(8.5)
It's certainly not a movie that's at least watchable, and the level of fragmentation is quite annoying (Woody Allen's talent is not everyone). But it is undeniable that this film also shows the unique magic that animation can have as a form of expression of film. It is said that the production method is to use software to transfer animation after DV shooting. In principle, this is very similar to "My Love in the Stars: The Mystery of the Starry Sky" (this is not considered animation, let's not mention it), should it be regarded as transfer drawing? The expressive power of Van Gogh's film is more prominent in the use of oil painting style, which is quite conservative. The film is much more radical, and it's worth noting from two angles.
First, everything in the frame, from the characters to the set, is abstracted as much as possible within the scope of maintaining the basic clarity of the narrative. Of course, this means that it fits with the theme of the film's dream. On the other hand, this "resisting precision" style of painting also breaks through the shackles of various stereotypes that the audience has been forced to establish for a long time. We know that in a time when cinema is so mature, everything in the shot has its own direction (even a fly in Westworld), and when all objects with well-defined meaning appear and act in a form that conforms to the norm, the audience will naturally act accordingly. Defining and analyzing the connotation of the film, the author's own fresh words are not so important. Isn't this a very strange phenomenon? Most contemporary animated films are also running on the road of realism without thinking and forgetting their own unique means of expression. The art world has long since separated from the "low taste" of falsehood. Although modern art has been criticized many times, she has opened Possibility to this new world, and hopefully the movie too. De-realization, taking the power of interpretation back from the author's hand from the audience who has been tamed by the stereotypes (which have gradually evolved from countless classic works) is a way that Linklater hints at, and so is "Boyhood".
Second, more animated films have appeared on this point, which is a surreal means of expression. Such as the repetition of dreams, the figuration of abstract concepts, and so on. This is not just "surreal" like Thanos pulling the moon and Moses separating the Red Sea. In fact, those are more like "imagination beyond physical limitations." Today's advances in computer special effects have allowed film shooting to get rid of physical limitations as much as possible. The surrealism here may be the best of Jin Minzeng, which is the transcendence that can be imagined but has no realistic logic. Possibly the most elusive charm of animation.
So although this film is "not good-looking", it is indeed worth watching, or worth studying. As for whether it is easy to copy (like those revolutionary but also easy to imitate techniques in the early days), it is unknown. .
PS I was so happy to see Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy huddled together again. At that time, the three of them didn't know that they would make three movies.
View more about Waking Life reviews
