I found this film rather confusing, and for different reasons. OK, the 'philosophical' purposes might have been praiseworthy, but somehow my reactions about the film were rather ambivalent. Some of the scenes, or tableaus, raised many interesting questions. How did the audience react in front of the 5-minute, and totally quiet shooting of naked faces? And what was the point in showing some every-day-activities drawn out of their context? There were people eating, sitting, talking...but were they really eating, sitting or talking? The human figures in front of the audience seemed somehow to dissolve; I experienced some kind of estrangement to their humanity. But then there was some 70's chliches, which blurred the thoughts for me; naked people, men wearing fancy suits smoking fat cigars, some hippie songs.... But, as a whole, it was an interesting 'film'. Or was it a film, perhaps it was a demonstration of the absurdity resting under the surface of ordinary language and everyday-life.
2 Reviews
Philosophical, I guess.
DotDash31 March 2001
Now this is one seriously weird movie! But also a funny and beautiful one. It consists of chapters like faces, bodies, things, good and bad thoughts, acts, feelings and words. Each chapter is introduced by a male voice and then they show us people performing everyday tasks in front of a blank background. There is, for example, people dressing and undressing, eating, talking or just sitting and staring. The whole thing is more like a study than a movie in the traditional sense of the word (you know; all that stuff about plot, main protagonist, drama etc). You can find a lot of deepness in the film, but if you're just not interested in that sort of thing: there is also some naked people. So expose yourself to an original film experience and see this movie if you have a chance to!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
