Aimy in a Cage

This is the kind of German Expressionism meets Art-Deco Kitsch that was popular with low-budget guerrilla filmmakers and artsy porn directors in the eighties, and even then not so much. Style-over-substance without any discernible style other than pseudo-fifties-steam-punk, this is what would happen if you gave a first-year film student a six-figure budget. If you attempt to hang on through the first twenty minutes or so hoping that a semblance of structure or cohesion will begin to take hold of what loosely passes for a plot, you'll just wind up more disappointed. You'd be better off digging up an old copy of Meet the Hollowheads or Terrorvision. Even Cafe Flesh would feel like a step up from this.

Now that was a completely different role for him. An understated gangster. Dangerous in the way of David Lynch, where there is this undercurrent of tension across his scenes that could explode at any point. Only thing is that I wish they utilized him more as the central villain of the movie, and let him really take over ala Dennis Hopper or Willem Dafoe. Glover is showing mastery across several of his scenes as the canonical villain, sowing psychological discord, and planning to make off with the cash.

I can imagine Aimy in a Cage causing great distress to a casual audience during screenings. Not so much for the content, as it's artistic and experimental form. I pity those who don't have the imagination or capacity to dream of cinema outside of a prescribed copy & paste format. There is a lot owed to Tim Burton - with the colored lighting, gaudy sets, costumes and props reminiscent of Burton's earlier works. The theme of being a repugnant and excluded artist is also present throughout. I saw the film as a subverted allegory for a girl struggling with an eating disorder, but who knows. Like the best surrealist cinema, the film flows subconsciously, like coming in-and-out of deep sleep. The cuts don't necessarily match and the audio isn't always synced, but it only adds to the orchestrated chaos of the film. Intentionally or not, I found the film hilarious in parts, especially scenes involving the Grandmother or Crispin Glover. Unfortunately, the narrative does fall-apart around the 50-minute mark (somewhat amusing in itself) as the cast shrinks downs to a trio. No doubt due to budget constraints. Still, I commend the filmmakers for creating this nightmarish fairytale, experimenting with cinema as an art-form. Which - lets face it, in recent times has reverted to being spoon-fed warm diarrhoea by major corporations.

Odd. Crazy. Confusing. But I had to keep watching to see what it was all about. I didn't skip anything and I watched into the credits. I have no idea. The performances were good. I've seen the odd obscure experimental theatre production (usually after a couple of beers) and this was in that realm. It was strangely enjoyable.

Just a heads up, this is an art film. It's weird and unpredictable. So if you go into this expecting an easily defined setup, confrontation, and resolution, you will be bitterly disappointed.

If, however, you're the type of person who can hang with the uncomfortable, unconventional, and macabre...well you might still be disappointed, but at least you'll know why.

In this film you will find random characters and bizarre situations. You might identify metaphors or parallels with society. You might just sit and smile at the absurdity of it all. So here now is your choice. Dive in and see how you fare.