The Girl from Nowhere

I found this a wonderful portrait of an unusual relationship between an older man, a thinker, a philosopher, and a young woman, who turns out to be quite a special thinker herself. The main thrust of the story, is that each has a need for the other, but also each is fiercely independent. Consequently, this sets up a conflict, both inside the individuals and between them. The conflict is generally good-natured and it gave me the impression of jousting, to try to arrive at a compromise, that suited each of them. There is some interesting philosophical discussion. Unfortunately, I found the ending disappointing. It was abrupt, and gave me the impression, that the writer was at a loss, as how to end the movie. For me this, however didn't negate the interesting material, that proceeded it. Only for those, who enjoy watching the subtleties of human relationships.

Regardless of any criticisms that may be voiced about the film, I have developed a profound love for it. There are numerous reasons behind this sentiment, most notably the fact that proponents of postmodern art theory and those who understand the ever-changing artistic elements within temporal and digital contexts cannot craft a cinematic image that is simultaneously realistic, sensitive, and imbued with a sense of strangeness. Even in terms of execution and with a nearly nonexistent budget, it is sheer nonsense to claim otherwise. Those who support such claims are individuals who fundamentally fail to grasp the profound significance of experiencing a cinematic image as a living expression of what individuals convey when they bring their ideas to life on a moving canvas.

This film, likewise, is a creation borne out of nothingness, much like the girl born from the void. It presents intimate dialogues concerning thinkers who do not believe in the metaphysical realm, yet peacefully sway within the aesthetic mysticism of history and self, driven by the natural human desire for fulfillment. They dream, they contemplate, and they philosophize because they are humans who cannot be easily confined within the boundaries of reality. They are experimental.

The context of the film speaks to this form of human empathy within a cinematic framework, crafted by a director who attempted to compose his entire cinematic history through an individual project that, despite years of anticipation, failed to secure the necessary funding. Consequently, he decided to take on the role himself, alongside a girl and a friend, within the confines of his own home, utilizing a dilapidated camera.

Priso, a director who is madly devoted to his artistic world and philosophy, is incredibly captivating in this film.

The narrative dialogues vividly illustrate the fragility of consciousness at times and its strength at other times, as well as the formation of human desires that drive individuals towards belief despite their lack of faith.

It is a profound philosophical exploration within an era where films of this nature are no longer afforded genuine presence.

It is a film about the isolation of individuals when they engage in creative thinking, regardless of the closed boundaries of their creativity and its intersection with a domain that is not their own, as exemplified by the living element of the film itself. The presence of Priso as an actor allows him to fully acknowledge that he is not an actor and does not fulfill the expectations placed upon him. It is the very idea that the film presents through the measurements of conceptual models it showcases.

This is a film that is not easily embraced, simply because it does not conform to the conventional requirements of mainstream cinema within the context of postmodernism and digital systems.

I watched this film on video and was going to come back to it later, as it was already late when I started. I ended up watching it to the end, captivated by the actors and the various elements woven into the "action" (the word action only being partly appropriate). You may find yourself wondering, should you watch it, how much was left out of the final cut: For several elements touched on as the film unfolded were left open-ended. For would-be actors (or directors) an example of the power of understatement.

This film is mostly drama...it has a tad bit or horror in it. But this is not a horror film. I found the story entertaining. The acting was great. It is a French film. I did not mind reading the subtitles.

I rate this film and 8 because it feels like an 8 compared to the other films I have viewed recently.

Good choice for leading man. He seemed effortless in his acting and I was easily absorbed.

The leading lady was attractive and charming. All her scenes were believable.

The story was obviously fiction. But to me that true virtues of this movie is that you allowed yourself to be absorbed and suspended reality to be engulfed in the movie.

Jean-Claude Brisseau is an interesting and very original filmmaker with a lot of personality. Personally, I find that he's "akin" with Francois Truffaut and Eric Rohmer. We find him here not only as a director and writer, but also as an actor. The whole movie is a philosophical dialogue between his character, Michel Deviliers and Dora's character, played by Virginie Legeay. Towards the end of the film we have Brisseau's personal brand, the erotic scene, very soft here, not hard as those in "À l'aventure". The film has a unique atmosphere, is well played. The end, most difficult for any film, is easily missed. Anyway, those who like movies like Batman, Superman, Captain America and other similar bullshit, to stay away, could commit suicide while watching...