I need to respond first to the creative lambasting that precedes my comments. Not only are you dead wrong, but it is precisely this kind of facile dismissal that holds back American film. This is an experimental European independent film masked in American gloss, and it is this quality that is both the virtue and the marketing difficulty of the film. Had my fellow reviewers seen a low production value version of the same film, they would have hailed it as the second coming and fiercely emailed their friends about the literary and film references within it. They would have known right away to expect a twisted plot line, fragmented exposition of the characters, and a constantly shifting understanding of the film's sense with each subsequent scene. The film project that a film like this represents is to make work that is both complex and mainstream, rather than to corral the good stuff in the "experimental" corner. But this kind of film project needs an audience willing to constantly update their visual acuity. If you remember, Godard was not always the crowned king he is today. When he was making his 1960's films he was making seemingly casual films out of a very serious understanding of the potential of film and received similarly frustrated responses. The difference, of course, between a filmmaker working in France in the 1960's and one working in America today is that you need much much much more money to get your projects done, so it might take a little longer for the film project to happen, but it will.
