Manifesto

Cate Blanchett once again displays her vast array of talent as she plays 12 different characters in 12 different settings decontextualising some of history's famous manifestos, bringing humour and new meaning to them, or perhaps no meaning, to stress a view of meaninglessness to them. There is no conventional narrative here but the film still has urgency to keep you watching through its compelling art direction and wit.

Almost 2 hours of different art manifestos performed by Cate Blanchett who plays many different characters that aren't interconnected. There is no plot or story and although Mrs Blanchett is a very able and efficient actress none of it touches you and you don't get where its all going, what did the director want with this? Apart from showing us how clever he is? It reminds me more of a museum/video-installation type of thing than something you would put in a cinema.

I didn't quite get it myself maybe partly cause english isn't my native language and the profanity was distracting but I think the general idea was about art being put on a leash with rules and manufactured for the consumer (like in the scene where the teacher CORRECTS the art of children instead of leaving it as it is) rather than being created as it is.It also seems to be about being too obsessed with glorifying old art and not really creating anything unique to our current time.

The Manifesto is a German artist Julien Rosefeldt, played by Cate Blanchett's 13 different characters. Each character that Blanchett spots plays and sings passages from different manifestos. It's obviously a hard-to-follow, hard-core movie.

Still, the film has a fluent narrative. Rosefeldt identifies each character with a manifesto. It is possible to say, "What does he mean?" As the words flow rapidly. Because the content needs to be placed in a context and doing so is not possible because of the "difficult to follow" that I am talking about.

Although this situation reduces the pleasure of the film, it is not disconnected from the narrative that it reveals in general terms. Blanchett offers a one-man show. He did not portray his characters as if he had lived / lived. In parallel, I can say that atmosphere, make-up and fiction are also top level. It is also worth noting that the manifestos associated with Blanchett's performance, or the humor that he created about the contents ...

I'm convinced that the internet has erased all meaning from the word "pretentious." It once meant exactly what it sounds like, pretending to be something other than what you are. This film, along with all non-standard films, has evoked countless online accusations of pretense, which in the world of online movie reviews actually just means that the reviewer found it weird and boring. The film does not, and be aware of this is if you plan on watching it, contain a plot-based, narrative fantasy for viewers to follow to a satisfying conclusion. What it does is combine together short slice-of-life vignettes with the reading of various bits of aesthetic and philosophical manifestos. Its appeal will be limited to only people who find the rantings of tortured souls interesting. I have actually read quite a few of the bits that were included in the film, and I find the whole absurd reality of artistic manifestos and philosophical creeds fascinating, so I enjoyed the film. If you're not that kind of nerd, you won't like it. But is it pretentious? No. It did not pretend to be anything other than what it was: a presentation of some famous manifestos in combination with scenes from ordinary life. It is certainly weird, and it will certainly bore most viewers. As always Cate Blanchett's performance is incredible. The cinematography is impeccable.