May 1, 2007
What the...? symbiopsychotaxiplasm
First off, the film's name. The film grabs attention to itself because of its long, strange-looking, strange sounding name and you wonder what the hell does that mean? Is that a real word? That's one thing I liked about symbiopsychotaxiplasm...this film never chose to explain itself or show one thing that could be mistaken as true or otherwise - it just showed what it wanted, as the director wanted to...who cared if it was real or not? Director William Greaves blurs that line between fiction and documentary so well - so carefully - that his film can be digested any way the viewer wants, and can still come out of it satisfied. Or confused. Either way, a fascinating film to watch and listen to and think about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Yeah, the name does say a lot about the film. The film in reality could be classified as a film about the subtlties of making a film, or it could be considered to be a film about nothing. Just like the name. In reality the word does not exists, and thus constitutes no real meaning, but the word is based off symbiotaxiplasm, and greaves adding the word "psycho" (which is pretty universally understood by most audiences) it gives the word a whole new function
I felt like the name was just an extension of the absurdism of the film. A movie about nothing is aptly tied with a name that doesn't mean anything.
Well, that.. and symbiopsychotaxiplasm just screams 1960's naming scheme. Wait, what was that IMdB? You say this was made in 1968?
That's one thing that bugged me about the film is that the only discussion you could get out of it was when the crew members were having the discussion of what the movie was about themselves! It all seemed a crazy cycle. And the name that is trying to mean something rightly portrays the movie as a film that is trying to mean something. Like I said, a crazy circle.
The film was very confusing in what type of message it was trying to convey. The name itself seems to have very little meaning and the makers did not even attempt to define it because I think they themselves don't know what it means. I did not enjoy the film because it did not have any purpose. A bunch of people complaining about an incompetant filmmaker is not something that I consider to be a ground-breaking film.
How do you pronounce that? Haha I just saw it on the tv guide and was wondering! Thx
Post a Comment