Visitors

I was fortunate enough to come out of a European premiere with Glass and Reggio doing a small Q&A after the screening, providing some insight in their scoring/filmmaking process.

Should you already be familiar with other Reggio/Glass collaborations, expect no surprises; the film takes gracefully advantage of modern cinematic techniques and some CGI, but in its core is using the same visual narrative introduced in Koyaanisqatsi, albeit using humans primarily as a focus.

Reggio does have an overarching vision and communicates it with deliberation, but that vision tries to capture expression and reaction predominantly around technology, in its spontaneity. Although most of the people depicted are indeed actors, they were given no script or instructions, merely captured after given certain stimuli. The nature/human relationship is once again explored, I feel however, to a lesser degree compared to his older material.

A lot of viewers would not find logical or coherent structure in it, but as Reggio pointed out, that was not the movie's goal. Rather, it is more of a collage of visual elements as for the viewer to experience, absorb and process as they will.

It's been a real privilege to have followed Godfrey Reggio's work from Koyaanisqatsi (1982) until his latest, Visitors, a bold and profound continuation of his cinematic vision and dialogue.

Some of the readers of the reviews of this movie will hopefully see the particularly relevant irony of those who lividly complain about this movie being "boring, "slow", "uninteresting", "pointless", "a waste of time", "worst movie ever", "watch in fast forward mode!". They may never appreciate that the long takes of people's faces, seemingly in trances, are simply reflections of their own faces in the Reggio mirror. They are looking at themselves as they spend most of their awake time - visually plugged into their Wide Screen TVs, computer screens, video games, movie screens, smart phones, etc.. Immediate gratification, exuberant sensory stimulation and simple short answers frustratingly pervade these commentators as it does our now screen-based civilization.

With the ubiquity of screen-based existence, humanity has changed drastically in only a few decades. It's up to you to decide if that's good or bad but if you are familiar with Reggio's work, it can pretty much be summed up as his artistic rendering of the impact industry and technology has had on us - our species - spiritually, culturally, socially, individually, artistically, commercially etc, and importantly, the parallel impacts these changes have had on nature. The continuous visual juxtaposition between humans and animals, between dead buildings and dead landscapes are pure Reggio, beautiful yet deeply dark, illustrating this parallel both literally and in layers of metaphor and symbolism. The inability to sense or comprehend these layers is, as always, a limitation of the viewer, not the artist.

The movie itself, is bold in a number of ways.

Style-wise, it is Reggio's first all black & white feature with all or much of the background transformed to black and foreground detail replaced with blown out whites - visually stunning. The underlying themes are so effectively brought out with this style. The complete lack of colour further emphasizes the addiction of our culture to sensory extremes which induce pleasing and intense moods/mental states that do not require physical motion (other than to actuate a mouse or remote control) and only require our eyes to be open and lock into the screen interface.

But the true boldness is that the focus of his "critique" is not generally towards modern human civilization (industry, war, human exploitation, environmental exploitation, poverty, etc..) as in his previous work but this time, there is a personal element mixed in with the more familiar artistic diatribe against technology. This time, you look into the Reggio mirror, and you see yourself staring, blankly, quasi-comatose, right back at yourself. You are watching yourself.. watch yourself, and it's not pretty. An unsettling realization for each and every one of us.

Relax, perhaps a glass of wine, settle down for an hour and a half, douse pre-expectations, open your mind and experience another Reggio masterpiece. Ask yourself what 'Visitor' means… Buddhists already know.

Godfrey Reggio first came to international prominence in 1982 with his extraordinary visual essay "Koyaanisqatsi", (I don't think of it as a documentary). This wordless account of 'life out of balance' was followed by "Powaqqatsi" and "Naqoyqatsi", all similarly looking at life on this planet as if seen perhaps by an outsider, an alien observing us but keeping their distance. These films were tone-poems in the most literal sense; wordless they may have been but all driven forward by the continuous, energizing scores of Philip Glass.

He made "Visitors" in 2014. The title alone alludes more to the concept of 'outside' observation although the second face we see, (of many, many faces; the first is that of a large gorilla), is of a young girl looking directly at the camera, followed by that of a man. Who, we find ourselves asking, are the visitors? The faces on the screen? Us, the audience in the auditorium? Are we watching or are we being watched? If "Koyaanisqatsi" was about 'life out of balance' then the measured pace of the shots in "Visitors" would seem to be very much about life in balance although gradually these 'still' images give way to movement, of people in slow motion, of clouds racing across the sky. Children are seen in close-up but they seem to be on a merry-go-round; the balance is being interrupted.

Of course, it's impossible to think of these images without Philip Glass' accompaniment. Perhaps never in the history of the movies has music and image been so conducive to one another than in the films of Godfrey Reggio. Lacking any kind of narrative structure I have often felt his films were more like video installations to be experienced projected onto the walls of an art gallery rather than to be seen in a cinema or on television. They are certainly the kind of films for which the term 'art-house' might have been invented.

"Visitors" is shot in black and white, making it perhaps the most 'art-house' of all his films. Is it boring? I'd be a liar if I didn't say yes but only because we are not used to seeing this kind of film-making, which is hypnotic if nothing else. Is it pretentious? Probably, but in relation to what since no-one else is doing this kind of stuff outside of the avant-garde. What's for certain is, you won't find its like elsewhere.

Wow! The word review does not apply to this film. A review implies an explanation. Which in this case would be like trying to explain a vivid dream several hours later. This film truly is a cinematic experience. A journey that I was twenty five minutes into before I realized that I was not watching a film, but rather a film was watching me. Each emotional nuance expressed created a cascading effect of conscious questions and reflections of the artistry that was unfolding. Masterfully woven images driven by an exquisitely orchestrated musical score. The images accentuate the music, or the music enhances the images. Or it could be completely the other way around? I was fortunate enough to witness the world premiere of this masterpiece at TIFF. The Toronto Symphony Orchestra performed the soundtrack live. Which in itself was a most unique cinematic experience, I strongly suggest live musical accompaniment of film should be repeated not only here in Toronto, but Globally. Everything that is old is eventually new again. Godfrey Reggio, Sir you are a genius. You have created your own artistic genre, you have expanded on it, reinvented it and turned it around on itself to create something completely new. Philip Glass, Sir you are a genius, your music is the life blood of inspiration. To all the cast and crew of this gem of a film, congratulations! And thank you.

It may be too strong of a word, but I liked KOYAANISQATSI and, to a lesser degree, NAQOYQATSI. Maybe I shouldn't use "like," when "appreciate" would be a more accurate description. For what it's worth, Godfrey Reggio has a distinct style of "documentary" filmmaking that combines images and music in interesting ways, and VISITORS is no different in that regard. Where this particular film failed for me is its extreme obliqueness and refusal to contextualize anything or even hint at a possible meaning. Perhaps it's my fault and I "just don't get it," but film appreciation goes both ways, and I shouldn't have to do all of the work. Still, however boring or unengaging I found it, the photography was nothing less than stunning and Philip Glass' music was excellent as usual. As for what's in the film, there was a lot of slow-motion close-ups of people's faces expressing a range of emotions, time-lapse photography of natural elements and man-made structures, a close-up of a gorilla, and aerial photography of the moon's surface. I suppose I could conjecture, based on what is shown and the title, that humanity is interconnected in our emotional expression as well as being "visitors" to Earth (in that we aren't here forever). There was also some juxtaposition between natural and artificial things, but that element was common in both of the previous Reggio films I watched. To be honest, I don't know quite what to make of VISITORS. It looks pretty and has a great score, but its meaning eludes me, and that's why I found it frustrating.