Shirkers

As a piece of film-making in its own right, this a hypnotic and visually captivating production. As far as the content goes, it is just too self-important and pretentious to bear its own weight. The mystery regarding Georges is comfortably the most compelling aspect of the film yet is not explored in anywhere near enough detail. That is the real story here, not the group of amateur film-makers who naively lost their footage and have overblown their memories of it.

This documentary came highly recommended from sources I trust and is either praised to the rafters or leaves the viewer completely indifferent. I can understand why people clicked with this movie; I'm not confused why they enjoyed it but the euphoric reviews baffle me. For my part I found it sappy and trivial.

The documentary follows a woman, talking 20 years on, trying to piece together a lost film from her childhood in Singapore. The result is it's terribly self-important for someone who made two short films. Great documentaries, no matter how intimate or grand the subject, convince the viewer they're talking about something important. This element is missing. The film they were making didn't even look promising. To me it's no less vain and uninteresting to watch your average student filmmaker wax lyrical about their creative process but somehow this has more importance ascribed to it because... it's an older person saying it? There are great examples of documentaries about personal drama, about relationships, about the making of movies, yet this one lacked the punch and relevance of -any- of those.

The documentary also mentions Werner Herzog's film Fitzcarraldo - that film spawning the sweeping making-of documentary Burden of Dreams. Unintentionally this only serves to remind me of a filmmaker who actually did something noteworthy with their craft.

I will say as a documentary itself, it has a pleasing aesthetic and I can find no real technical faults. This is perhaps owing to the original film's film stock that nowadays evokes nostalgia in its viewers. This film also benefited from its audience seeking it out; it mainly attracted people who would enjoy this and I thought I'd be in that group. I'd be interested to see how a larger audience would react to this.

Ultimately it's the life story about someone who's not that interesting to listen to; a tale of a friendship that's not endearing; a making-of of a movie that didn't look good to begin with. Although what happened is terrible and unjust, it must unfortunately be admitted that the film world was at no great loss without that film and probably wouldn't be without this one.

I love documentaries. I love indie films. I was at one time a wannabe filmmaker just like the director of this film. So I was confounded that this film would have such a high rating. For the most part I felt the core of the film is almost a tale of the mundane (like someone telling you the one time their bike was stolen and how it was like totally a horrible experience). Because it recounts the trials and tribulations of a amateur production (which weren't that wild really), and are similar to stories that pretty much every film maker has. If Shirkers had actually been a film and had come out and been groundbreaking, then there would be a point to all this. A documentary like Lost in La Mancha is a good example of a documentary about a film gone wrong. This, however, is just another wannabe filmmaker saying they made this one amazing film, but it got ruined because of (fill in the blank). The one interesting part of the tale was George's story. It was what this film truly should have been about. Unfortunately, his story comes in to focus about an hour into the film and never gets thoroughly resolved or explored. Because this film is after all about the director, about her lost work, about the feelings it elicited from here -- in other words, all about her. There really is nothing else that the film explores. That ego-centricity is clear through the often clunky narration and through some of the interviews. As some friends even state, everything is about Tan. And that is what this film is, a film about a film written by her, starring her. So why should others be interested in it?

A director explores the myth of Singapore's independent cinema: Shirkers, a film made by her and her friends, with the help of a mysterious man.

The atmosphere of this documentary is very interesting, mixing drama with the mood of a serial killer tv show.

It's a well-structured portrait of a young woman dreams, the ambition to change the concept of cinema, in a country with strong censorship and restrictions, as was Singapore in the 90s, and how someone with a perverse and vicious mind can ruin a so beloved project, and traumatize everyone involved.

Some critics and general public think it's pretentious, I disagree with that opinion, it's not intended to increase the protagonist/director's (Sandi Tan) ego, but rather to show how a group of creative minds can be manipulated when they are not yet mature enough to realize how real life works.

I like the edit, the footages, the soundtrack, I feel the nostalgic the point of view and what the writer want to tell us, but I think it's misled. The most interesting part about the story is about George, what is his motives? What's he really do? Why he did it? We don't really have an answer for that. The documentary revolves around Sandi and her lost film, not George. I think George is a very interesting people and they didn't dig deeper, instead they tell you something that you less care about.