In this film, the blurring of the lines between documentary and fiction is very apparent. Even though it is very loose in its construction, which can be related to the documentary style, it does have narrative qualities beneath the surface. The film tells the tale of the main character, a film director named William Greaves, who attempts to create a different kind of film. Whether he is successful or not is up to the viewer after the film has ended. It is also possible that the film as a whole is purely fiction, and none of what appears to be spontaneity is actually real. There are several moments in the film, most coming from the conversations with just the crew, where the viewer second guesses what they are watching, as some of the subjects within the film support the idea that they are just carrying out the director's plans. Even the actors taking part in the film within the film could be portraying themselves as horrible performers to enhance other parts of the film to make it seem more "real". The homeless man at the end, for example, could have been an actor playing that part. These are the questions that get raised anytime a filmmaker tries to mix fiction elements with documentary form. I did believe the homeless guy though, although I see the point was raised that he could have been a paid actor. I'd like to believe not. But then again, this movie didn't make enough of an impression for me to go back and ponder that. I cannot BELIEVE somebody funded this.
Posted by steve mccann
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with your assessment that we cannot, with exact confidence, tell whether or not any or all elements of the film were "real" or scripted. I do not feel, however, that that is the point of the film. In "Symbiopsychotaxiplasm" we have, for the first time, a film maker acknowledging the current process of feature films, discarding it, and then attempting to make a new process. His attempt stems from his reading of Arthur F. Bentley.
Notice in the film how the actor's lines never really change. Even after the crew explodes on how "fake" they seem. Greaves does a good job at keeping the crew together long enough to focus on the same set of data over, and over, and over, and over - as though he is trying to deplete all the possible ways to approach this 'scene'. He even allows the crew to change the makeup of the shot.
Think now of how movies are made today. This process introduced in Symbio now appears to be commonly understood as a 'natural' creative process in making film, where scripts, camera angles, even characters are adapted to the process and players creating it.
Have you seen "Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take 2-1/2"? If not, I recommend viewing it, especially the interview segment with Mr. Greaves.
Not sure I agree the director was trying to mix 'fiction' with documentary. That's a question of faith: some might believe he was, other that he wasn't. But the impression I got from the body language and vibe of the dissenting crew who were asking themselves that same question was that Greaves was ingeniously manipulating the entire production to create a pathos of human dynamics and spontaneity that was brilliant. One has to approach this film from a Zennish standpoint; if you're trying to find 'meaning', 'entertainment' or a 'construct', you'd be disappointed. But that's exactly Greaves' point and it's masterful.
Post a Comment