Une pause, quatre soupirs

I stumbled across this little piece of fluff on IFC television last night. It had a cast worth checking, so in spite of IFC's unhopeful two star rating, I settled in to watch. What an odd little film.

The actor's performances were good -- very natural in terms of their interactions and relationships. The pace was a tad slow -- while I don't think movies need fist fights and explosions to create pace, a dialog-intensive film needs to beware of ......................... long..................................pauses. Still, that is a minor criticism in my view. If that was the only flaw in the film, I could and would have given it a higher rating because for the most part the actors handled those dialogic gaps pretty well.

The worse problem with this film was its failure in my view to address the fundamental "So what?" question. I was never given any reason to care a whit about any of these characters, with the limited exception of Beth (Bridget Fonda) whom I was hoping would get the hell out of Enfield. After she left, I rooted for her not be found by the pseudo-intellectual painter, Sid. Beth had made a couple of very bad choices, with the amoral Nick (Tim Roth) and the vacuous pop-psychologist, Sid, so I was rooting for her to stick to her guns, enjoy the moments of pleasure she had with Sid, and get away before her brain turned entirely to mush. Either Nick or Sid would have destroyed her: Nick with his amoral outlook and lack of direction; Sid with his pretensions of profundity that he used to shield his fundamental lack of imagination and ambition.

Still, I didn't care a helluva lot about Beth either. She made the right decision (finally), but her escape was not a complete triumph because for all we know she fell into yet another destructive relationship with some other needy weirdo two towns over.

All of these characters, in the end, were drifting along in pointless situations. With a film so lacking in plot, brevity was important and, thankfully, present. If this movie had pushed toward the two-hour mark, it would have been an utter waste of time unless the time had been used to give the viewer a reason to care about this crew of self-indulgent dim-wits.

This movie is in a category I like to call time and place. It has a very powerful resonance with someone who is experiencing a similar dilemma. For me I originally watched it when it came out and thought the dialogue was well-paced and witty and the acting from Fonda, Roth, and Cates was superb. I recently watched the film again, because I had somewhat grown into its situation. Needless to say it was nearly poetic in a way. That western landscape and feeling of restlessness... My only major complaint was the scoring was a little tedious at times.

If you have an attention span of sit-com-length, this is not your movie. True, it's 90 minutes or so, but those moments are stretched- as they should be. Sid's character (the sage, of sorts) wants to stretch a moment, and that is what this movie seeks to do. For the most part, these characters are ordinary people- and the actors play them as such. The dialogue isn't expository, but it's real- the characters interact as any person would. There are no huge turning points, explosions, love-struck stares, and all the rest of the hollywood spin supposed to be "real." These are people who could live down the street.

The best part, though, was the cinematography- the camera work is beautiful. There are just enough jump cuts to get your attention, but for the most part, the camera frames these ordinary lives without intruding on them, all while capturing the oranges, reds, and warm whites of the Arizona landscape.

While the character of the painter is supposed to be a sage- offering wise comments about identity and humanity, I was relieved when his mistakes/flaws were finally revealed at the end. All-in-all, the symbols and stress points made for a thoughtful movie.

Bodies, Rest & Motion is the type of film that you stumble onto on cable one night, you recognize some of your favorite actors in it, so you decide to watch. I didn't get much out of this film. I have always loved Bridget Fonda and Tim Roth is one of my favorite actors -- I feel the film gave them a lot of material to work with. Great acting -- I even found Eric Stoltz to be moving.

The story is not really there -- the film is more about human interaction; goals; and love. Not a picture worth seeking out, but fans of these actors might enjoy it.

I'd imagine the average person would find this quite dull and pointless. Possibly even pretentious and unrealistic. Others will revel in the intimate, stage-like, indie, slice-of-life, raw, gutty aspects of the film. I found it utterly engaging and nostalgic until the final act.

The illusion starting falling apart for me near the end. I was a teenager at this time, so don't get me wrong - people were different in the 90s. Conversations happened. Randomly. People connected in real life over books, music etc and even had relationships based on those encounters! Shocking, I know! But aspects of this film felt forced and unrealistic.

The world's changed and it's good to remember a time when genuine connections randomly happened, but I don't know if this film earnestly encapsulates that time. I enjoyed it overall and it's almost theruptic to open up the time capsule once in a while. Great cast, unique locations, not the deepest story, but these indie dramas from the 90s are nostalgic for me, so I'll give a moderate thumbs up for the performances, settings and independent look and feel of this film.