The Girl from Monday

It is a typical Hal Hartley in terms of the mood he creates. Long in-door shots, the disconcert between sound and sight. As always he uses cheap material. for instance one suspects that the black goggles that the cops wear -with the red light in the center- may be like a 10 dollar toy bought from Chinatown. But this combined with the camera moves and lights allows him to create a different world that is often visually convincing. Although I heard people in the audience murmur about the connection with the space being unconvincing, I totally disagree.

It is a meditation on capitalism where the term 'flesh market' gets literal. He weaves this theme in with reflections on the sense of the extremeness of the boundaries between individuals in modern capitalist society. How one feeds the other, in fact makes the other possible. I found it very successful although sometimes a bit didactic.

In which Hartley continues his exploration of the Godard cookbook. In this case, "Alphaville", with side orders of "The Man Who Fell to Earth" and various Chris Marker 'photoroman' movies.

The voice-over is not a cover for the failure to tell the story so much as a yarn-spinning technique along the lines of early Peter Greenaway or late Werner Herzog. There are some striking similarities with Herzog's recent "Wild Blue Yonder" (also billed as a science fiction fantasy).

In some ways this seems as much an exercise as an attempt to entertain; as with Godard's work the film is shot on a shoestring, with the present made to stand in for the future - Hartley tries to see how much he can say with how little.

Others have commented on the social satire; overlooked may have been the beautiful photography, the dreamlike atmosphere, the air of melancholy and loss, and the very effective music by Hartley himself (no longer trading under his "Ned Rifle" alias).

I dare say many of us miss his "early, funny, films" but that's how it goes with New York filmmakers, I guess. Where those movies were snappy prose, this is a poem.

I would like to suggest to those who comment on this film, of which there are many, that if one is to judge this movie as 'simplistic' or trite, then one has to answer a set of questions raised by the film -

1. What is the relation between embodiment and desire? Hartley raises this beautifully with the presentation of the girl, and intertwines it with the other themes (among many!) that I would like to point out.

2. What is the role of Christianity in this film? The word become flesh, the girl reading a study bible, the interviewer asking Jack if he is religious, and the idea of sacrifice and martyrdom all raise this issue in interesting and provocative ways. (this is especially interesting considering the film's conclusion and the question it raises about the possibility of a messiah in a capitalist context (i.e. where "value" only means monetary value))

3. What is the relation between desire and the structures of society? Does desire resist that power structure, or is it rather created by that power structure? The film raises the question of whether or not the resistance that is possible is also "good for business," and suggests that desire is fully malleable by the power structure. BUT, it also opens the possibility for real resistance, without being overly optimistic about this.

There are many many other interesting questions raised by this wonderful and thoughtful film, but these are just a few that immediately strike me as central, and which do not seem to play a role in the criticism of the film voiced by many of its detractors.

It is important to develop the skill to enjoy many types of film - important insofar as it simply increases pleasure in watching film - and so it is best to be able to ignore problems with the low production value and bad acting and to enjoy it for its strengths, rather than focus on the negative and not enjoy one's time with the film.

P.S. Anyone else wondering about the references to Homer's Odyssey in the film? So many questions . . .

Shown at New York's Museum of Modern Art, January 2005. Introduced by the Directer with the major cast in attendance.

A satirical swipe at Big Government and Big Business. Government and business are in a conspiracy to exploit the public. The film also ridicules the situation in the schools where guns are checked at the door. The main characters are rebelling against the big powers.

Life is not good for the workers. Everything is turned into a profit maker for the big company which is an arm of the government. Sex, for example, cannot be enjoyed for pleasure but is used to earn purchasing credits. Sex for pleasure is punishable.

All students take Attention Deficit pills. The school situation is so bad, that a criminal sentence is to teach high school for two years.

The action takes place in the "future' but the very near future as the cars, streets, clothes, etc are all modern day. The film was shot almost entirely in downtown Manhattan. Some parts looks like a hand held camera was used but the resulting film is professional in look and color.

The acting and action move the action along at a nice pace. The Girl From Monday arrives from a planet(?)called Monday. A space visitor is not really necessary to the story but it allows the "Monday" character to observe the local people with a fresh eye.

The "bad" motives and actions of the government, corporation, and The Police are beaten to death with a fairly heavy hand but that is the point of the film which arose from a "rant" written by the Director who later decided to put his criticisms on film.

Have not seen any of this director's previous films to compare but this film was an enjoyable look at what could happen if the "Military/Industrial Complex" of the 1950's becomes the Government/Industrial Complex of today.

It has a promising plot line, and some quite interesting performances and direction, but overall I felt the film lacked substance.

Except for its unique idea of sex-for-points, it's filled with simple notions such as "advertising is bad" and "freedom is good." Both are valid beliefs, but neither are explored with much originality.

It played out like a weak version of an excellent novel or short story. Great soundtrack, though.

(BTW, I believe the opening credits read "A Science Fiction by Hal Hartley," not "A Science Fiction Film by Hal Hartley," as the first reviewer wrote. Not sure exactly what he means by that, but it is probably significant to Hartley.)