jazzpiano-

'Be Kind Rewind' is set in a close-knit community, in a video rental store so small it only stocks about 50 videos - having yet made the daunting transition to DVDs. The owner of the store leaves to spy on their competitor, West Coast Videos, which has made the jump to DVD successfully, leaving Mike (Mos Def) in charge. Mike's best friend Jerry (a zany Jack Black) is a paranoid loser who manages to erase every tape after having his brain magnetised as the result of a quite spectacular electrocution. Struggling financially and unable to replace the videos, they do what any normal person wouldn't do: they remake them! These remakes are charming and lend the film much of the 'whimsy' and 'childlike wonderment' all the positive reviews keep gushing about. The process of remaking is nicknamed 'sweding' after Jerry swindles some customers into believing the remakes are imported from Sweden, and thus are very expensive.

Witnessing 'Be Kind Rewind' be (inevitably) mis-interpreted, much the same way 'The Science of Sleep' was a year or so ago, has coerced me into writing this review. This film is a light comedy - boasting quirky performances, inventive special effects and this decade's new term for the YouTube generation: swede. The explosion of sweded films online is a testament to this film's ability to unleash creativity in people.

The film is not meant to be taken too seriously! It's a delightful little ode to the art of film-making. It's light, it's funny, it's sweet(swede?). The only fault I found was at the end, which I thought was too corny and absurdly improbable, but guiltily enjoyable because it is pretty uplifting.

As for the low probability that stores somewhere on Earth are still renting out VHS, I assumed the film was set in the not-so-distant past (perhaps 4 or 5 years ago?). It works two ways: as a comedy, but also as a historical film that depicts the challenges facing, and the implications on video rental businesses, of converting to DVDs. The characters in Be Kind Rewind have procrastinated in making this transition, and the predicament the whole film is based upon is a direct result of this unwillingness to move with the times.

There is definitely enough laughs, enough emotion, and enough clever sub-text about history and technology to keep viewers interested. I thought there were many clever allusions in the film, most notably when Sigourney Weaver, making a very self-reflexive cameo as a copyright infringement lawyer, comments, "And we're the bad guys", in reference to the binary opposites used in classical Hollywood narratives: good vs. bad etc. This film has so much to offer below the surface, and it really is worth viewing several times.

So, after much consideration, my disappointment lies not in the film as I originally suspected, but with you. The audience. My rating is not a reflection of how technically good the film is, nor the result of comparison to 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' - it is a measure of how much I enjoyed the film, and enjoyed it I did. Comparing it to a film of a different genre with a different writer with different ambitions as a film is not fair. This film doesn't pretend to be super-deep, philosophical or art-house. It is unashamedly directed at a mainstream audience, and this is key to understanding why this film is receiving so many bad reviews. The film is not bad in itself.

I bet if no-one knew it was by Michel Gondry it would be hailed as an original masterwork (much like 'Being John Malkovich' was, almost solely on its bizarre premise) - what does that say about audiences?

Firstly, I am shocked at all the positive reviews for this film. On a superficial level it is a fine film; technically very strong and well-paced. However, the film is full of so much contradictory stereotyping and half-baked social commentary that it falls flat on its face. The acting is also terribly wooden, and I doubt I can find the kindness within myself to call it 'understated'. The music comes in when any small drama occurs, and the audience is pushed to care for two characters who really never become likable because they are played by two blank-faced actors.

I am particularly intrigued as to why an Aboriginal director would want to perpetuate the stereotype of his people - Drugs? Guns? Tattoos? Domestic abuse? Teenage pregnancy? Drinking? EVEN an eyepatch? Aren't you going a bit far? And every time director Sen tries to de-construct or analyse this stereotype he ends up reverting back to it (one specific example is when Vaughn spits in the cop's face). The stereotyping of white police is especially brutal - there is not one decent cop around according to this film. In fact, white people in general are not too favourably looked upon. The only nice white person in this film is an old man who gives our two heroes a lift, and possibly the conveniently named "Sean", which gives the Irish-wannabe Lena a little pang.

The other white characters try to kidnap Lena or treat Aborigines disrespectfully.

The camera-work is often too obvious. A hand-held camera arrives to shake things up whenever an upset occurs. A fight, the threat of violence, sickness - the hand-held camera is there to tell us, "Wow, isn't the situation getting intense!", but after spending so much time establishing a static mood through gratuitous landscape and time-lapse shots of clouds, the hand-held is an obvious symbolic device and director would've done better keeping his style consistent. The use of tracking shots was often very disrupting to the flow of the film as well, except in the last sequence where it is quite effective.

But unfortunately by that stage, I couldn't care less what happened to the characters, as they stared blankly at each other 'til the end.

The one thing to admire about this film, however, are the good intentions behind it. This movie failed on an emotional engagement level, but for the sheer effort involved in its making, and its technical triumphs, it gets 5/10, which I think is fair.

I saw this yesterday at my local art-house cinema, with my grandparents who were young when Bob Dylan was 'big' (is my lack of knowledge about Dylan already showing? Oh dear), and I have to say, I'm glad I was there - even if Bob Dylan wasn't.

The much-publicised, overly re-hashed concept driving the film is this: Dylan is portrayed by six actors of different races, ages and genders, none of whom are named Dylan, but represent aspects of his personality and life story. Every art-house buff will squeal at this delightfully off-kilter concept (well, except that it's been done before) - but never used so cleverly I'll admit. But, the cleverness of the concept only remains clever if it is executed well. This is where most people have a problem with the film.

Most of what you may have read in reviews is correct. The film is challenging, borderline plot-less (unless you are generally acquainted with Dylan's life) and seems muddled (again, only if you don't have a general knowledge of his life). For anyone who can't grasp the basic, "each actor represents a stage etc." concept, this film will be lost on them completely... because it gets even more complicated! The film is so layered, with hidden in-jokes, and snippets of real quotes from songs and interviews with Dylan used as dialogue, and story lines within story lines. A great example is Heath Ledger's character: Ledger (an actor), plays an actor, playing Jack Rollins in a biopic, who is the representation of folk-singer-Dylan (a stage). An actor in a biopic playing an actor in a biopic about a singer representing Bob Dylan played by an actor in a biopic. The self-parody is just hilarious in this film.

To add to these 'layers', each actor's "stage" that they represent is filmed in a distinctive cinematic style, for example, the Cate Blanchett as Jude Quinn representing Bob Dylan sequence is shot in lush black and white. Haynes relishes this opportunity to show off, and he does. The film is stylistically stimulating, even if it does drag sometimes for ignoramuses like me who know literally nothing about Bob Dylan.

For those questioning the film's intentions as a biopic, I should think it was really obvious! The opening credits give a huge clue, as the main title comes up in stages: "I", "He", "I'm he", "I'm her", "Not her", "Not here", "I'm not there".

The film is like a dream: you come out of it with this vague (exact details in the film are scarce) and vivid impression of Dylan's personality, without learning anything. The title is certainly relevant - Haynes' actually conceals Dylan in this film! This biopic is conventional in the way it still presents a chronological life story if you arrange it all together and remember the actors represent one person, but it is different in the way it doesn't try to make a real person into a character for a film. This is really the only way to represent someone - by not.

This film is composed of stories and individual representations and metaphors that describe a person's life, their attitudes at points in time and aspects of their personality, but gives us nothing. Absolutely nothing.

So, if you're ready to put the level of effort and concentration required to appreciate and maybe like the film, go for it. But I was not prepared for this film and I wish I'd read a biography before I saw it. That said, not knowing anything did help in a way, as after we had several questions about events in the film and their basis in reality. After all, the trailer had told us that stories were exaggerated, fictionalised, imagined and true. It inspired me enough to look him up on Wikipedia (I know, such dedication!).

The performances are all generally good. Blanchett, Bale and Franklin impressed me the most. Blanchett only falls short because of her voice, but she has the accent correct, and she can't change her voice that much! She became more believable as the film progressed. Charlotte Gainsbourg is also quietly moving in her role as the neglected wife of Ledger's character.

My final opinion is that the film is well executed, but only once you've had time to ruminate on it, research Dylan and hear the director's thoughts on his own work. I read a great deal of reviews as well that helped me to understand (not that I didn't like the film initially; I liked it after I saw it anyway). Appreciation builds the more I learn about the film and the intricate connections between it and it's un-subject.

That said, should a film be this much hard work just to like? Not for some people, but for others, the effort is worth it. It does eventually pay off, but it's exhausting.