A Woman, a Part

Saw this movie at the Rotterdam film festival (IFFR.COM) 2016. It was part of the official Tiger Award Competition, due to a new policy this year being confined to only eight movies. The latter (competition = festival's flagship) inevitably gives rise to high expectations. I'm happy to say that this was the first time during the festival that the Competition section really delivered an interesting experience. (As a side note: The rest of the IFFR Competition mostly disappointed, as I could appreciate only 2 out of 8. But that is a different story altogether.)

Centerpiece is an understandable dilemma, nothing far-fetched about it, and the rest of the plot is equally comprehensible and very realistic. In retrospect the ending is a logical development out of the foregoing events, though I confess that I did not see it coming. For me, it was a real surprise how things eventually came about. Throughout the running time my interest remained, and I saw no real dull or slow moments. A second confession is that I admit that some of the discussions went past me, but it did not make a difference to value the movie in total with score maximum 5 for the audience award when leaving the theater.

The IMDb synopsis made me start on the wrong foot, however. It promised an attempt to study a series of contemporary issues, entailing nothing less than (start quote) "gentrification, addiction, autoimmune disease, burnout, sexism in the film industry and 21st century marketing of the self" (end quote). Don't expect answers for any of these real-life problems, however. If only I had something useful to say about one or two themes out of this list, I would have been very happy. And this movie did not enlighten me either on these interesting topics.

There was so little in this movie that I could relate to. Sure, I've had several friendships with a few not-easy-to-get-around complications, but it seems the entire world of acting is filled with loads of people wandering confused, ravenously curious as to who they really are, what it is that best defines them, and what place or situation actually fulfills them.

They play at roles, they play at friendships, they play at responsibilities, they play at sex, and, in the end, they play at everything. There are no absolutes or boundaries.

From one who stands completely outside that arena, I feel somewhat awakened to why so many in acting are thoroughly liberal. They give voice to any role, justify it, and in so doing, toss any stabilizing standards aside.

I'm reminded of Pernell Roberts, or Adam Cartwright on the TV show Bonanza, who detested having to go to work playing the part of one of four brothers, none of whom were married, and each well over the age of marriage, yet still under their father's roof. He wanted released from contract, as I see it, and finally got his wish. What was on his mind day and night as he longed for an escape? Was it equally as complicated?

I must have missed where AIDS was presented by a scene in the movie. I didn't see it, although I did notice that bisexuality appeared to be on everyone's mind.

I'm so glad I never chose acting.

Watching this movie, I couldn't get pass the 25 minute mark. I'm being generous because if I had read the script it wouldn't have passed the 15 page test. To be fair, there "is" a movie here, but once you edit out all the "redundant, unnecesarry, and superfluous" scenes, it's a short. However, it's a short I'd like to see. Keep the doctor scene at the beginning, maybe even start with it, as it's the best example of really good writing and acting - one that moves the story forward - from what little I could see. Rule of thumb, never tell the audience what they already know and never tell an audience what they already know.