Chained for Life

Besides the tremendous performance from Jess Weixler this film is absolutely atrocious. It was all over the place and made no sense whatsoever. I was completely lost and had no idea what was going on the entire film. I still don't know what the hell I just watched. Would not recommend.

'Actors and actresses are usually more beautiful than ordinary people....it is a supreme asset...because we love to look at them.' Pauline Kael's quote comes after Bonnie and Clyde (1967) because she is unhappy that the sexy violence is justifying it. Now it takes us further with this film we are obliged to look more at everyone. Chained for Life (1952) was an exploitation film about the real conjoined twins of Daisy and Violet Hilton. Aaron Schimberg takes his new one with the same title but instead of the 'Siamese Twins' he takes us to Adam Pearson who really has the genetic condition and we saw him in Under the Skin (2013) although he was also on many TV programmes. It is a rather splendid and difficult film within a film and relates to the previous film that we have to really look at others. We can consider listening to people is just as important as looking. We can commend Jess Weixler's performance as outstanding.

A movie about making a movie, and more.

One of our two main characters has the genetic disorder - neurofibromatosis. So, kudos to both, Pearson & Weixler, for their commitment & skill in presenting a thoughtful script.

Movie statements: "Disfigurement - they taunt me and beg me to show my face. Only so that when I do, they turn away in horror." "Do we long for beauty because we seek order & symmetry?"

MY thoughts: One thematic goal was reducing stereotyping in film. Another theme was - should a disabled or disfigured character be played by a non ... Yet, oddly, in this film, the Siamese twins portrayed were not joined; just twins. Another theme - is it vanity putting on make-up to feel pretty? Still another (and I really question) - "Actors that are beautiful have a greater range of expressiveness which gives them more opportunities, and we love to look at them."

The uniqueness of normality. The beauty of authenticity. The illusiveness of abnormality. The uncomfortable act of being seen. The ugly act of being ignored. The horror of theatricality. The truth of fiction. The monstrous clarity of objectification. The innate naturalism of aberration.

The least democratic thing in our society is how attractive others find us.

This movie is a subtly unfolding, intentionally clumsily-forged, plasticine act of dreamlike kindnesses and social inhumanity.

The mostly unseen Herr Director of the movie-within-the-movie, Warner Herzog-esque in his rhetoric but Uwe Bollian in his craft, is a huge delight. And Jess Weixler does her best young Drew Barrymore at first, but arcs towards being herself as the film unclenches in its formalism.

I also like how this movie opens by highlighting one of the multitude of ridiculous Ayn Randian comments that hack Pauline Kael slung in the name of film criticism.

One review had remarked on the movie being a puzzler about many layers of frames competing. I think the meta-cleverness of the movie being within layers upon layers makes it hard to watch, but that it also resonates long after in the same way Memento does. You have to really think about how it all fits together and what it is saying.