Shirkers

"Henceforth, audience's curiosity is sizably whetted, and Tan's ensuing quest of "who is Georges Cardona" spirits us away to Cardona's hometown, interviewing his acquaintances and ex-wife (whose image is gingerly pixelated and only referred as "the widow"), and discloses a vague picture what a man he was, Nosferatu is the ostensible consensus: a fabulist who is envious of the achievement of his protégés, which he is not above to undermine at his convenience. Georges makes for such a fascinating case of mental complexity, the first impression he makes on others: emitting congeniality that incongruent with the cold glint in his eyes, might be the best encapsulation, however, SHIRKERS seem to pull punches in burrowing deeper into the truth (a half measure in our post-truth paranoia), whether it is from Tan's own equivocal interrelation with Georges, or the widow's conspicuous "I don't know anything about it" disclaimer."

I love documentaries. I love indie films. I was at one time a wannabe filmmaker just like the director of this film. So I was confounded that this film would have such a high rating. For the most part I felt the core of the film is almost a tale of the mundane (like someone telling you the one time their bike was stolen and how it was like totally a horrible experience). Because it recounts the trials and tribulations of a amateur production (which weren't that wild really), and are similar to stories that pretty much every film maker has. If Shirkers had actually been a film and had come out and been groundbreaking, then there would be a point to all this. A documentary like Lost in La Mancha is a good example of a documentary about a film gone wrong. This, however, is just another wannabe filmmaker saying they made this one amazing film, but it got ruined because of (fill in the blank). The one interesting part of the tale was George's story. It was what this film truly should have been about. Unfortunately, his story comes in to focus about an hour into the film and never gets thoroughly resolved or explored. Because this film is after all about the director, about her lost work, about the feelings it elicited from here -- in other words, all about her. There really is nothing else that the film explores. That ego-centricity is clear through the often clunky narration and through some of the interviews. As some friends even state, everything is about Tan. And that is what this film is, a film about a film written by her, starring her. So why should others be interested in it?

I heard the Sandi Tan interview on Fresh Air and was intrigued by Shirkers. Went into it with high expectations and thinking I knew what to expect, but was let down as I watched it unfold.

Tan narrates a film that is about her which includes video made by teenagers decades ago, a lot of people talking about Tan, and uninteresting storytelling.

It's a documentary with the seriousness and importance of a historic figure but the subject is a film critic/film maker describing this one mildly interesting thing that happened to her.

The premise was interesting, but it fell apart under the weight of her own self-importance.

Works on a lot of levels - as a glimpse into indie/counterculture in Singapore in 1992 with a distinctive young woman's voice, as an exploration into the psychological abuser who absconded with her film (what an asshole this guy was!), and as a study in reconnecting with friends decades later, taking them all back to a special time and place, and then viewing themselves from a distance. It's outrageous and maddening, but at the same time, touching and lovely. Very well done by Sandi Tan, and I would love to see a dubbed version of the original film.

I like the edit, the footages, the soundtrack, I feel the nostalgic the point of view and what the writer want to tell us, but I think it's misled. The most interesting part about the story is about George, what is his motives? What's he really do? Why he did it? We don't really have an answer for that. The documentary revolves around Sandi and her lost film, not George. I think George is a very interesting people and they didn't dig deeper, instead they tell you something that you less care about.