Bottom of the World

By chance, I watched this the same day I saw Jim Jarmusch's Paterson. Both are similar, but both fail for completely different reasons.

Bottom of the World does not know what it wants to be. It tells a non- linear story that gives itself away about 40 minutes into the film. After that, it follows a predictable path of key symbols to clue the viewer in to what is actually happening. It should have gone a completely different route and stuck with the bizarre, weird, sleazy feel it had at the beginning. It turns into a very underwhelming second half as it drifts away and fades into the same trap many other similar movies fall into. It tries too hard to pull a complicated story together in a very silly way.

The pace and acting are appropriate and the director does a good job with atmosphere and mood, but it falls flat overall.

Bottom of the World is an strange, spellbinding film, because it is one of those rare films that doesn't contain a blatant plot; there's multiple unexpected plot twists and shifts where you are held strictly responsible for paying very close attention and attempt devise an idea of what's actually happening throughout the film. Jena Malone is great at portraying a woman's spiral into mental anguish brought on by guilt from an act of terrible violence. The underlying religious themes run strong. That's just my theory.

I kind of liked 'Bottom of the World'. I make no bones about the fact I'm a fan of the 'mystery' genre, and this film certainly had an element of mystery to it. It's a film where the audience knows as little about what's going on as the characters (if not even less at times), yet there are constant hints as to the direction our thinking should be going in. Then a nice little ending was the icing on the cake.

The whole "nothing makes sense, what is going on?" thing has been done in movies thousands of times over the years, but it always seems to work. I think in a way, much like a magic show, the audience wants to be fooled, or at least in a state of curiosity. It can also be quite easy for film makers to pull off, because the usual linear film making techniques obviously go out the window, and thus it can be harder for an audience to judge what is actually good and what is not.

Some people on the other hand will always hate this type of film and that's fine. I see 'Bottom of the World' being a very polarising film. Some will have a great time with it, while others will utterly despise it. I was in the former camp.

This is a movie that offers an assortment of David Lynch trademarks, in service of a story that's all surface and has none of the pervasive worldview - the perspective - of a David Lynch film. It reads as homage, I guess, but aside from the flattery of imitation it has nothing to offer.

Elements of Lost Highway, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart are pretty obvious. There's even a lamp with a red shade.

I guess if, like the filmmakers, you enjoy Lynch and have no idea why, you might like this. But if you like substance with your knockoff style, move along.

Anyway, this film was fairly fun if you like to think, figure things out. Like watching the 'best of' compilation of someone else's fever dreams. Bottom of the World delves under the surface, to the dark foundations that we embrace by night and ignore by day. This conceit is taken to a psychological level and into the disturbing unconscious mind of Scarlett (Jena Malone) and her creation of a new reality. The film leaves us with more questions than answers but hats off to trying to make something different and challenging to the viewer. I don't recall a film that was entirely a creation of the sub-conscious other than - Fight Club?