Deeply understated, maybe too smart for its own well-being - but very good
It's hard to completely pin this one down. I'm a fan of the occasional extra-subdued genre film, and this is certainly one of them - maybe even the utmost example. Composers are credited for a score that's only occasionally present (though it's often lovely when it is). Sound effects are so minimized in the audio mix that at some points they're rather almost entirely inaudible (if not for generous subtitles one might never know there was any "ominous droning" we're supposed to hear). Dialogue is only infrequently uttered in anything above a tame indoor pitch (and at that, only in the last third). The first third comes and goes so softly that even as protagonist Eric obliquely inquires about oddities, the viewer is made to earnestly wonder "wait, what happened?" The second third is defined almost entirely by dialogue and a bad trip. Suffice to say that whatever one's opinion of it, 'Without name' isn't a movie for those seeking the immediate and visceral. I'll say it now, though - with patience comes reward.
Dialogue is mostly vague and indistinct, not least as characters speak airily of some imprecise philosophical profundities, and if possible the scene writing and characters are even more fuzzy. That Alan McKenna's protagonist mostly mumbles and frowns his way through the picture is contrasted with the more typical comportment and delivery of the sparing supporting characters, but even they seem like mere approximations of people. In addition to some of the loftier dialogue, there are a few scenes that would seem to impart some specific, concrete through-line to the course of events as characters have strange experiences with, in, among, or of flora, yet given the hazy nature of the writing here at large, it's not unreasonable to question all the while if these have just been projections of a viewer who is reading too much into what unfolds before us. So it is as well for what is clearly mindful and purposeful (and, one way or another, finely executed) cinematography, editing, and effects. How intentional is all this amorphousness?
There is, at length, a definite narrative that gradually crystallizes in the last third. Abstruse themes present of the power of nature, and surrender to it whether by will or coercion. As Eric's abnormal time in the forest reaches its zenith over these ninety minutes, a pointedly broken sense of reality emerges, and it's evident that 'Without name' has aimed to be an extremely underhanded approach toward psychological horror by way of art film pretensions and a very (welcome) ecologically-friendly perspective on the world. The pay-off is long, slow, and quiet, but delicious, like subtle flavors in the bouquet of a glass of wine that manifest at the tail end of a sip and linger thereafter. For all the emphatic nuance, intelligence, and hard work that went into this feature I can only commend filmmaker Lorcan Finnegan, screenwriter Garret Shanley, and those contributing from behind the scenes. The filming location itself is truly gorgeous, and so uniquely paramount in the production that I almost wonder if the forest shouldn't have gotten a producer credit. The result of all this is a picture that is ultimately as entrancing as it is murky and almost abstract - and, I would wager, very likely to inspire feelings of hate in many who might watch it.
Do any of these words make sense? Have I wandered into the same nebulous territory of shapelessness as much of Shanley's screenplay would superficially seem to? In fairness, for those who engage with 'Without name' and come out the other end liking it, I don't know how one could speak at length of it without adopting the same affectations. There's at once so much and so little going on here; a title bursting with genius and life, yet shoving all of it into the smallest possible corner; a marvel, and a bore. I love it for exactly what it is, and also wish it maybe possessed just the slightest bit more clarity or definition. Does this sound like the type of movie you enjoy? If yes, then step right up; if not, your options are without limit. It's going to be a very, very select audience who best appreciates this, yet for those who can, 'Without name' is kind of brilliant.
Dialogue is mostly vague and indistinct, not least as characters speak airily of some imprecise philosophical profundities, and if possible the scene writing and characters are even more fuzzy. That Alan McKenna's protagonist mostly mumbles and frowns his way through the picture is contrasted with the more typical comportment and delivery of the sparing supporting characters, but even they seem like mere approximations of people. In addition to some of the loftier dialogue, there are a few scenes that would seem to impart some specific, concrete through-line to the course of events as characters have strange experiences with, in, among, or of flora, yet given the hazy nature of the writing here at large, it's not unreasonable to question all the while if these have just been projections of a viewer who is reading too much into what unfolds before us. So it is as well for what is clearly mindful and purposeful (and, one way or another, finely executed) cinematography, editing, and effects. How intentional is all this amorphousness?
There is, at length, a definite narrative that gradually crystallizes in the last third. Abstruse themes present of the power of nature, and surrender to it whether by will or coercion. As Eric's abnormal time in the forest reaches its zenith over these ninety minutes, a pointedly broken sense of reality emerges, and it's evident that 'Without name' has aimed to be an extremely underhanded approach toward psychological horror by way of art film pretensions and a very (welcome) ecologically-friendly perspective on the world. The pay-off is long, slow, and quiet, but delicious, like subtle flavors in the bouquet of a glass of wine that manifest at the tail end of a sip and linger thereafter. For all the emphatic nuance, intelligence, and hard work that went into this feature I can only commend filmmaker Lorcan Finnegan, screenwriter Garret Shanley, and those contributing from behind the scenes. The filming location itself is truly gorgeous, and so uniquely paramount in the production that I almost wonder if the forest shouldn't have gotten a producer credit. The result of all this is a picture that is ultimately as entrancing as it is murky and almost abstract - and, I would wager, very likely to inspire feelings of hate in many who might watch it.
Do any of these words make sense? Have I wandered into the same nebulous territory of shapelessness as much of Shanley's screenplay would superficially seem to? In fairness, for those who engage with 'Without name' and come out the other end liking it, I don't know how one could speak at length of it without adopting the same affectations. There's at once so much and so little going on here; a title bursting with genius and life, yet shoving all of it into the smallest possible corner; a marvel, and a bore. I love it for exactly what it is, and also wish it maybe possessed just the slightest bit more clarity or definition. Does this sound like the type of movie you enjoy? If yes, then step right up; if not, your options are without limit. It's going to be a very, very select audience who best appreciates this, yet for those who can, 'Without name' is kind of brilliant.
- I_Ailurophile
- Oct 14, 2022