalised version of. In this film, the use of this plot device is almost comical; when you die, your life doesn't flash before your eyes - you imagine yourself doing business! So what?
Another reviewer on here said: "The dynamic and exciting world of business is transformed into a dull sequence of events, which constantly occur[...]", but I would say this is the one area where the film works - the reality of business IS incredibly dull, repetitive, banal, etc., and is only remotely of interest to those involved who may stand to gain or lose money. The director succeeded in portraying the world of business as one of male posturing and superficiality, where everyone's faking and speaking in numbers to mask their basic needs and desires (i.e. making greed seem logical).
The ending, and all the 'clues' scattered throughout (which are really some of the more obvious ones as far as these sorts of films go), ruin the sense of realism the director manages to build in these business scenes. Like "The Machinist", "Trauma", "Open Your Eyes/Vanilla Sky" and "Lucid", the revelation at the end of "Yella" ultimately doesn't count for anything... Instead of creating an actual mystery, the filmmakers of these films present the appearance of a mystery; instead of cleverness of construction, the appearance of cleverness; instead of being (so-called) 'films that makes you think', they're films that flatter the viewer into thinking they're thinking. But all that's really here is a pseudo-cryptic puzzle with 'clues' and 'symbols' that are quite heavy-handed when one catches on to what is being done, designed to make the viewers confused at the 'weirdness' throughout the majority of the plot, only to have it explained to them at the end so they think they 'get it'. This sort of film-making is basically the equivalent of making up one's own personal coded message, showing it to people who will of course have no idea what it 'means', and then giving them the key to decode it after they're confused - it's an exercise in pretend cleverness on the part of the filmmaker, and any viewer who feels proud of themselves for being able to 'spot the clues' after being given the key has been manipulated into feeling like they managed to do something clever - to 'think they're thinking'...
What is it that makes these kinds of films appealing to us? Is it because the experience of life is confusing and illogical, and deep down we would like someone to come along and give us an explanation, but at the same time we don't want to admit to ourselves that we can't understand things as they are? Films that manage to accurately capture the rhythms, complexities and confusions of actual life are far more mysterious than a film like this that's been self-consciously designed to give the appearance of mystery.
This film is a disappointment after having seen the director's first film, "The State I'm In", which got everything right that this one got wrong...
Another reviewer on here said: "The dynamic and exciting world of business is transformed into a dull sequence of events, which constantly occur[...]", but I would say this is the one area where the film works - the reality of business IS incredibly dull, repetitive, banal, etc., and is only remotely of interest to those involved who may stand to gain or lose money. The director succeeded in portraying the world of business as one of male posturing and superficiality, where everyone's faking and speaking in numbers to mask their basic needs and desires (i.e. making greed seem logical).
The ending, and all the 'clues' scattered throughout (which are really some of the more obvious ones as far as these sorts of films go), ruin the sense of realism the director manages to build in these business scenes. Like "The Machinist", "Trauma", "Open Your Eyes/Vanilla Sky" and "Lucid", the revelation at the end of "Yella" ultimately doesn't count for anything... Instead of creating an actual mystery, the filmmakers of these films present the appearance of a mystery; instead of cleverness of construction, the appearance of cleverness; instead of being (so-called) 'films that makes you think', they're films that flatter the viewer into thinking they're thinking. But all that's really here is a pseudo-cryptic puzzle with 'clues' and 'symbols' that are quite heavy-handed when one catches on to what is being done, designed to make the viewers confused at the 'weirdness' throughout the majority of the plot, only to have it explained to them at the end so they think they 'get it'. This sort of film-making is basically the equivalent of making up one's own personal coded message, showing it to people who will of course have no idea what it 'means', and then giving them the key to decode it after they're confused - it's an exercise in pretend cleverness on the part of the filmmaker, and any viewer who feels proud of themselves for being able to 'spot the clues' after being given the key has been manipulated into feeling like they managed to do something clever - to 'think they're thinking'...
What is it that makes these kinds of films appealing to us? Is it because the experience of life is confusing and illogical, and deep down we would like someone to come along and give us an explanation, but at the same time we don't want to admit to ourselves that we can't understand things as they are? Films that manage to accurately capture the rhythms, complexities and confusions of actual life are far more mysterious than a film like this that's been self-consciously designed to give the appearance of mystery.
This film is a disappointment after having seen the director's first film, "The State I'm In", which got everything right that this one got wrong...