Mars et Avril

I saw this movie a few days ago and the strange and lyric atmosphere of it still haunts me! The music composed by Benoit Charest (Les Triplettes de Belleville) plays a very important part in it; the filmmaker asked him to compose brilliant music and well yes, he really is a genius!

Jacques Languirand has created a magnificent character, and the rest of the cast is as excellent. They are filmed in such an intimate way, we dive into their souls. The story is very intelligent, moving and unusual! I was deeply touched by it.

Of course this is not what we call a "commercial" movie and will not appeal to the vast majority. Don't expect big action and fights and tons of visual effects. Although it is visually superb, with some effects simply magnificent! The decors were created with such beauty by an established and very skilled comic strip artist. All the little details in costumes, hair add to this incredible vision of a futuristic Montreal.

This is all just indescribable! it is for those who like creativity, originality, strangeness and sci-fi, who liked such movies as "Moon", "Immortel (ad vitam)" and "The Man Who Fell to Earth", as well as "Blade Runner" probably, you might like this one very much!

Perhaps my biggest problem with this movie were my high expectations due to a few reviews I read which highly appraised it. In my opinion the story, the core of which exhibits some potential, is its main flaw. Shallow, non-developing characters, missing plausibility, incoherent dialogs and confusing plots are disguised behind artsy (admittedly quite nice) sceneries, wonderful music and post-futuristic-combined-with-retro aesthetics. Which per se is not a problem, but it cannot substitute for the missing parts of the whole product. I understand that a low-budget sci-fi movie is a great challenge, but then again not every challenge must be taken. I have seen a fair amount of other low-budget sci-fi productions (e.g., from eastern Asia) with amazing performances, non-existing props, but excellent stories (notably with a philosophical extension). At least there the movie makers did not constantly flood the scenes with blue color, lit-up close-ups à la "It is time for my close up mr DeMill" and floor smoke like discos back in the 80's...

All in all, it is a waste of time unless you happen to be a huge fan of the Flash-Gordon or "a trip to the moon"-by-Georges-Melies type of movies and if you don't care about script coherence. The generous four stars are just for the atmosphere and the music.

I saw this film at the Imagine film festival 2013 in Amsterdam. I was disappointed while watching this movie, probably because of the high praises it received from all sources I consulted beforehand. No one complained that we had to wait at least half an hour before some story made its appearance, leaving us all that time wondering whether some sort of plot would came up, or even some message that the film makers wanted to get across. Even worse, after the plot emerges, the pace is still very slow and developments miss a logical binding element. The impression remains that visualizing a future society proved much more important for the film makers than presenting us a consistent story with characters we could identify ourselves with.

The music is wonderful. The visualizations we see with possible future variations on our society, is very nice indeed. For instance, the interviews with the astronauts before and during their voyage to Mars, are brought in a beautiful and promising format, different from what we see on our TV channels, and still very believable as a future setup. Also, the holographic figure we see giving a lecture and even eating in a restaurant, is also a nice way to liven up the movie, and to provoke ideas about future technical developments. I'm less certain about medical advancements, and certainly not in psychology if we can believe this film.

A definite role in the story has the futuristic public transporter mechanism (variation on the "beam me up" devices from the Star Trek series) shown in the film. Also a nice find is combining these devices with an implicit reference to the still living conspiracy theories about the moon landings we saw from 1969 to 1972, alleging that these were faked, and that the astronauts never left earth but were filmed in a moon-like décor. We see something similar happening here, and is an integral component in the story when Avril gets lost in the transporter while traveling together with aging musician Jacob.

Avril's love for retro devices is remarkable (black box camera, turntable with LP vinyl records, telephone with a dialer). It attracts our attention in this futuristic context. Her hobby forms a stark contrast with all other props in the film, and may be a bit far fetched. I see it as an indication that the film makers exaggerate in their attempts to be different. Avril's methods to make photographs of people who were asked to talk about themselves during the exposure time an old camera needs (as per her explanation), is a needless attempt to be different too.

All in all, I was disappointed in this movie, possibly (as said before) caused by all the positive comments I've read beforehand. Not everything is bad, however. There were nice attempts to picture what a possible future society may look like, places where other social conventions may exist, and of course that yet uninvented devices will be commodities, just as normal as our mobile phones are nowadays. Music will also be different, of course; we can expect different instruments to appear, producing sounds we cannot imagine at this moment.

Given all the above on the positive side, the narrative and the characters that were supposed to carry the story line, were unclear for at least half the running time. Only in hindsight could we construct some logic in what happened. That should not be necessary and better made apparent not after but rather during the movie. For the first half hour I felt a bit lost, and was wondering where all this was heading. When leaving the theater, I scored only a 3 (out of 5) for the audience award, considering too much emphasis on format and appearances, and too little (and too late) clarity about story and characters. Many will disagree, but so be it.

I think this film is exquisite and intelligent. Perhaps not made for the ordinary moviegoer and maybe a little bit too long, but certainly brilliant in its context and perfect visually. One must pay attention to detail to appreciate the depth of this artwork. Costumes, make up and hair did a magnificent job creating a "futuristic" look. What does the future hold? How will we dress, what will we drink, what will we do? The music and sound effects are magnificent, the visual effects are extraordinary. Futuristic Montreal is quite beautiful. Art department created a warmth that is perfectly in sync with the slow drawn out feeling of this new universe. If our future it is anything like this film where beauty and thought, where love and passion seem to be the principal motivators, I am looking forward to it. To appreciate the film, one must also listen carefully to the discourse about music, the universe and time and about love and beauty. I believe this film should be watched more than once.

Yes, this is not a perfect movie, I didn't give 10 stars for achievement. I gave it for pure directing talent. You need to understand Quebec's movie industry. The mainstream movies here benefit heavily from financial government support. Mainstream movies here have average scenarios at best, and most of the time the acting is theatrical when it's not sub par. Even with some of the best paid actors here in the french province. Probably it's all under the influence of a group of people who don't really care about passion and quality.

Not so with this particular picture. Compared with the rest of the local productions, this film is pure bliss. Actually, without being partisan, this picture reminds of one of the best Quebec's directors, Robert Lepage. He also has a role in the film. Actually, Lepage is a genius born at the wrong place where he doesn't receive the deserved recognition. Will Martin Villeneuve be luckier?