The Book of Vision

The Book of Vision (2020)

The Book of Vision (2020) is a haunting and introspective drama that blends the realms of science, memory, and personal transformation. The film follows Elizabeth, a young doctor working at a medical institute in Europe, who becomes captivated by an old, mysterious manuscript known as The Book of Vision. The book is said to hold the secrets of a 17th-century physician, Dr. Vogel, whose revolutionary approach to understanding human consciousness and healing has long been forgotten.

As Elizabeth becomes increasingly obsessed with the book, she starts to unravel its cryptic contents, which lead her to explore her own past and personal struggles. Her journey of discovery is intertwined with a series of vivid, surreal visions that blur the line between reality and the subconscious. These visions seem to offer profound insights into the nature of memory, trauma, and the interconnectedness of mind and body.

Throughout the film, Elizabeth is confronted with her own repressed memories and unresolved guilt, and as she delves deeper into Dr. Vogel's theories, she begins to question the very nature of healing. The narrative weaves between Elizabeth's present-day life and the haunting, enigmatic story of Dr. Vogel, whose work was shrouded in mystery and controversy.

The Book of Vision explores themes of time, fate, and the search for meaning, creating a contemplative atmosphere that challenges the audience to reflect on the mind's capacity for self-healing and the power of understanding one's own history. With its beautiful cinematography and thought-provoking storyline, the film offers a meditation on the complexities of life, memory, and the pursuit of truth.

Review written by Jaya Kumar jrain.

Enjoyed watching this film, very much. Not one of Terence Malik's best. Personally I'd suggest The New World is his best followed closely by The Tree of Life. This film is still extremely good on so many levels. I guess the reason I didn't give it 10 is because the point of the story is a little hard to understand or 'get'. This isn't always a bad thing for me, in that with what I consider a good piece of film entertainment, if I don't quite 'get it', it usually follows with a 'I need to watch it again', and a few times. What could possibly be better than sitting down to watch a film over and over and over again, years apart? I've been watching my favourite Malik's over and over - and over many years. It's fun. It's enjoyable. Very much the same for a great many other great films and great film makers. I find it curious to consider a 'line' in this film where the Charles Dance character questions the Lotte Verbeek character, during a strained dinner party, over which he questions why she spends her time studying some obscure past instead of using her talents to live and work in the now and the future. The answer of course, here, is because one cannot understand the now or have any idea of the right future without understanding the past and all the tangential discourses along similar lines. Perfect. Different people like different genres of films but criticising one genre because it's not the type you like is not at all correct! Talking of which, 'context is everything'. Worth considering with regard to everything. Otherwise an opinion is utterly pointless. Talking of which, I am amused on my IMDB ... thing ... that under the title of 'similar titles you might like' (or whatever it is), the crazy machine shows a whole load of titles that are not at all similar ... in any way, that I can discern. It would appear that for AI and/or IT algorithms, 'context is irrelevant. Oh well. "What a marvellous modern world we live in". Was this review helpful? Probably not.

The film's premise is certainly interesting: a multi-period exploration of the transition to modern medicine, the interplay between scientism and Western esotericism, and the subsequent change in doctor-patient dynamics.

Dance lends his usual gravelly tones, Korovkin is terrifying, and Dychauk's performance is heartbreaking, yet all are shackled by Hintermann's clunky dialogue. Gudnason and Verbeek's talents are sadly wasted on underdeveloped characters.

Indeed, it's the script that fails the actors. The dialogue is so disjointed it feels like a good deal was left on the cutting-room floor, and what remains is devoid of any poetry. The characters are one-dimensional receptacles for Hintermann's reductive ideas, either passionately romantic or coldly clinical, but never complex. It ruins what would otherwise be a very touching story.

Hintermann has chosen to approach symbolism with all but the kitchen sink. Visually interesting as individual set pieces, the continuous lack of subtlety climaxes as Verbeek bursts into a 90-second musical number before swooning into Gudnason's arms with all the grace of Fanny Squeers. The next thirty minutes is a fever dream of dynamic shots and ever-changing Dutch angles more suited to a noughties flick than a sombre period piece. Many static shots are filmed on a shaky Steadicam (oxymoron intended) and occasionally the audio dubbing is visibly out of sync.

That said, Tufano's costume design is breathtaking, the set design is gorgeous, the music and foley superb. The film's more artistic shots are beautifully composed. I appreciate the film for what it tried to be and look forward to Hintermann's next project - but this is a diamond in the very, very rough.

It's been a while since seeing Charles Dance's name on a cast list has suggested anything compelling to follow, and here is just another story that allows him to don a wig, doublet and hoes and help us solve a time-shift mystery. "Eva" (Lotte Verbeek) is studying the history of medicine at a remote facility where "Dr. Anmuth" (Dance) is her supervisor. As she delves deeper into the mysteries of her science, she discovers that he was also an 18th century physician at the cutting edge (depending on your perspective) of clinical practise diverting from that hardly evolved since God was a boy and leeches were ten for a pound down the apothecary. Her research uncovers the eponymous piece of literature and that's when we all start to experience the parallel timelines of this story as her 21st century, pregnant, character shows startling similarities to that of an 18th century counterpart "Elizabeth" - a wealthy woman in the care of "Anmuth". Facing modern day pressures from colleagues and latter day pressures from family and friends entirely suspicious of any kind of new thinking, she must walk a perilous tightrope. Verbeek is not a very imposing actor, and here she is supported by the equally unimpressive Sverrir Gudnason ("Lindgren") and though, admittedly, Dance does bring a little gravitas to the proceedings, he too struggles to get what could have been quite an intriguing story off the ground. It looks quite good, cash has clearly been spent, but not on the writing and the talent and that's disappointing.

A real mixed bag. A twin timeline, one in 18th century Prussia, a second in modern day. The actors play similar roles in both timelines which flicks backwards and forwards incorporating dream sequences that play a major part in the telling and formulation of the plots. Occasionally, the timelines and dreams are mixed in present day and can become confusing or intriguing depending on how you cope with non linear storytelling.

The Good parts are, as ever, Charles Dance, the costumes, settings, the dream sequences and the basic plot outline.

Where it falls down is in the execution. The script is wooden in parts, delightful in others. Some actors have had their parts overdubbed for some reason. The ending fails to deliver the emotional punch that the film builds up to. That said it's a pleasant enough ride up until that point.