"what’s even more fascinating than the film itself is the story behind it"
rather, the ONLY thing fascinating about it.... well okay, the locations are super cool... but if you just see the movie, ignoring all the cool production trivia and tarsem's obvious charisma, 'the fall' simply falls flat on its face, legs kicking in the air, having no clue what it's doing there, where it's supposed to be going, and most importantly, why.
brainpicker
· 11 months ago
While I agree that the "why" factor is questionable (I personally, as you know, didn't really "like" the movie), I disagree that all art has to answer the "why" question literally. It's like looking at a Jackson Pollock and asking why the blue specks are exactly where they are, or listening to Bjork and asking why she's sings the off-kilter way she does.
I think a lot of art isn't "about" a concrete thing that answers a "why" question. It's "about" a mood. Creating a moment, a different reality -- or un-reality -- for you to contemplate, and from that contemplation itself comes your takeaway. It can be an abstract feeling that you got, or a fleeting thought, but regardless -- regardless of its not being a linear "message" -- it has somehow enriched you... but only as much as you're willing to let it.
Teddy
· 11 months ago
i agree that the question "why" should not always have to be answered literally, but there always is an answer even if it's "just because". however, this is not a "just because"-type of movie. there was an intention and a point to it but the director just didn't deliver. quite frankly, it is completely understandable considering his background and lack of storytelling experience (commercials are a whole different language...former music video directors also have hard time developing characters and structuring a story). and i don't think we should justify a failed monet by calling it a pollock or a failed portishead by calling it a bjork. 'the fall' lacked in structure and character development. the jumps between the real and the fantasy world were disruptive on all sorts of levels to me, mainly emotionally inconsistent. the cold, abstract fantasy world, with all its pretty costumes, colors and locations was not enchanting or enticing to me at all... i just think that i see where this movie was supposed to go but it never did... :/ And for a quick reference on how this type of a movie should be made - Pan's Labyrinth. :)
brainpicker
· 11 months ago
Mostly valid points that I personally agree with. (Except for Pan's Labyrinth, which I haven't seen and thus can't really say.) I do, however, disagree with your fundamental assumption that emotion is all there is, the only holy grail of artistic impact. There's a lot to be said for powerful visceral stimuli and even just a good head-scratcher. So EVEN if The Fall falls flat on emotion for you (which I don't entirely agree with, but that's a different discussion), denying its total artistic footprint because it fails to deliver on the emotional front is a bit narrow.
As far as "this type of movie" goes, I don't really think this film can be typified. And while, subjectively speaking, it reminds me of a weird lovechild of German Expressionism and early avant-garde cinema, it stands on its own two feet well enough to warrant some recognition. Saying how this film "should" be done is, frankly, a bit arrogant -- as much as I respect your cinematic insight and knowledge -- especially given the director's incredible journey of bringing his vision to life. I don't believe that just because we may not like or even get it, we should feel entitled to question its artistic merit.
All Comments
rather, the ONLY thing fascinating about it.... well okay, the locations are super cool... but if you just see the movie, ignoring all the cool production trivia and tarsem's obvious charisma, 'the fall' simply falls flat on its face, legs kicking in the air, having no clue what it's doing there, where it's supposed to be going, and most importantly, why.
I think a lot of art isn't "about" a concrete thing that answers a "why" question. It's "about" a mood. Creating a moment, a different reality -- or un-reality -- for you to contemplate, and from that contemplation itself comes your takeaway. It can be an abstract feeling that you got, or a fleeting thought, but regardless -- regardless of its not being a linear "message" -- it has somehow enriched you... but only as much as you're willing to let it.
As far as "this type of movie" goes, I don't really think this film can be typified. And while, subjectively speaking, it reminds me of a weird lovechild of German Expressionism and early avant-garde cinema, it stands on its own two feet well enough to warrant some recognition. Saying how this film "should" be done is, frankly, a bit arrogant -- as much as I respect your cinematic insight and knowledge -- especially given the director's incredible journey of bringing his vision to life. I don't believe that just because we may not like or even get it, we should feel entitled to question its artistic merit.