Well as I said, "Now the quality of these images can be debated." I haven't read anything by the director about the film and don't want to to be honest, but I don't think either of you understood the movie (based on your comment in the other thread, Jade). Every directing choice gave the movie the feeling of real life from the opening scene where the protagonist is shown in extreme long shot, with the other bus patrons featured just as prominent and the cars featured as the most prominent objects. There is an anonymity surrounding the character in this scene: he is not the protagonist; he is just a person.
He is just a person because he is presented in real life. The shooting style continues the real-life vibe of the movie. The camera never looks away. It stares on objectively through thick and thin. (Spoilers) you might not want to watch every step of the stairs, an abortion sequence, a rape, murders--this isn't many people's idea of a fun time--but the camera doesn't give you a cop out, because in life, there is no cop out: you watch every step, every punch, every thrust.
Legendary, you said "As is we can't make a case for clever dialogue or intricate plot points and twists." If these are your primary concern in a movie, then I seriously question your understanding of the artform overall. Maybe theater is more for you. But in this case, it is clearly (or apparently not clearly) intentional to skip these. I agree that "the movie's own gimmick limits its narrative to primal relationships and the most easily inferred plot," but I disagree that this is bad. E.M. Forester said that there are character-driven novels and plot-driven novels in "The Aspects of the Novel", but "The Tribe" is a visually-driven work. The focus is on composition, pacing, mood, etc., not "clever dialogue" and plot twists as you desire. As I said, this is a poem of images.
And you said jade, "Ooo let's have sex ! And violence ! . . . And aren't the poor Ukrainians having a hard time of it lately, so we'd better 'feel' for them !" Ava DuVernay recently tweeted "Strong narrative videos by Kendrick Lamar, Rihanna, Bilal released yesterday. Each one illustrates violence. Artists reflecting the times." I think that applies here as well. As for "Ooo Let's have no dialogue ! And use sign language !," again, leaving only the images, environmental sounds, and auxiliary noises from the performance of actors makes this movie more expressive, not less.
But the flaw of this movie is that the plot is too fantastical for real life. I'm okay with gritty, but this is the wrong gritty, an artificial gritty that doesn't fit. Despite this, great movie in my book.
Maybe you think film wasn't meant for feeling like real life, or maybe no dialogue dilutes the realism. that's a debate I'm fine with. And which I am up for; I had a lot of fun writing this :).
My signature is pretty appropriate right now, haha.
"A film is never really good unless the camera is an eye in the head of a poet."
Orson Welles
reply
share
Legendary_Badass
9 years ago
If you feel realism is the crux of cinema, then I seriously question your understanding of the artform overall. Maybe reality is more for you.
The Tribe is a total failure at putting a hearing capable audience into the shoes of the deaf. It wants to be character driven, but there is no way for the audience to pick up on nuances. A character can't sign a joke that the audience will understand. This isn't Quest for Fire, where the subject matter of cavemen lends well to the most basic of scenarios. It's as though the intention was to constantly remind the audience that we don't fit into their world. A foreign film with no subtitles, heavy on communication, can't sustain thought provoking scenarios for the duration of a feature against a modern setting.
THE ONLY CRITIC WHO CAN REVIEW WHILE JOGGING:
http://bit.ly/1pPzoBc
reply
share
Confusion_Fall
9 years ago
I don't know if you're misinterpreting me to get your point across or just because you don't understand. I never said realism is the crux of cinema, but realism is the purpose/style of this movie. If I praised L'age d'or's surrealism, I'm not saying surrealism is the crux of cinema; it's just what that film chooses to do.
You seem set on thinking The Tribe intended to put the viewer in the shoes of the deaf. Now if it was trying to do that, why would it have sound? Lol. If that was what it intended, I would agree that it failed. But the film wasn't, and if it was, I don't care, because it succeeds clearly in other areas and nothing is felt by the failure of the intent without knowing of the intent.
There is no room for nuance because there wasn't supposed to be. Period. It works with simple characters and simple scenarios. The movie would be awful if it was done in a way to please you. The story is the weak part and you want to emphasize it by putting more stress on the characters and dialogue and taking it off of the style. It's emphasis on style through the collection of the images and lack of language that makes the movie worthwhile.
But hey, at least we both hate Enter the Void!
"A film is never really good unless the camera is an eye in the head of a poet."
Orson Welles
reply
share
finnski
7 years ago
I completely agree with the OP..
A failed experiment that only serves to distance the audience and dull any kind of personal connection or impact.
Not to mention - cheesy unbelievable fight scenes, unrealistic sex scenes, no sense of reality (where are the adults in this school?? No consequence for a kid being run over outside of school?) and ugly cinematography shot so far away I couldn't even recognise the protagonists face.
reply
share