Watermark, l'empreinte de l'eau

Watermark is a movie about water. It is film in a very choppy way and the narrative is not really structured in a way that allows the audience to understand what is going on, yet this movie seems to have something kind of special about it. I believe that the thinking process of the film-maker, to be unique to the film world, which is a positive thing. I believe this movie to be a stamp of the film makers consciousness in the sense of the fragmentation of the pictures, combined with the story. This approach forces the audience to individual the film experience and to piece together the essence of the movie.

Having lived in British Columbia, Canada and having lived near the Fraser River in Canada, I can understand the beauty that river water has. The natural flow of water is a profoundly spiritual sensation because of the beauty of flowing water combined with the sound of rushing water, on the other hand, river water can be very destructive out of her own nature, as when the mountain snows melt and dams break and houses and human lives get destroyed, there is a feeling of utter helpless and despair that goes hand and hand with the profound beauty of water. One of the main conflicts in human life is man against nature. And to me that is what this is movie is about.

May I INTROPDUCE you to mark best my old time friend he is an old timely chap he is like a vape as a persosn but onlu when the suncomes oit . Hr is beautifau l tamowrth pigian man and he likes to sing 500 tone song about ob swimming ob turned green grenwich smp anf i [lay minecrsft sprry everyday in the life of ob witht shaders and high rsolutioin tetue pack green grenwich teture pack which represents the farm and its long life besutiful songs for all and the towns will sing about the legend mark best alwas watermsn in rude paul ma nia park and faith saw the world diffeeetly after hanging out with ther mark best rinsa malone faith wanted mark to dog walking in grenwich when hes on the road he has that feeling of shaders in obp obiswsorry p.

I have recently watched two political documentaries. First, The Unknown Known. Second, Watermark.

The first one is about glorifying a psychopath. It tells of his exploits as he uses humanity as subjects of his experiments. Its only saving grace is its honesty as it is unquestionably political.

The second one is this one, Watermark, and it has absolutely none of this honesty. It is a documentary that uses the awesomeness of nature to disguise political propaganda. It is essentially babies and puppies. Cheap manipulation to sneak in an ideology.

A number of these "nature" documentaries is being made nowadays. Big, big, big money is being given to "friendly" folks in the movie industry. Pockets full of cash, they are taking their skills around the world (literally) and making visually high-quality films. Unfortunately, the price of this funding is a script that makes adults cringe.

Consequently, this kind of "nature" documentaries is meant to be played in mute. Mozart, Armstrong, (or Pink Floyd if that's your preference) are far superior material to listen to while enjoying the unspeakable magnificence of our planet.

Watermark is also boring at times. The political obsession coupled with a jejune understanding of society and culture compromises the choice of visual subject. If they cannot use as a weapon to hurl at you, they won't show it.

This movie showcases the cinematographer/director's beautiful eye. That's it. His ego is on display in the cinematography along with all of his indulgences. The images are beautiful, buy very bad storytelling. The opening of this file is interesting in that it gets your attention, but then quickly lost mine as I thought I was watching a silent film. This is not a documentary. The most dialogue happens around the 45 minute mark. I still don't know what their main point was for this movie. What is it about water that they are trying to get across? Basically, what I got of this movie is that they left it up to us to make our own conclusion about water. I watch movies so I don't have to come to my own conclusion. If I want only my own opinion then I don't need to watch a movie for that. That's an hour and half that I will never get back.

Slow doesn't describe this. Glacial... no, that's still too fast. Continental drift, that's the right speed.

If I could have watched this at 4x speed, I might have been able to make it through. At regular speed, 15 minutes was all I could stand. Others have said that the photography makes up for the shortfalls. I do not agree. Some of the sequences are nice, but where a 10 second clip would get across the message, the makers chose to put in a 60 second clip.

To sum up, this is a 15 or 20-minute short stretched to movie length.