The NYFF write up calls this film "...a work of striking, meaningful duration..." I have no idea what that is. How is a duration meaningful? You have to watch something for a certain length of time to get meaning? Is there an umeaningful duration? Can you imagine what George Carlin would have done with that phrase?
I'm calling bullshit. I say that because this three and a half hour sleeping pill is one of the most pretentious piece of cinema that I've run across in years. Its a film where we watch things play out for long periods for no reason Its showing us things in real time but it's just a series of random bits, much like the opening of the film where we are watching random video files. I think the person who wrote the film up called it a film of meaningful duration because it couldn't say this film is dull and boring and we don't know why the programmers programmed it.
The film is supposed to be a look at the Notre-Dame-des-Landes commune France, where they try to to disrupt and discourage corporations and state entities from building on land. And some of it is in the film but so are long shots of the sky (there is a reason they are using the tower shot above as a selling point), people reading manifestos, people doing farm work in long takes and other not very interesting things.
To be fair this might have worked if the filmmakers had connected things up and not let them sit there but they didn't. It also might have worked if they shortened the pieces. With much of it we get the idea rather quickly and we don't need an extended look.
Avoid this film unless you need sleep.
No comments:
Post a Comment