Berberian Sound Studio

This is a movie that seems to have no purpose. The way that the sound effects were generated in the film is mildly interesting, and the xenophobia that the main character experienced made me believe that the storyline would go somewhere. However, this was not the case. Sitting through this, I found it hard to understand why the actors were even drawn to the material; it is so uninteresting. Technically the film has its merits, and it might be relevant for someone who has worked as a sound effects technician and editor in movies, but for the general population it is probably a waste of time. I know that it contains references to Italian horror movies of the 70's and 80's, but so what? My advice is to stay away.

Man alive, BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO is a strange little film. It stars the hapless Toby Jones as a mild-mannered sound engineer who travels to Rome to work on the soundtrack of a sinister giallo film and soon finds himself getting sucked into the movie's mystique and repellent atmosphere.

Technically, this film is a gem, with excellent sound design and good visuals; for a film set almost entirely in a sound studio, it's atmospheric and engaging, and it helps that the underrated Jones gives an excellent turn in a rare leading role. The problem with BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO, then, is that it's one of those 'style over substance' movies where there's very little meat behind what's up on screen.

This feels almost like one of those films that's made up as it goes along. It starts off strongly, with a decent first half hour setting up the story, and what follows is oddly disturbing despite a lack of explicitness. However, around the halfway mark it starts to get heavy going, and the ending is particularly disappointing, failing to tie up or rationalise what's happened. I hate it when a film reaches this level of ambiguity; a bit of ambiguity works fine, but to this degree it's just a cop out, unfortunately.

I'm a big fan of films where impressionable protagonists enter a world of images and fictions. The challenge is how to model madness, by what degrees to confuse and clarify. DePalma could do this type of film, fooling with layered placement and identity of the eye—it'd be as cool as this and obvious in its main thrust about madness, but probably not as ambient. Lynch could in a more powerful way.

The story is that a shy sound-man goes to work on an Italian exploitation movie, this is to establish him as a creative person who will have to imagine things, and to establish the things he's going to imagine as of some darkness. He is an introvert, so we can have this conflation of inner and outer sensitivity to phenomena. Funny: shy is here equated with unattractive appearance in the main actor.

The film is entirely contained on a soundstage and around the studio where the soundtrack is being prepared. The actual horror movie is never seen (except for the opening credits which serve as the credits to our film), always inferred from what we see of the sound-carpet being fitted, the screams and slashing sounds, and this is a crucial point: the horror movie never quite materializes, so there's widespread negativity in reviews.

Oh, we get obvious hallucination in the latter stages that I could do without, linked to movie screens as borders of reality — it clarifies too much. But there's something else I liked, simple and inventive.

All sorts of sound effects are constructed over the course of the film before our eyes, from ordinary means: melons are slashed, pumpkins are splattered, broth is boiling. The first time we see the effect being recorded, and then an off-screen voice announces what it is supposed to be the sound of, and it's done a second time. It's fun to see on a fundamental level as exposing the kind of unceremonious but inventive technical work that takes place behind cinematic curtains of illusion.

But more marvelous is exemplifying the mechanism of that illusion that creates the imagined horror story in our mind — the second time the sound becomes the mental image just described to us. By making it so immediate, it's a powerful exhibit, observable in your own self, of the mind acquiring illusory images — the images become what the off- screen voice announces. Wickedly clever! Because it puts us in the protagonist's shoes, by introducing a disruptive level of imagination.

So I think you must see this at one point. Based on his previous film and now this, I have this filmmaker on my short list of talent that I expect he has it in him to be a leading voice a decade from now.

This film is a pleasant homage to Italian giallo and to the under-recognized art of sound editing. A bit like Hélène Cattet & Bruno Forzani's "Amer" did, but in a more conventional, more "easy watching" way.

It begins as an amusing comedy with a cast of characters gently mocking the 70's Italian machismo. The very exciting central concept of the film is to deal with graphical horror without showing any real violence on the screen. This counter-fashion idea clearly marks its distance from the recent escalation in the graphic horror genre cinema, which I find honorable.

The imagination of the spectator is highly put to use compared to these days' standards. A truly outstanding atmosphere is obtained thanks to a really terrific sound editing. The atmosphere moves from light fun to disturbing fantasy with elegance.

But near the end, the story lost me. I eventually didn't understand where the film wanted take me. For that disappointing feeling, I don't rate it very high, but this movie is definitely a good piece of artwork and is more interesting than most of what is to be seen nowadays.

Having watched "In Fabric" from this director, before this previous (and more famous) incursion in the horror genre, it's easy to see a pattern: both in the homage to the greatest period of Italian horror films and in a kind of surrealistic and experimental narration (even more prominent in this film). But, in the same way that happened to me with "In Fabric", it doesn't completely reach me, even when I find the proposition incredibly attractive. Both movies are beautiful and kind of mesmerising, but the director also tends to feel self-absorbed in his own creation at times and lose focus. But it's a very different film and a love letter to the art of making movies.