Change Your Image
akozina2
Reviews
Cosmos (2019)
The limits are not important when the film is good.
As much as i hate to put it like this; the limits are not important when the film is good. They only became that when it is bad. Then all we talk about are the limits as means of justification. I don't think that is a good habit. Firstly, if you don't have a good story - a new, different, critiquesque view on life, don't tell it. Write, but not a movie. When we talk about the story in movies, we talk about an idea - in a higher methapsysical sence. It is an apstraction of the life, let us call it a human experience that combines Self and anti-Self and sythesises in a unique, deep, simbolic way. That is when the film, stops being a medium and begins being art. In a critique, in a Kantian one at least, we want to define the limits: the thesis (T), antithesis (A) and the sythesis (S). Secondly, we need to define the elements of the dialectics (in a manor of Aristotle's "Poetics"). T is a Self that is either the idea of Self, or the Self embodied. A is a anti-Self. S is a higher Self, with some parts aufheben. That is a German idealists' hermeneutical approach. Self as a language is what we see, and as an idea is what we think, or feel - or as meta idea: what the author thinks. The title of this film is Cosmos. Translated from Greek it reads order. From the begining, after the Dark Age, the Greeks draw all of their knowledge from the pre-Dark Age civilizations, the written document by the poet Homer. German philosopher Martin Heidegger believed that the language was their way of existing, thus, making if the language gets wrongly interpretated, the existence will too. We can only speak about that what we know, but we can think all else - it is as we were ment to know so little so we can think up the rest. This notion of knowledge, and philosophy as the core of the modern new word, is in the centre of this film. Most of the time we are in a car that three philosophers use for their explorations. In it we get to know them through their pros & cons, we follow them theough drama, and comedy. If the actors don't work, or the chemistry doesn't, the will wouldn't. The Directors knew that, that is way the camera is, much like in The Lighthouse a partner, not a all-knowing God like entity, like with some directors. The characters that are actors live in are stilysed enough so they can be human beings, while being this smart, open minded individuals opressed by the system they are forced to serve to be themselves. That point is purely exatentialism. Camus' Shysiphus is happy at the end, but his job is still the one fully against his will. The music is Spielber like, evoking the feeling of hope, child like commitment. It is always present in a transcendental way. Sometimes we see the source, other times we feel it. Like Kubrick's opera 2001. It also has a very mature view upon the topic of technology, we would dear to say, a mature bioethic point of view: the technology, in a McLuhan way, can help us "reach the stars", figuratively and litteraly, but along that it also makes us alienate from the nature, and then, like in Plato's Allegory, we are prisoners of the shadows that we think are real. At one pont, the technology fails, for the same reason it allways fails, when it needs to discover something that it wasn't made to: how can an algorithm that is ment to solve a one problem, deal with others? (P vs. NP). And that is an interesting critique, for our characters as much as for us. You can't help but question are the tools that we souround ourseves with, daily, really are "friends" or, our "enemies". Those deep questions get an answer. We will not state here, where. But they do, sooner or later. That order that we are forced to live in forces us to brake it so we can understand it - and that premise is a base for every revolution. Which is a crutial part of a human nature / human experience. This work by its themes can "sit at the same table" with 2001. & Arrival. It is a deep film about the destiny of philosophy that hides itself under the simple premise. There is an irony in the fact that this was shoot and edited on digital techonoly and it is its critique. But it is the source of this film's wit. The editing sequences are used a lot, an expression of the "age of speed" we live in like they allways, on one way or another, are. But they never felt wrongly. They were shoot and timed great. The camera is more dinamic then Blaschke's in The Lighthouse. The transcendent dolly, used a lot by Spielberg, is used in souch a way that is adds movement and tension, but never in the epic, itterative way. The way the film is shoot isn't intellectual, economic, poetic like Solaris, The Lighthouse or 2001. But more in a controlled, Spielberg type, way. The movement is precise, it is closer to to work of Roger Deakins by its aesthetics. And while watching you see that was an intended way that Brothers took. Deakins' camera & lights can be poetic, but they don't go above the language of film, they will never be in that sence "poetic cinema". And this isn't as well. It is more a classical storytelling approach to the art of moving pictures, that is mostly safe but strong. For instance the frameing is good, but by using the frame more as a "weapon", and less as a canvas it could be better. The camera that was used isn't a low light one so the image they pulled from it is amazing. The blacks are nice, and the colors are vibrant and clear, for me the only problem was the color of some lights it was between white and gray, and maybe it would be better if one of those was choosen. The separation from the background was done with a minimal set-up but yet wery effective. And the Spielberg type, use of blue light and the fog was well emploied to help them tell this story that lives between the known & the unknown. The role of the time changes, firsty it helps our character to heal ould wounds, secondly it forces them to "catch the tempo of the universe". The meta ctitique of this piece is in the way one of the characters, Roy looks upon philosophers:
"But if it wasn't for people like you, people who are brave enough to push the bounaries that we know. We would all stand still."
In that we see that the true thinkers are those who understand who they are and they follow that. The message in the spirit of German idealists & modern, post-modern philosophy. It is an inspiration to all, and the most important thing, that isn't explicite said that being imperfect, not perfect, is a foundation of greatness and discovery. And that is this film's most important metamessage. That part is woven into the theme of morality in the immoral world. That gives its digital negative celluloid warmth. The idea that things are vissable only through the right viewfinder, is in the core of directing / history. And also in the sence of philosophy of the language / communication. This film is a truly amazingly done race against time, men against technology, Self against Anti-Self motion pricture. It is a labour of love, a true, naked, form of filmmaking as an art.
Zagrebacki Ekvinocij (2019)
Diving into style, while still swiming on the surface
This film is a right start on a new path for Croatian cinema. While being a mix of tested forms that stem from Aristotle's Poetics, with a safe dive into a new Hollywood, "Tarantinoesque cinema" on digital. But both is not sufficient enough for this film to have it's own voice. And that I'm sorry for. But Svebor's arrival to film was recent and thus his style is yet to be shown. If he however sticks to a mix styles approach and never develops his own, he would be one of the directors. But seen in this film is a potential for more. The opening titles show that a type of poetic filmmaking could be his in the future. Until then this film is a fine work, but too poor on substance to change Croatian cinema as a whole. Nonetheless, a fine ground for the upcoming winds of change.