3 commentaires
Thought-reader Joseph (Sebastian Saville) is undergoing a new procedure which mixes computer analysis, brain monitoring, and psychotherapy. It takes him deep within into his soul and causes him to reflect on his past, present and future. These thoughts are seen as snippets of footage on grainy surveillance-type video, newsreels that reveal Joseph's inner psyche and memories, and some seemingly normal scenes played out in various scenarios. These are all accompanied by Joseph's poetic voice- over, Jane Arden's score, and the occasional question or reflections noted by the analyst Professor Zanof (also played by Saville).
This film will be hard to review as I just couldn't come to any clear conclusions on the film's point or themes. It is clear to see that Joseph is in fact not a very nice man, peddling drugs when he's not reading people's thoughts at card games. This is pretty much the only thing that made logical sense. It is, however, not a film to be watched and enjoyed, but a film to experience. After a while, I just rested my brain and simply watched what was happening in front of me. The film is dazzling, confusing, eerie, atmospheric, and occasionally actually gripping. Co-director Jane Arden is something of a cult national treasure, who dabbled in theatre and feminism in her somewhat diverse body of work, and she brings intelligence and artistic flair in which what could have been a pretty dull art project. Thankfully the film stays just on the right side of pretentious.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
This film will be hard to review as I just couldn't come to any clear conclusions on the film's point or themes. It is clear to see that Joseph is in fact not a very nice man, peddling drugs when he's not reading people's thoughts at card games. This is pretty much the only thing that made logical sense. It is, however, not a film to be watched and enjoyed, but a film to experience. After a while, I just rested my brain and simply watched what was happening in front of me. The film is dazzling, confusing, eerie, atmospheric, and occasionally actually gripping. Co-director Jane Arden is something of a cult national treasure, who dabbled in theatre and feminism in her somewhat diverse body of work, and she brings intelligence and artistic flair in which what could have been a pretty dull art project. Thankfully the film stays just on the right side of pretentious.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
- tomgillespie2002
- 12 juin 2011
- Permalien
A mixed bag, and one that will hit people differently – this is very much a 'matter of taste' movie - but for me there was much more good than bad.
It's an experimental film, one that at times feels like it would be more at home on a museum wall than in a movie theater: A young man who seems to be able to see the future and read the minds of others, but who has no insight into or understanding of himself seeks treatment from a therapist in a vaguely futuristic world. This simple story is presented in a very abstract and surreal way, with more than a hint of Godard ("Alphaville" especially).
On the down side the lead actor (Sebastian Saville) plays both the subject and the therapist (complete with a hopefully intentionally funny German accent for the latter). This leads to all sorts of not very deep notions about being our own therapist, holding up a mirror to ourselves etc. It's not helped that some of the psychiatrist's dialogue are over-the-top new age clichés that probably sounded a lot hipper, deeper and fresher in 1979 when the film was made.
On the other hand, the film makes great use of images, boldly mixing very rough black and white video played back on monitors --often in step frame slow motion -- with beautifully shot color film images. These images cover much the same thematic ground as the heavy dialogue, but do a much better job of making the ideas feel alive, vital, and often disturbing.
And not all the dialogue is bad. There are some effective and creepy dialogue scenes. It's just more variable.
In the end, I find both images and ideas have stuck with me, which is really all you can ask for this kind of film-making. It's more interested in being challenging than entertaining, but for enough of it's running time – for me – it managed to be both. But very much a case of 'your mileage may vary'.
It's an experimental film, one that at times feels like it would be more at home on a museum wall than in a movie theater: A young man who seems to be able to see the future and read the minds of others, but who has no insight into or understanding of himself seeks treatment from a therapist in a vaguely futuristic world. This simple story is presented in a very abstract and surreal way, with more than a hint of Godard ("Alphaville" especially).
On the down side the lead actor (Sebastian Saville) plays both the subject and the therapist (complete with a hopefully intentionally funny German accent for the latter). This leads to all sorts of not very deep notions about being our own therapist, holding up a mirror to ourselves etc. It's not helped that some of the psychiatrist's dialogue are over-the-top new age clichés that probably sounded a lot hipper, deeper and fresher in 1979 when the film was made.
On the other hand, the film makes great use of images, boldly mixing very rough black and white video played back on monitors --often in step frame slow motion -- with beautifully shot color film images. These images cover much the same thematic ground as the heavy dialogue, but do a much better job of making the ideas feel alive, vital, and often disturbing.
And not all the dialogue is bad. There are some effective and creepy dialogue scenes. It's just more variable.
In the end, I find both images and ideas have stuck with me, which is really all you can ask for this kind of film-making. It's more interested in being challenging than entertaining, but for enough of it's running time – for me – it managed to be both. But very much a case of 'your mileage may vary'.
- runamokprods
- 15 oct. 2016
- Permalien
The British underground filmmaking team of Jack Bond and Jane Arden, previously responsible for "Separation" (1967) and other projects, have devised an anti-rational, mystical exercise in science fiction call, ed "Anti-Clock". Using both video and film techniques, pic surprisingly lacks much visual invention. Even fans of experimental films will be dismayed at the over-reliance upon soundtrack dialog and narration.
Science fiction premise is an off-shoot of George Lucas's "THX 1138" for Warners, as murmuring technicians' voices establish that Joseph Sapha's mind has been programmed to follow set behavior patterns. As Sapha attempts to rebel against this deterministic universe and claim some freedom of choice, the viewer is treated to a barrage of distorted video images, old newsreels, and some bland, token film footage of events Sapha either experiences or imagines. The fragmentary presentation reflects the film's on and off shooting and editing schedule, which stretched over a three-year period.
As with many faddists and hoaxers, the filmmakers take scientific principles and draw absurd conclusions from them out of context. In "Anti-Clock" the theories of physics formulated by Heisenberg and Einstein to explain the properties of subatomic particles are fatuously applied to human behavior. This gives Bond and Arden license to rail out against sexism and materialism, but their "we are all one" philosophy is strained. Despite contributions by several talented cameramen, film is a technical shambles.
My review was written in September 1980 after a screening at the British Film Now series at Lincoln Center.
Science fiction premise is an off-shoot of George Lucas's "THX 1138" for Warners, as murmuring technicians' voices establish that Joseph Sapha's mind has been programmed to follow set behavior patterns. As Sapha attempts to rebel against this deterministic universe and claim some freedom of choice, the viewer is treated to a barrage of distorted video images, old newsreels, and some bland, token film footage of events Sapha either experiences or imagines. The fragmentary presentation reflects the film's on and off shooting and editing schedule, which stretched over a three-year period.
As with many faddists and hoaxers, the filmmakers take scientific principles and draw absurd conclusions from them out of context. In "Anti-Clock" the theories of physics formulated by Heisenberg and Einstein to explain the properties of subatomic particles are fatuously applied to human behavior. This gives Bond and Arden license to rail out against sexism and materialism, but their "we are all one" philosophy is strained. Despite contributions by several talented cameramen, film is a technical shambles.
My review was written in September 1980 after a screening at the British Film Now series at Lincoln Center.