Shirkers

A great story that could've been cut by 30 minutes

As a piece of film-making in its own right, this a hypnotic and visually captivating production. As far as the content goes, it is just too self-important and pretentious to bear its own weight. The mystery regarding Georges is comfortably the most compelling aspect of the film yet is not explored in anywhere near enough detail. That is the real story here, not the group of amateur film-makers who naively lost their footage and have overblown their memories of it.

"Henceforth, audience's curiosity is sizably whetted, and Tan's ensuing quest of "who is Georges Cardona" spirits us away to Cardona's hometown, interviewing his acquaintances and ex-wife (whose image is gingerly pixelated and only referred as "the widow"), and discloses a vague picture what a man he was, Nosferatu is the ostensible consensus: a fabulist who is envious of the achievement of his protégés, which he is not above to undermine at his convenience. Georges makes for such a fascinating case of mental complexity, the first impression he makes on others: emitting congeniality that incongruent with the cold glint in his eyes, might be the best encapsulation, however, SHIRKERS seem to pull punches in burrowing deeper into the truth (a half measure in our post-truth paranoia), whether it is from Tan's own equivocal interrelation with Georges, or the widow's conspicuous "I don't know anything about it" disclaimer."

I love documentaries. I love indie films. I was at one time a wannabe filmmaker just like the director of this film. So I was confounded that this film would have such a high rating. For the most part I felt the core of the film is almost a tale of the mundane (like someone telling you the one time their bike was stolen and how it was like totally a horrible experience). Because it recounts the trials and tribulations of a amateur production (which weren't that wild really), and are similar to stories that pretty much every film maker has. If Shirkers had actually been a film and had come out and been groundbreaking, then there would be a point to all this. A documentary like Lost in La Mancha is a good example of a documentary about a film gone wrong. This, however, is just another wannabe filmmaker saying they made this one amazing film, but it got ruined because of (fill in the blank). The one interesting part of the tale was George's story. It was what this film truly should have been about. Unfortunately, his story comes in to focus about an hour into the film and never gets thoroughly resolved or explored. Because this film is after all about the director, about her lost work, about the feelings it elicited from here -- in other words, all about her. There really is nothing else that the film explores. That ego-centricity is clear through the often clunky narration and through some of the interviews. As some friends even state, everything is about Tan. And that is what this film is, a film about a film written by her, starring her. So why should others be interested in it?

A director explores the myth of Singapore's independent cinema: Shirkers, a film made by her and her friends, with the help of a mysterious man.

The atmosphere of this documentary is very interesting, mixing drama with the mood of a serial killer tv show.

It's a well-structured portrait of a young woman dreams, the ambition to change the concept of cinema, in a country with strong censorship and restrictions, as was Singapore in the 90s, and how someone with a perverse and vicious mind can ruin a so beloved project, and traumatize everyone involved.

Some critics and general public think it's pretentious, I disagree with that opinion, it's not intended to increase the protagonist/director's (Sandi Tan) ego, but rather to show how a group of creative minds can be manipulated when they are not yet mature enough to realize how real life works.