Sunday, 8 August 2010

Биҳишт фақат барои мурдагон

To Get to Heaven, First You Have To Die

Film directed in 2006 by some director. Don't even know why I'm bothering to blog about this. It's Russian/Tajik.

Very sparse. Very bleak. No enjoyment. Nothing to appreciate. Very slow. Not much dialogue. Even the 'action' scene was dull. The thing is, it's meant to be.

(When I say "apparently" its because the back of the case says it, or some description of the film on a website)
Back of the case it calls itself a "less-is-more" film. The main actor/protagonist was fairly good. Gets naked in the film. Probably regrets doing so now. Is married from a young age (19?). We don't get to see his wife. Apparently impotent. Doctor again, apparently, says there's nothing wrong with him. Goes to 'the city'. The city seemed like a barren wasteland to me: buses to warehouses out in more rural environments. You don't get to know it's a city at all.. There weren't any tumbleweeds because then the film might of had some atmospheric depth.

Wanders around aimlessly with this "big, wide eyes" look - I'll give the descriptions that. He tries to touch peoples hands on the bus -- very subtly, nothing clichéd or totally perverse (slowly sneaking his hand over to a woman's on a railing). I'll also agree with the case/descriptions "country boy naivete" mainly because the character was lifeless, as were all of them, and the whole film. Actually, I don't see how having large eyes and keeping them open for a shot and wandering around after anonymous woman connotes to "country boy". I think all these negative aspects of the film is why people claim to appreciate it, or are supposed to appreciate it.

There was no real character development, the woman which this article claims he was in love with he saw twice and did nothing to express any sort of emotion with (pointless shagging scene at the end when he's in his jacket. About the only message the films give you). The film had no real atmosphere to it. Or culture. It was very unbelievable, and didn't offer itself anything to be taken hypothetically. The woman who he meets -- they don't even converse. That's not emphasised enough either to make a valid point or plot. Turns out she has a husband, and the guy is somewhat forced into breaking into houses and such with him. Even those events seemed dull and boring, and Mr. Criminal didn't have any impact on the audience.

I could go on. I could find more synonyms for boring, sparse, and dull, but then I'd be just like this film. If critics and the Cannes festival want to say "less-is-more", it just confirms they're pretentious. This film isn't even dull in a good way, but that's what makes it good, apparently.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Good review. I myself give 3/10. And I found it very boring as well.