This is a great film, and it goes into territories that few films even recognize, let alone approach. It does start a little slow, and the first few 'shorts' can come off as a bit ... well, pretentious, to be blunt. But past that, it's a fantastic portrait of an interesting character, and one which satisfies on a number of levels --- creatively, intellectually, and even emotionally.
What sets this film aside from many others are two main elements; the first is the novelty by which the film is presented: 32 short films, some of which are quite the same, but many of which are unexpected blasts of what can only be called 'experimental film'--- some of which seems almost silly, given how far technology and special effects have come since 1993. The 'films' really are quite short, and many of them are almost like small 'puzzles' which unfold so quickly that it's not until a second viewing that their underlying message becomes a bit more obvious, and it becomes clear how well-tied together all the shorts are. This is not short-attention span theatre, but it moves quick enough that once you get into the film, it's difficult to stop watching.
The other element which makes this film so great is the basic premise, and the way in which it refuses to be dumbed down for the audience. This is the rare case of a movie that respects it's audience, even at the expense of losing half an audience by not being bombastic and overly obvious. The first few shorts are the weakest, but they establish the basic character and 'backstory' of Gould quite well" He's a piano virtuoso who has become so amazing at playing piano that calling him 'genius' is a bit of an understatement. And while his character has a definite surplus of eccentricities and quirks, this film doesn't focus on his genius as we're used to seeing films treat the subject. Whereas most films make out a person;s genius to be a heavy burden to carry, which always seems to come at a high cost and lead to a desire for normalacy (to make we in the audience feel better for not being geniuses, I suppose), 32 Short Films goes in another direction: Here's a genius who enjoys being who he is, who makes the most of his mostly self-imposed loneliness by turning it into art, who enjoys the intellectual challenge of his own conflicts with intellectual society. Rather than the familiar portrait of genius as a soul-crippling condition which becomes almost indistinguishable from minor autism, we see a full human being, realized and thoughtful, able to confuse the sometimes-adoring, sometimes-confrontational media by admitting that he doesn't think it's worth talking about music--- how about talking about Indian rights, or the supernatural, or something that has no ostensible connection to music or anything piano-related? If you play music, or if you are an aficionado of classical music, there's a whole depth to this film which you'll enjoy, although it's not as at the forefront of the film as you might suspect. This is not a film about music, but the sort of person who plays music, recognizable as a character APART from the skill which defines him so much for everyone else.
This movie is a bit dated. That's really one thing it has working against it in some sense--- it feels at times like a movie from the 80's, and not in a 'cool 80's' way. Nonetheless, there's a certain air to the film which seems to disregard any particular age entirely, and this makes sense in a way, because Gould was clearly not one to feel confined to the age, and the ways in which things were being done.
There are so many things that are tempting to say about this film, which are probably just my own interpretations and conclusions, which it's probably better not to go into, simply because half the enjoyment of this film is developing those realizations yourself. Even if you can't stand classical music, you'll find this film rewarding.
Highly recommended.
What sets this film aside from many others are two main elements; the first is the novelty by which the film is presented: 32 short films, some of which are quite the same, but many of which are unexpected blasts of what can only be called 'experimental film'--- some of which seems almost silly, given how far technology and special effects have come since 1993. The 'films' really are quite short, and many of them are almost like small 'puzzles' which unfold so quickly that it's not until a second viewing that their underlying message becomes a bit more obvious, and it becomes clear how well-tied together all the shorts are. This is not short-attention span theatre, but it moves quick enough that once you get into the film, it's difficult to stop watching.
The other element which makes this film so great is the basic premise, and the way in which it refuses to be dumbed down for the audience. This is the rare case of a movie that respects it's audience, even at the expense of losing half an audience by not being bombastic and overly obvious. The first few shorts are the weakest, but they establish the basic character and 'backstory' of Gould quite well" He's a piano virtuoso who has become so amazing at playing piano that calling him 'genius' is a bit of an understatement. And while his character has a definite surplus of eccentricities and quirks, this film doesn't focus on his genius as we're used to seeing films treat the subject. Whereas most films make out a person;s genius to be a heavy burden to carry, which always seems to come at a high cost and lead to a desire for normalacy (to make we in the audience feel better for not being geniuses, I suppose), 32 Short Films goes in another direction: Here's a genius who enjoys being who he is, who makes the most of his mostly self-imposed loneliness by turning it into art, who enjoys the intellectual challenge of his own conflicts with intellectual society. Rather than the familiar portrait of genius as a soul-crippling condition which becomes almost indistinguishable from minor autism, we see a full human being, realized and thoughtful, able to confuse the sometimes-adoring, sometimes-confrontational media by admitting that he doesn't think it's worth talking about music--- how about talking about Indian rights, or the supernatural, or something that has no ostensible connection to music or anything piano-related? If you play music, or if you are an aficionado of classical music, there's a whole depth to this film which you'll enjoy, although it's not as at the forefront of the film as you might suspect. This is not a film about music, but the sort of person who plays music, recognizable as a character APART from the skill which defines him so much for everyone else.
This movie is a bit dated. That's really one thing it has working against it in some sense--- it feels at times like a movie from the 80's, and not in a 'cool 80's' way. Nonetheless, there's a certain air to the film which seems to disregard any particular age entirely, and this makes sense in a way, because Gould was clearly not one to feel confined to the age, and the ways in which things were being done.
There are so many things that are tempting to say about this film, which are probably just my own interpretations and conclusions, which it's probably better not to go into, simply because half the enjoyment of this film is developing those realizations yourself. Even if you can't stand classical music, you'll find this film rewarding.
Highly recommended.