Limbo

Sometimes it seems to me that one is doing a disfavor to both themselves as a viewer and to the movies they watch if one doesn't in some measure embrace all the wide variety that cinema has to offer. One can't fully appreciate the utmost essential classics if one doesn't also spend time with bottom of the barrel schlock, nor the highest quality of productions without checking out low-grade, no-budget, home-video exercises in film-making. The latter 100% describes Tina Krause's 1999 feature 'Limbo,' which seems to have been filmed on ordinary consumer-grade electronics, as indicated by both the image quality and the extremely variable audio (that often suffers from ambient noise, and slight breezes). It behooves one to note that this seems to have benefited from having the most resources devoted specifically to the editing; presumably credited editor Michael Lisa had connections to an honest-to-goodness production studio that allowed more complex post-production manipulation of the footage. None of this is to summarily dismiss the picture from the outset; if nothing else is true, there's something admirable about pursuing film-making on a level that basically amounts to the cinematic equivalent of demo tapes that may have been passed around in underground metal in the 80s and 90s. That earnestness is meaningful.

I think there actually is a lot to like here. Limited to whatever single-digit dollar amount she had for a budget (okay, maybe double-digit), Krause made use of the available filming locations in some clever ways, including "props" and "lighting." Through the combination of her imagination and ours, mundane locales become a setting of dark fantasy. Lisa illustrates some genuine skill as an editor, and a fair amount of knowledge of the equipment, and the same goes for select instances of Sean Farrell's "cinematography." Garbled as the audio is, the music that's provided as a soundtrack is somewhat flavorful and adds a tinge of harsh atmosphere at points. With all these factors in conjunction, and some inserted imagery that Krause carefully arranges - including as well some some modest "effects" and "special makeup" - airs are manifested of something grim and harrowing on the edges of the "narrative," becoming more concrete in the last twenty minutes or so of the abbreviated length. I dare say the very concept also sounds promising, and it seems evident to me that despite such very minimal resources, the filmmaker had a distinct vision, and bless her for the hard work of trying to bring that vision to fruition. Even some of the ideas for various shots and scenes are superb and creative.

'Limbo,' however, has problems. Those problems are not the result of the lack of a budget, for as cheaply as some visuals were concocted they still look pretty terrific in and of themselves, and some are earnestly disturbing just as they are. Those problems are not the result of consumer-grade filming equipment, for the difficulties that are borne of that equipment are ones that we as an audience can nevertheless forgive. Those problems are not even the result of a cast comprised of non-professionals (excluding the filmmaker herself, appearing in a supporting part), nor of Krause's undeveloped skills as a director - this marks her debut in that regard, and there are absolutely some rough edges and questionable choices, but those skills are quantifiable all the same. No, the real problems with 'Limbo' derive from Krause's screenplay. All those quotation marks I've used are mostly intended to speak how very, very little resources were available to the production, but when it comes to the "narrative" I speak to the fact that the premise doesn't come to bear until the last twenty minutes or so. I can't tell you what the preceding length was in this film of under one hour, or what was going on during that portion, because I honestly don't know. The scenes we get early on are so scattered that there is no cohesiveness to be had among them; a few lines of dialogue late in the runtime would seem to hold the key, but they still can't illuminate what it was we watched for the first half hour or so. The story meaningfully fills no more than half the length, and the other half is one giant question mark.

I don't think this tiny flick is bad. I see what it does well despite everything, and there are some sincere horror vibes on hand even at the bargain price of tens of dollars. I'm even ready to forgive some of the editing (read: manipulation of footage) that feels emptily self-indulgent, the dialogue that is mostly awful, those scenes that could wholly be dispensed with, and those moments of acting and especially direction that are much more clearly demonstrative of the level of capability of those involved. What this movie required, however, was tighter, stronger, more cogent writing. The fact that I can only throw up my arms and admit defeat when it comes to ascertaining the course of events for at least the first half of the length, or where they fit into the Big Image of the whole, is an issue that weighs down 'Limbo' in a manner that's far more substantive than any of the other weaknesses or shortcomings. With at least half the feature shrouded in mystery, the feature is only half of what it could have been if Krause had taken more time to develop the screenplay. I do sort of like this when all is said and done, but at the end of the day I don't know who I'd ever recommend it to as the discussion would start with "Here's the premise" and continue with a deluge of cautionary words following "but..." I'm glad for those who get more out of this than I do, and I appreciate what all involved put into it, but as it turns out the very name 'Limbo' is a fairly accurate one-word description of the final product.

Limbo - 1999 (This Film Rates an A ) This 54-minute, low-budget horror film is a visceral, shot-on-video experience that defies traditional narrative structures. The story begins in a dimly lit dive bar, where Catherine captivates the attention of the patrons, setting the tone for a unsettling, psychedelic journey. "Your vision is the source". As the film progresses, Catherine's reality begins to unravel, plagued by horrific hallucinations, psychic visions, and an increasing sense of paranoia. The lines between reality and madness blur, leaving the viewer questioning what is real and what is just a product of Catherine's fragile psyche. Legitimately! The film's disjointed, artsy avant-garde approach is both captivating and unnerving. The absence of a traditional narrative allows the viewer to immerse themselves in the surreal atmosphere, punctuated by shocking, unsettling flashing imagery. It intentionally creates confusion and disbelief. There are many storylines that never connect but none of that seems to matter. The soundtrack plays a crucial role in elevating the film's tension and unease. It adds texture where there is none. While the film's technical limitations, such as poor sound quality and inadequate lighting, can be distracting, they also add to the overall sense of unease and discomfort. It lets you dissolve into the madness. The film's rough, DIY aesthetic is, in many ways, a testament to its raw, unrelenting energy. Ultimately, this film is not for everyone. It's a challenging, experimental work that demands patience, attention, and a willingness to embrace the unknown and all of its randomness. However, this film offers a unique, thought-provoking experience that will linger long after the credits roll.

I consider myself a fan of experimental films. Some of Brakhage's works are fascinating, Lynch's films of course are fantastic, etc. But this is garbage. A bunch of weird, abstract scenes, terrible acting and awful sound quality is does not a good experimental film make.

Remember the "Tampon in a Teacup" scene in Ghost World? Yeah, this is just as cringe-inducing and annoying. If you want good experimental, watch "The Holy Mountain", because at least it has a message. This is just noise.