Aquarela

Saw it at Sundance 2019. There is no plot, and it's all about water in different aspects. I don't have anything against plotless films, as long as they are engaging and interesting. This film definitely has beautiful cinematography and some interesting scenes, but there is too many similar frames with water, so that after some point it becomes boring. Some narration or story would help. It started with scenes on Lake Baikal that involved humans and some stories. That part was great. But then it dies out and transforms into pure water scenes.

Exquisitely filmed and orchestrated, highly absorbing and, on occasion, providing an overwhelming feeling of 'Mal de Mer' - that is until the floods and winds arrive that turns it into a saturated 'Mal de Fossil Fuels'. Let's leave them in the ground and avoid a wet and watery apocalyptic drowning - while hoping its not too late to avoid the deluge that's imminently upon us.

I saw it at Sundance a couple of days ago. I was enthralled by it and sad when it ended. The opening is narratively engaging, yes, with humans and story. That is fascinating, but the film really gets going when it get's past any promise of overall narrative, and begins with its true purpose: to offer a privileged window into the true awesomeness of the water on this planet. Frozen, still, turbulent, graceful, violent, beautiful, it is all there, painstakingly captured with top shelf equipment and cinematography. It is a cinematic poem and of visual glory, awe-inspiring power and incredible natural sounds, mixed and designed in Dolby Atmos surround. The sound is immersive in a way that no other film I have seen has been, and it invites one to surrender and sink into the film. It is not a narrative journey, but a visual and sensual one, that allows time and space to contemplate part of the world we live in, both in celebration and contemplation of human's impact. It is not an overtly environmentalist film, other than to remind us of the power and beauty of nature, and to show some of how we interact with it. There are moments where the film is scored, with Finnish heavy metal. This worked very well. I had the impression that power chords and distortion may be the only fitting texture to score images of such raw power as thousands of tons of turbulent waves of water. The visuals sometimes get abstract in a beautiful way that reminds me of the films of Stan Brakhage, specifically Mothlight and Window Water Baby Moving. Again, it invites one to just let it wash over you, and to enjoy the ride. I can't wait to see this film again, next time hopefully in true 96 fps, which I understand unlocks an entirely new visual experience. I fully expected an uproarious standing ovation at the end of the screening. I was surprised to hear an average reaction from the crowd. I think people need to approach film with more openness and patience, and not fall into the trap of judging it in the narrow context of "entertainment". This is a cinematic poem on an epic scale and I am so very grateful for its creation.

Great Subject, maybe the greatest on this planet, drives you to great expectations, but at the end leaves you with great disappointment. I have personally been in some of the locations like Baikal, Arctic Ocean, Sweden, Canadian North Pacific, Great Lakes including Niagara Falls. I didn't have even a fraction of feelings I had compared to what was when I first been there.

My favourite film is "Koyaanisqatsi", which is a documentary about nature and urban life. It's probably not a well-known film, but that doesn't matter to me. I absolutely love it and it made me cry the first time I saw it. When I went to see "Aquarela", I was hoping it would be like "Koyaanisqatsi" and I guess you could say it's kinda similar, but it didn't blow me away. I feel a bit disappointed. Maybe my expectations were too high? I dunno, but I still enjoyed it.

"Aquarela" is basically a documentary about water and ice. Like "Koyaanisqatsi", there's no narration. We're just shown footage of water and ice, among other things, like people boating and people getting cars out of water and ice. There's a scene where I think people are trying to rescue someone who may be drowning. You don't see them successfully rescue that person or recover a body. Did the person die? Maybe the filmmakers know, but you don't, at least just by watching the film. Is it fair to criticize the fact that you don't find out? Granted, you don't know anything about this person, but after the film is over, you might still be thinking about him or her. I don't know if there's a message or a dedication in the end credits.

I feel disappointed that you don't hear that much music to go along with the footage, but when you do hear music, it's pretty good. The footage itself is nice to look at. You see waves of water, ice falling, etc. There were only a few times when I thought the footage looked utterly amazing, though. There is one part that I had trouble watching because it was quite overwhelming for my eyes and not in a good way, but I'm not sure how to distinguish that part from other footage in the film.

Does "Aquarela" have anything to do with climate change? I'm not sure. You can think about that yourself if you see the film. This is probably one of those films that isn't for everyone. Maybe you'll be really bored watching it, but I wasn't. I liked it. Some of the footage is really quite breathtaking and when there's music, it suits the footage. I think I might've liked the film more if there was a lot more music.