Eno

Watched this at the 2024 Sundance Film Festival.

Brian Eno is an interesting musician who has created some great music throughout his career. This documentary is approached in a strange generative matter and as a whole, the visual style, editing and choice of filmmaking creates an interesting story about Eno and what makes him super interesting. The documentary uses interviews, strange structures and interesting visual presentations that were informative and interesting to observe. Director Gary Hustwit really did a good job on creating an different style of documentary, yet, feeling refreshing and whole new level of experience.

Due to the style being slightly weird, certain moments feel a little strange on the editing structure and some pacing issues could come along. But as a whole, it was a good insightful documentary about Eno and his musical works. Brian Eno has made some wonderful music and I'd recommend checking them out if you are interested in this movie.

There is no better pairing for a generative documentary film than one about Brian Eno, a man who is clearly a master of developing processes and creative approaches. The idea of this film is interesting and as an art piece, I think it's great.

As a documentary film however, it does feel piecemeal. Certainly the viewer can create their own links between sequences but overall, what I saw lacked cohesion, a predictable outcome for any of the 52 billions versions of this film.

There may be some interesting applications for this type of creative approach, it's just a shame that, in this case, it's keeping so much about Brian Eno away from us.

One could easily imagine a docuseries about Eno, with segments on Roxy Music, Bowie, Talking Heads, U2, the birth of ambient, and the invention of generative music. While these might feel comprehensive (because they generally represent the 50+ years of his creative output), these segments would miss his love of nature (which informs everything he has ever done), his unique approaches (such as his Oblique Strategies), and his philosophies on creativity and art. Because it would be impossible to create a "definitive" docuseries, Eno never agreed to one.

Gary Hustwit approached Eno with a mind-bending idea to make a generative film, curating and editing new interviews and previously unreleased material into hundreds of scenes, but randomly choosing only dozens to form a viewing. The calm and cerebral 1.2 version that I saw (featuring art school and the birth of ambient music) shared only a few scenes with the energetic and emotional 1.1 version that I saw at the premiere (featuring Roxy Music, Bowie, and U2). While both were enlightening and inspiring, the two viewings told different stories.

In the premiere, I loved a particular Eno quote and thought "I need to come back to this scene" only to later realize that I might never see that scene again, even if I watched the film another dozen times. This forced me to approach the second screening more like a live performance, guided into the moment, as if by Eno himself.

We humans are continuously reshuffling our memories, adding new scenes and making new connections. And with each reshuffle, we tell a different story about ourselves. This film works like that. The "definitive" version was not one of the two versions that I saw, but rather the one that I get to assemble.

Very few people have led a life with this much range, length, and recorded content, so I am not sure that the generative film format will work for too many other subjects. But it works - absolutely brilliantly - for Eno. Highly recommended.

This is a very contrived piece of work in that it uses a technique which would never stand up in another art form -- sort of similar to eating dessert before the main meal, and then starting on the salad, and then having appetizers, and seeing them all spread out while you can only eat a small part of each one at a given time -- delivering a meal like this would get a chef and/or waiter fired at a restaurant. It compares to the idea of "Stunt Casting" (a classic example: casting Paris Hilton as Mother Teresa) -- this is the directing equivalent, where the Director just fishes out any scene they feel like and then showing it -- maybe sort of like an artist taping a banana to a wall and putting a price tag on it, or the urinal on a wall which was supposed to be an artistic statement. Sure, anything can be art, but does it stand the test of time? Not really. The angle that the Director takes to the subject is as important as the subject themself. When this is missing, there is an emptiness to the project. I for one cannot tell what it is that makes Eno a great artist as well, I only know that I like what he creates from a musical perspective but this documentary doesn't give me any kind of insight into it -- it just slams me with one idea after another and then I completely forget what the previous scene was all about and ultimately ignore whatever it was anyway.

Saw this in Austin in July 2024. The Eno documentary is very interesting - but I also found it very dangerous and very frustrating... there is so much footage and every showing is different (supposedly determined by a computer random generator - but not really exactly so - the same scenes begin and end each showing - and there are two other central tentpoles within its run time) - so you never know what you might be missing. (The director claimed there was over 540 hours of footage). Also - there a real danger of people using this new random generator and taking all the footage shot for a classic movie and remixing it into a different new movie - can you imagine what could be done with films in the future without the director's consent... its not a pleasant thought...