without substance - Brand Upon the Brain! A Remembrance in 12 Chapters (2008) Discussion

[–] mangoloid 16 years ago

I hope you're OK with me disagreeing... This film is formally substantial.

This picture was not made to say anything, I don't think. Maddin is just entertaining himself and his audience and exploring formal cinematic expressionism. Formally, this film is amazing and utterly unique in the modern film world. How you missed out on this, I do not know.

I proclaim ignorance.

reply

[–] adster780 16 years ago

Could you please say formal one more time? I don't think you used that word enough.

reply

[–] mangoloid 16 years ago

No, I can't. You'll have to say it for me.

I proclaim ignorance.

reply

[–] mcicculus 16 years ago

This movie has a lot of substance and is beautiful. I think maybe the original poster of this thread was disturbed by some of it, which I was too, but its not nearly as disturbing or alienating as say...eraserhead or holy mountain. This movie is very weird but also has a lot of soul.

reply

[–] brettlv5506 16 years ago

While entirely strange, most of this film was based in reality. It contains auto-biographical parts from Guy Maddin and his mother's childhoods. A film is like any other piece of art, what you get out of the experience depends upon how much you are willing to put into it. For me, this piece of cinema was beautiful, emotional, and full of passion.

reply

[–] oogiebob-1 16 years ago

I hope you don't mind my disagreeing about this film's form.

First off, these are no cinematic geniuses who constructed this film. As of this film's release, neither the Cinematographer, the Film Editor, nor the Production Designer has more than one or two years of work to their credit and very short lists at that. (If this is the big break-out, I would leave it off my resume.)

I was not entertained by Maddin's idea of taking an early film art form and allowing amateurs to then "formally" color out of the lines, so to speak. The result here is certainly no enhancement of the original form with any aesthetic value unless the intent was parody or go backwards from the original, primarily visual, art form into a more crude rendition.

Maddins convoluted, distorted multiple overlapping themes, stories, and concepts only suffer to near obliteration in this deconstructed form. Let's give a paintbrush to a monkey. Wait. Break it first. Wait. People might want to watch this.

Had I not long ago discontinued experiments with psychadelic drugs, I might have enjoyed this or been frightend out of my wits.

As it stands, I found this formal experiment to be creative as a toothache. If you deconsruct this entire project, going back to theatrical release, it was about (lack of) budget from the beginning. Couldn't afford sound. Let's pretend we re-invented the silent movie form.

reply

[–] mrs_m_norris 16 years ago

I agree. I found it horrifyingly "artsy" and extremely unwatchable. I like it when things are somewhat different, but this was just too much.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] marionettes 16 years ago

I don't see any brilliance in this movie.

It's different, which makes it unique. But I feel that no way qualifies it as a good movie (good being very subjective, but by good I mean credible in any way). This movie comes off, to me, as a highschool kid's art project and I would've given him a C. It would pass, but it would not take top bill in any category.

The story is boring, the cinematography is horrendous, and the general direction seems completely lacking. I bought this blindly, trusting in the good people at Criterion and was expecting nothing and that's exactly what I got. Nothing.

To reiterate; it's a horrible movie with no redeeming qualities except that at some point it ends.

Too harsh?

reply

[–] archsleep 16 years ago

"To reiterate; it's a horrible movie with no redeeming qualities except that at some point it ends. "

And yet you said you've give it a C.
If you can't even put a cohesive argument together then what on Earth are you doing seeking out a 'difficult' film such as this?

A person should really know their limitations.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hobbes01721 15 years ago

Well spell it out. So far I've just seen comments saying that he's a new director and trying out form, or it's different, or something along those lines.

If it's good, then you should be able to tell me -why- it's good.

It's different, yes. But then again, so is "Death by spider bites," and I wouldn't want that.

reply

[–] hajj628 16 years ago

The heart of the film is the sentiments, the desire to embrace the fantasies of youth while simultaneously being repelled by harsher realities. Of course, this is played out in a whimsical manner, but I felt it moving nonetheless. Pay attention to the interplay between music and imagery to sense the truth of the film. I found it to be a very good movie, and the use of the "old-fashioned" techniques played a narrative part as well, expressing the story-teller's own nostalgia for the past.

reply

[–] pietro008 15 years ago

This movie is a jumbled mess of the most unsubtle psychoanalytic material that I've ever sat through, and not by choice either. A member of my film club chose the film for today's viewing. That's the first and only time that I'll ever watch this film. Storylines are completely dropped without any reason WHATSOEVER--for instance, we're never told what happens to the orphans of the island other than Savage Tom who rows off with the Mother. In an amateur movie, cheap film school move, the rest of the children are just never mentioned again.

reply

[–] juicebynora 15 years ago

actually, they do mention that the two oarsmen that brought mother and father back to the island in the end were former orphans and they burn him.
and just because it isn't a traditional narrative doesn't mean it is without substance.

reply

[–] whothrewthat 16 years ago

Oogiebob, you either discontinued the use of psychedelic drugs too late, or never had anything to start with.
First off, YOU are no cinematic genius. If you were, you'd be aware of the quality of these people's work. If they truly are new to the industry, this being their big break-out, i congratulate them.
Second of all, your comment on that whole "no enhancement to the original form-amateurs-parody" and stuff was kinda like cutting the branch beneath yourself. Ever heard of expressions such as postmodernism? deconstruction? intermediality?
Maddin is a cinematic genius, because not only is he the only director who can so precisely recreate those films, but because he also brings an obvious homage to giants like Eisenstein or Kuleshov, not to mention his reminiscence of German expressionism.
Oh, and do you really think it was cheaper to have an orchestra, live Foley artists, and live narrators on screenings, than to make a film with actual sound? Or what, thirty years of critical acclaim making movies like this one, and suddenly you run along saying it's a bad idea? Have you ever seen another movie of his?!
Go drop some more acid, at least then you'll have something valuable inside you.

------"Are you an American? I'm not an American, i'm a nymphomaniac"------

reply

[–] oogiebob-1 16 years ago

Ventricular, your comments are merely a frustrated personal attack on me which is truly telling of your lack of veracity. I see you have nothing good to say about this film either. Why don't you try sticking to the subject and express your opinion on that? What did you like about this film? Obviously, not much since you don't even speak to it specifically.

These boards are about commenting on the subject of the board, not appraising other peoples' comments. For directing your rude comments at me, you show you are a small person. Grow up. Learn that effort does not always equal productivity. When you chew something long enough, you have to either spit it out or crap it out. Either way, who wants it? I still think this film is crap. You can have it. Enjoy it. Maybe someday you might articulate what exactly it is you found so relevant and appealing about this particular film. I have doubts you even actually watched this film with an open mind at all.

I stick by my opinion that it is an overwrought piece of junk. I do NOT care what YOU think of my opinion AT ALL.

reply

[–] mrs_m_norris 16 years ago

Oogiebob, don't worry about it. You've got true film lovers who enjoy movies for what they are intended to be -- entertainment -- and you've got film snobs who think they need to tie it in with their idea of intelligence. I bet I know which one you are and which one the other guy is.

reply

[–] xifz 16 years ago

well, why can't it be both? i'm into the the post-modern thought, the art criticism, philosophy and the history of cinema. but, i genuinely enjoyed it. i thought it was funny, beautiful, melancholy, and a really interesting take on nostalgia and memory (as was cowards bend the knee.) there will always be people who think orson welles is the greatest, as there will always be people who think that michael bay is the greatest, and how can you prove any of them wrong? you think that this is an objectively bad movie? prove it!

"I can't tell if I'm on foot or on horseback." -Bill Jacks

reply

[–] mrs_m_norris 16 years ago

I just get frustrated by people who get so wrapped up in trying to appear as film experts. I don't label movies "good" or "bad." I really only rate them based on my level of enjoyment while watching.

reply

[–] hajj628 15 years ago

There's nothing wrong with being entertained by intelligent cinema. I found the film very entertaining, as I find most well-crafted, so-called art-films entertaining as well...but certainly, they are entertaining in their own way. Just as horror films and smut have the potential to be entertaining in different ways, these more deliberate, methodical art films can also be entertaining. You just have to develop a bit before this is possible, so you won't be bored and frustrated (i.e. confused) by them.

reply

[–] mrdisorder 15 years ago

I liked this movie. When I first started watching it I felt like it was obnoxious (it is a contemporary black and white "silent" film with a fantasy story afterall) After a while I forgot about it though and was able to just enjoy the movie for what it was. Sure the story wasn't spectacular but it was presented in a way that made it interesting enough to watch. The editing and direction were consistent all the way through which doesn't seem easy in the case of this movie. This isn't one of the greatest movies ever made but I think it is important because it shows that you shouldn't be afraid to make a movie in a style that strays far from the norm. There is a place for movies like these in the art world. As a piece of art I wouldn't say it was a particularly good one, but as a movie I enjoyed it and I can understand why criterion would feel it is important for the medium.

reply

[–] commiered 13 years ago

I must side with Oogiebob. Why get so offended by a scathing, yet honest review of this film. Are you Maddin himself? I felt NOTHING when watching this film. Absolutely NOTHING. Great art moves me, provoke questions, and provides intellectual stimulus. This film absolutely FAILED to do anything even close. Let me film myself pissing in the toilet and we have the exact same thing.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eviltimes 15 years ago

Not without substance, just simplistic. After "Cowards Bend the Knee" I was expecting a lot more than this very simple tale of parental abuse affecting children story. I was hoping for a lot more.

reply

[–] pushnlacs 15 years ago

I just finished watching it and while I was actually really looking foward to checking out Maddins work(Im really into surreal cinema at the moment), I have to say it will be a very long time before I see another Maddin film, if ever. Branded IMO was absolutely horrible outside of one or two interesting images. One of the worst films Ive seen in some time actually.

First of all that editing was digusting, theres something to be said about a filmmaker that cannot allow a single shot of his to last more than 2 seconds tops. Then on top of that and worse of all, the film simply felt like a cheap immatation coming off as very very immature, extremely gimmicky, generic, shallow, repetitive, heavy handed, and down right full of s***(Fruedian s*** not the least of which).

There wasnt any emmotional impact whatsoever. Or anything of much interest considering that outside of the one or two shots I mentioned even the imagery was remarkably unispired. In fact I agree with the poster that says it felt like a highschool art project. Thats exactly what I was thinking while I watched it. I can imagine a goth high schooler looking for attention delivering the exact same thing. In fact you can go online and find countless other mock silent era films that look and feel exactly just like Branded. And chances are most of their creators have never seen a Maddin film.

And dont feed me that "it went over your head or you need everything spelt out" BS. I am very much capable of appreciating films that are outside the norm. But they do need to be well made and express something worthwhile, not the same old BS thats been done 100 times simply "painted"(lets beat you over the head with that one one more time) over with a number of mistakingly fresh coats. Just being different is not enough anyway. This is the prime example of a filmmaker trying WAY to hard just to be different(ironically not being so at all really).

And make me feel something, anything!

In retrospect I guess thats a bit harsh and I do respect any filmmaker trying to express something personal in a creative manner, its just that technically and thematicly I found the film weak.

reply

[–] modica 15 years ago

Loved it.

reply

[–] benefitovdadoubt 15 years ago

So I saw the film a couple days ago... twice in the span of a week and I'd have to say I liked the movie. I didn't love it, or hate it, just simply bottom line liked it... that being said I actually agree with everything pushnlacs posted.

I think the film is just meant to play with expressionism, as a poster said. The story, the acting, even some of the tech stuff(all of which I enjoyed btw) all come second to just getting out a silent movie and playing around with form. In that respect, I kinda agree that it looks like a film student project. In fact, when I saw the movie(my first Maddin film) I had an image of Maddin being a relatively young guy. I had no idea he'd been making movies since the 80s! Imagine my surprise when I saw the 97% True documentary and he's a middle-aged fella... in fact the doc has him talking about some of his influences like the Kucher brothers and Bunuel/Dali collabs. That says to me that this was just him playing with pre-existing material, messing around with it, and presenting us with Brand Upon the Brain!.

On that level I can't really hate on the film. I appreciate it, and I do find Brain! to be a fun movie in that regard(fun in the most broad sense).

As far as the editing, I think it's just Maddin's way of making the film "digestible" for modern audiences(yeah, irony right?). In the doc Maddin explains that most of the editing was done on accident. When he and his editor said to edit the film, Maddin would tell him to scroll through the desired scene, and the editor would scroll to fast and go past it, then Maddin would tell him to double back and it was in the scrolling backwards and forward that they achieved the whole "display intertitle for half a second, then display again for longer". I don't know if I buy all that, but like I said, I think Maddin just wanted to make it a little more accessible.

He also mentioned trying to get across a "feeling" on the screen, such as when young Guy is touching and feeling and reliving the island, I think Maddin failed here. Showing a character touch a wall, displaying an intertitle that says The Touch! and having the narrator scream The Touch! all at the same time doesn't work in conveying an emotion.

So, even though I agree with a lot of the criticism towards Brain! I appreciate what Maddin tried to do. Maybe down the line when I run into the movie again I'll feel differently about it, but for now I can see myself seeking out other Maddin titles.

reply

[–] rlh02e 15 years ago

I love how this is the only Guy Maddin film with anything approaching a substantial amount of discussion on its board. It's particularly funny how many of its detractors harp on this film, specifically, for "failing to expand upon the aesthetic foundation of the silent era/german expressionism"; "utilizing this aesthetic merely as a cheap gimmick", etc. etc...rather than attacking Maddin's ENTIRE BODY OF WORK--since the majority of it looks JUST LIKE THIS. Surely, this has absolutely nothing to do with this being his only film released through Criterion, which has led to an influx of obsessive Criterion nerds, otherwise unfamiliar with Maddin's work, blind-buying it solely out of "good faith" in Criterion--then being devastated when they weren't expecting a total throwback to german expressionism--nevermind that it's aesthetically identical to almost all of his previous work, thereby leaving little to no excuse, save for laziness and ignorance, for not knowing exactly what to expect. No, surely not.

reply

[–] PsychoDingo 13 years ago

Maybe they are hardcore Maddin fans who bought the Criterion DVD and were then devastated to find that this movie is entirely without snow.

You can't run from yourself.

reply

[–] jonah_begone 14 years ago

In the Criterion DVD featurette/Maddin interview, he states that he was trying to avoid coming off like an "artsy wanker."

I think he failed. I believe I wasted my time with this film.

reply

[–] conedust 14 years ago

Brand Upon the Brain! is an idiosyncratic film. It's both goofy and serious, formally elegant and deliberately amateurish, self-mocking and painfully earnest (i.e., it's a Guy Maddin film). The story doesn't "add up" in the manner that we typically expect. And sure, hese qualities may limit its appeal -- but they don't make it a bad film.

I think it's brilliant -- one of the funniest, strangest and most honest films about childhood experience & adult reminiscence I've ever seen. It's been fascinating over the past couple decades to watch Maddin slowly grow from a fringe-dwelling creator of interesting cult oddities into one of the most distinctive and compelling filmmakers of our era.

I mean, his style at first seems like this weird little fetish-box -- a locked-off budget universe constructed solely to satisfy an obsession with the technology and conventions of a bygone era. More like an amateur dress-up party than what we think of as "real cinema". In its relentless zaniness and fondness for camp nostalgia, the approach can seem precious, facile, and devoid of substance. And I think that was true, to some extent, of his early films. They were formally interesting, but also a bit tiresome, as though they didn't have much to to offer beyond their superficial cleverness and kitsch appeal.

But though he mocks and exaggerates the psychological landscape of his films, his recent work feels incredibly vibrant and emotionally authentic to me. And he's only getting better. At one time I thought The Saddest Music In the World would go down as his masterpiece, but with Brand Upon the Brain! and My Winnipeg, Maddin has broken a barrier of some sort, pushing his referential cinematic language to the point where he can seemingly do and say anything with it.

It's not "arty". It's a movie. Pictures and sounds, actions and consequences. And I'm awful damn glad to live in a world where it exists.

You must have been so afraid, Cassie... Then you saw a cop.

reply

[–] Pythe 13 years ago

Maddin is, in my opinion, a very interesting filmmaker, but not at all a conventional one, least of all in his approach to storytelling. He adds plot points and then discards them at will, sets up a subplot and arbitrarily abandons it. His films are like cinematic interpretations of the thought process, following one idea to an interesting point and then completely abandoning it for the next thought.

Needless to say, he's not a crowd-pleaser.

Personally, though I very much like Maddin, I think his films would be much more satisfying if he at least attempted a resolution of some sort. As much as I enjoyed Brand Upon the Brain! there was a wasted opportunity to make it more emotionally resonant with the Wendy/Guy storyline. There were hints of melancholy and loss but they disappeared as quickly as Wendy's memory. But then again I think Guy is more interested in absurdism than poignancy so you just have to take what you are given.

For his lack of following through on any particular thread I think his short films are better and more accessible than his feature-length films, which often go on a bit too long (the entire last chapter of Brand! could have been dropped in my opinion) though I find them beautiful to look at.

---------------------------------
"It was night. I could tell because it was getting dark."

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 10 years ago

I generally like Guy Maddin, but this just felt like art for art's sake. I found the imagery compelling but the story-line flat. This film is not for all tastes – which generally means it's for mine – but I was very glad to see this end. 5/10 from me for effort.

reply