After reading it, I thought, void is really a good word.
Nothingness, I always feel that if an artist can really express nothingness, then it can be said that he has reached the highest level of artistic creation.
I'm not trying to say what a great movie this is, I just gave it four stars. Compared to the avant-garde style, I think I am still a classicist.
And in such a movie, it is not difficult to see the director's extreme personal sentiment and self-inflation.
Let me spit out, some people say that photography is awesome. I really don’t think that Roger Deakins's big panorama that makes people tears down is awesome. Although I admire the long overhead shots in the movie and have no idea how he achieves such an effect, I still feel that this method of photography is not awesome, I can only say that he is courageous. Personally, I think that good photography should be able to carry feelings and meaning in it, not just for good visual effects, or difficult shooting.
Then talk about emotion and meaning. The human brain consciously wants to make sense, so ordinary audiences discuss the plot first after watching a movie, so there are so many sets of screenwriting skills and ways of telling stories. If you cannot let the audience know "I want to tell a story like this" or "I want you to know such a truth" after half of a movie, the audience is going to shoot the table and scold the mother. But this movie is a movie that can't make sense at all. He is stream of consciousness. To be clear is the story of a ghost floating around and entering different time and space before reincarnation.
But I don’t agree if he only groans in the form of playing, but in fact I like this way of stream of consciousness very much. Life itself is not so dramatic. One of the favorite words of my former drama teacher at the university was: "Drama is about putting people's souls on fire." This can achieve a very dramatic effect, putting the person in a dilemma, and then all the audience watched his pain and struggle. This is indeed a play, a good play. But it is impossible for people to live in the drama every day. A parody of this movie can be said to be "put the soul of a person floating in the sky". It can float anywhere without a thread. You can imagine this is the thought activity of a person after death. All the overlooking shots, all the crazy dives and deformations, are just to express his thoughts and perspectives.”
This relates to why I call this film critic free and restricted. On the surface, watching this movie is very free. Purely subjective perspective, each frame of the picture is not limited to the flat composition, and can even shuttle back and forth between the walls, freely switching between the past and the future. It is a good point of view to say that he is a wandering soul.
But the limitation is that, This subjective perspective itself is limited. We can't even see his face. He is behind the camera. We see everything he sees, hear the sound he hears, enter his body and his life, But he never thinks. His own "voice" is blocked. In fact, this is the reason why the film itself cannot make sense. The director observes the world from a purely subjective perspective of a ghost, but does not use conventional voice-over methods. Let’s tell the audience what the protagonist is thinking. Just look at what you don’t want. The audience can pick up what they want from all the visual fragments put together.
This may involve the function of the camera and the identity in the movie. See And being seen, I have to think again about this...
Then speaking of this movie, I still think the word void is used well, not the last "reincarnation" shot of the movie represents nothingness, but the whole movie. There are a lot of sex scenes in the movie, abortion (oh my god, this is the first time I have seen this), drug use, are all the effects of people's primitive desires to their extremes. Women’s nipples appearing many times in the movie are naked (sister and brother never wear clothes properly...) start with death and end with life. After all, a person's life is nothing but nothingness. It is not easy to recognize this. It is even more difficult to make a movie like this. This is why I don't particularly like this movie but I still want to push it.
At the end, the take-forever sex scene in the love hotel is used very well, there is no better way to use people's primitive desire to express the meaninglessness of life.
In addition, some people say that the transition in different time and space is great. In fact, he just used a lot of match action transitions, such as from one head-up action to another head-up action, from one hole to another. I think this is just a basic skill for mv shooting, and if you use it too much in the movie, it's a bit of a price drop. This kind of transition is very cute and not difficult to shoot. One of my classmates just shot a short film and they all used this match transition. She just asked two actors to do the same action in three different locations and then cut it. Together. But I just don't have a backache when I stand and talk. This kind of movie has to be edited by the director in his own heart when writing the storyboard script.
Finally, I want to say that I don't particularly love his photography and other things, only this idea of expressing nothingness. Saying he is too great, but a director who can understand the emptiness is really not easy~
View more about Enter the Void reviews
