It seems a bit like a Whit Stillman film. Life amongst the intelligentsia. I like the Poulson vibe. Fan of his from the Byington films. It's probably not as funny if you're not familiar with the milieu. Or if you don't find yourself saying 'milieu' or 'oeuvre'. What I like is that somehow there is a sense of menace, both in what happens to one of the characters, and in the philosophy he's studying. Quiet menace.
Contrary to what the neat inclusion of various analog media archives might imply, shot-for-shot the film is devoid of "information," utterly anemic, from the cardboard acting to the minimalist cinematography. Much like the movie itself, gentrified Brooklyn and its coffee-drinking, jet-setting "intellectual"/"artistic" inhabitants can't help but appear here as pretentious parody.
A unique but not entirely satisfying film. Reading some analyses helped with my understanding of the film's many disparate elements (particularly from Film Comment), yet I can't help feeling that some of the ideas are more interesting in theory than in cinematic practice. Analysis of intellectuals who still fall under the wing of right-wing ideology is complex and challenging but would benefit from stronger focus.
Un filme de esos que estimulan al espectador: encuadres elaborados para crear planos disociados del sonido; situaciones que no hacen progresara el argumento en el sentido de los guiones tradicionales...Con una actuación con poca afectación pero que logra evidenciar la desazón de los dos personajes masculinos. La música aparece como un aspecto adicional, no como un relleno para "hacer más agradable" la experiencia...
Despite its brief running time, this experimental debut can be a meandering drudgery that gets lost in the pretensions of trying to make a consequential point. An affectation for pseudo-intellectualism cripples the otherwise engaging unconventional narrative structure, which draws you in but refuses to reward you with anything beyond more questions and riddles.
Using L'Avventura as its frame and Bresson as its guiding light, this debut film is set within a time-frozen Brooklyn, as a crew of hermetic (to the point of oxygen starvation) researchers respond in differing ways to the mid-story disappearance of one of their own. There are many clever ideas here, but the acting is too self-conscious and the direction too forcibly static, alienating both players and viewers alike.
I understand that the look of the film is quite polarizing, this Bresson-for-beginners distinctive touch that some called minimalism. But if you look beyond that, the narration, with its big holes, force you to stay alert and focus on every details. There comes no explanation for his disappearing, or about the curious figure of Mr. Taubes. Just notes, notes from David, writings from Taubes, and that many questions.
Stephen Taubes as Slavoj Zizek ("whose radical espousal of violence as a legitimate political tool pitted him against liberalism and conservatism alike" Adam Cook, Cinemascope)? A powerful indictment of the American Liberal pseudo-left and their inability to change the status quo, or even grasp the situation (cfr. the debate scene). D'Ambrose's film is as incisive and penetrating as Angela Nagle's Kill All Normies.
Os personagens são antipáticos (intencionalmente?) e alguns eventos soam incoesos, já que a situação titular não chega a comover, de tão previsível que é. A melhor coisa do filme é a confecção do filósofo Stephen Taubes, sobretudo nas seqüências em que lemos sobre suas teses da violência contemporânea. As inserções de mapas na tela cansam, bem como os fundos monocromáticos. 5 minutos de créditos finais? Aff!(WPC>)
Category (c) throwback! People & places have no real presence, appearing only in textual archives: maps, articles, diaries... The critique of art-philosophy discourses, as meaningless & sterile, proves troubling! After all, how else can we speak of this film? If it does not speak to the elite audience it mocks, on those exact terms, then how does it speak? // I had fun with this! It was unoriginal. 5 stars.