Tales from the Gimli Hospital

I picked up this movie since I live in Gimli, and have heard interesting things about Guy Maddin. Though certainly a strange and surrealist film, it is also a monument and critique of Icelandic culture, and Gimli, where he had a summer cottage. If you know the history of Gimli, and are familiar with Icelandic culture, certain parts of the film do not seem strange at all. I would be interested in knowing how people not knowing these things interpreted things like the marriage across the river, or the food served at the hospital. I am in love with the aesthetics of it. He has been able to capture the exact look of early films, right down to actors and costuming, yet this doesn't seem to take over the film. Though I am personally a bigger fan of Maddin's short films, I enjoyed trying to work my way through this.

As strange and surreal as this movie is, I just love it. Shockingly enough I seem to be quite fond of this strange, art-house type of movies.

It's a very surreal movie, that is shot in 1920's/1930's style. It means that the entire movie is black & white and even old fashioned looking, with all of its sets, costumes and make-up effects but also its style of acting and the way some scene's are being set up and executed. It's also a throwback to old European surreal and more stylish type of movies, from the '50's and '60's. Movies that were not just style over substance but also ones that had a good effective story in it, no matter how well it got hidden all underneath its surreal images and strange moments.

And yes, this movie as well has a very strange but fascinating story, set at a strange hospital, about patients with a strange disease, in a strange time, in a strange far off place. It's apparently set in Gimli, Canada, which is also know as the capital of New Iceland, despite it being a very small town. It also explains some of the strange Scandinavian names and accents the characters have.

If you just happen to stumble upon this movie somewhere and decide to watch it, without knowing anything about it, you would not believe that this movie got actually released in 1988. It's that good looking in its very old fashioned way. It's amazing the amount of detail they spend on this movie and director and writer Guy Maddin truly managed to capture an unique, old fashioned, grainy type of atmosphere. But it's also thanks to the casting of some old fashioned type of looking persons, that makes the movie and its story work out convincing as an old one.

Clearly, it's a movie that will not appeal to every person and some mind find it just a bit too strange and not fascinating enough. This movie is really a matter of taste, more than anything else but if you're fond of some surreal type of films (like David Lynch movies), European type of old films (lets say Ingmar Bergman type of movies), or some of the movies from the 1920's and 1930's, this movie is really worth a watch and changes are you might end up really liking it.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The comments made above by "Spearin" express my own reaction to this film.

I rented it on DVD because it sounded intriguing, but fully expected to yank the disc before it fairly got underway. To my pleased surprise, I was caught up in the story and captivated by the photography from the first seconds, and thoroughly enjoyed the experience--so much so, in fact, that I immediately replayed the movie with the director's often droll narration superimposed.

Also on the DVD I rented was a short film by the same author, "The Dead Father," which is well worth watching. It, perhaps even more than "Tales from the Gimli Hospital," evokes early French surrealist film, but not in a slavish way.

Both films gave me food for thought--about film and about human relationships. I guess this "nourishment" aspect of film-viewing is my basic criterion for judgment. On that basis, I voted an "eight" for "Tales from the Gimli Hospital."

By the way, I was very interested to learn (from the director's commentary) some of the actual history of Gimli and its settlers. These were tough, courageous people.

Guy Maddin's "Tales from Gimli Hospital" is a surreal locomotive of a film that never for a second pretends to make a lick of sense. Characters and events lack logic and motivation, leaving the proceedings within an oddball world of duck feathers, Indian burials, and mute men (some in blackface). The result is intriguing yet pretentious and too deliberately ambiguous (while "Eraserhead" made less narrative sense, its 'clues' were more meticulously assembled), but shows promise from writer-director Guy Maddin, who successfully invokes the classic styles of German Expressionism and even "Hour of the Wolf"-era Ingmar Bergman.

In the modern town of Gimli, two young children watch their mother dying in hospital. To distract them they are told a story of old Gimli by their grandmother. In the story it is Gimli years ago when live was disrupted by an outbreak of smallpox. With poor medical facilities available to him, Einar finds himself in a nightmarish half-waking state of "care" with other sufferers, including his friend Gunnar, who are somewhere between life and death. The two friends grow close but shared secrets threaten to tear them apart as the world around them changes quickly.

As someone who actually likes Guy Maddin I still have to be honest and say that, while my favourite films of his have narratives I like, usually his work is not where you want to come for stories that grip you and make a lot of sense. And so it is with his first feature film, a story that is being told to two children who, for some reason, are in the room where their mother is dying; it sounds strange and indeed it is. The narrative is interesting enough but if that's all there was here of value then you'd have given up quite quickly; happily there is enough of interest going on to engage the audience despite the narrative being rather incoherent at times. This is not to say that it will appeal to all viewers because of course it will not, but for those that "get" his other films, the story will not be a problem.

The reason for this is that his unique style is fully on display here (albeit with a lower budget) and this makes it interesting if not totally engrossing. At times the style overwhelmed the lesser substance to such an extent that it did feel rather hollow but this was a rare feeling for me. Normally I have that problem with his shorts but, with a low running time, it usually doesn't matter so much. With his features it can be a problem but he mastered it with the wonderful Cowards Bend At The Knee and he does enough to cover it here. It did feel a bit sparse at times although that is probably more to do with me being used to his bigger budget films (bigger being a comparative term) rather than the film being weak visually. The cast don't really give much in the way of performances so much as be carried along with the direction but this isn't that much of a problem since the film was never about them.

Overall this film is an acquired taste that will not appeal to those who dislike other Maddin films. Compared to his later films, this feels a lot less flashy and sparse but it still works and will please fans of Maddin. Narrative-wise it has some problems that viewers may find difficult to get past but the many strange and imaginative touches to the overall delivery of the film more than cover for these issues and, while not an equal to some of his recent work, this is still worth a watch.