Empty Spaces

The main thing that prevents the viewer from getting into this, or at least for me, was the completely pointless chopped up editing and the camera going into weird angles. All it does is disrupt the continuity, although what masquerades as a plot here really meanders to nowhere. The music is annoying and in no way matches up with the onscreen action, for lack of a better word. The few positives here don't counteract all the other amateur ploys they use to try and draw the viewer in. I don't appreciate when they waste ten minutes to hammer a point home that could have been made in one minute. No, nothing works here. More art house crap.

The beauty in this film lies in both its simplicity and its sheer realism. It tells a seemingly straightforward story about a man at a turning point in his life, his actions and feelings and how they affect those around him. The camera lingers on the actors long after most directors would have called "cut!" And the story is all the better for it. We see those in-between moments, and at times the angst and the emotion feels all too real. There are no metaphors in real life, and it's the same in this film. It feels almost like a documentary, and you start to wonder if the people on the screen are really even acting, or just living out their lives while we watch.

This "movie" is very beautiful from a purely visual standpoint and interesting for that reason alone. It may be worthwhile to watch it with the sound off just to enjoy the stunning cinematography. There are some truly fascinating shots. However, that is the only thing I enjoyed about this film. The story was confusing and went nowhere. Who are these people? Are they brothers? Why was one of them burying money in the wilderness? I have so many questions and none of them were answered. I like for a movie to wrap up all the loose end in the final act and answer all of the viewer's questions. This one did not. Instead it only raised more questions, and I found it frustrating for that reason. It reminded me of a weird European art film or a David Lynch movie, so if you're into that sort of thing you may enjoy this, but it was not for me. I give it 2 stars out of 10 for the story only because there were one or two funny parts, and I give it 10 stars out of 10 for the wonderful cinematography. That averages out to 6 stars out of 10. Thank you and goodnight.

OK, so I will get this out of way and say that yes, this film does have some audio issues, but they are small and forgivable, and so did "Come and See," which is nonetheless considered a masterpiece. So we can move past that. Now, very often I overhear people talking about a film with a heart, which is to say that it moved them in some way. Well "Empty Spaces" is a film with a brain like no other that I've seen in a long time. It does not dumb anything down for the audience, but at the same time it tells a simple story. The brothers don't call each other "brother," and if we don't figure it out on our own then we simply don't figure it out. Nothing gained, nothing lost, just as it should be. And yet the plot is so simple, in fact, that it turns out to be exceedingly clever in its simplicity. It pulls no punches, as the saying goes. Unfortunately, I do not believe that many other viewers, not ever those who enjoyed this film, understood its entire meaning. It is such a unique viewing experience that most were undoubtedly caught up in the novelty of the thing. Truly, the director never cuts away from the action (or inaction) of the main character, when literally any other director would. It may come across as slow or boring to some, but it is in fact hypnotic. There is so much subtext in what is left unsaid. I have seen this film three times, and each time it is a different film, because each time I pick up on something new. It is truly fascinating.

I watched two films this weekend. One was Empty Spaces and the other was a film called Frozen (not the animated Disney film, but the 2010 thriller about three skiers stuck on a chair lift). Neither film was particularly good, but they both did one thing very well, and that was their use and handling of dramatic tension.

The two films took very different approaches to this aspect of their stories, which is why they make excellent partners for comparing and contrasting. On the one hand, Frozen showed us three characters trapped in a claustrophobic setting in a life-or-death situation. There were a ton of obvious dramatic elements at play: what if they fall? What if they freeze to death? The fact that they spend most of the film on a ski might make you think that you'd get bored pretty quickly, but the filmmakers made up for the one tiny location by packing the bulk of the film with sheer edge-of-your-seat tension. It's one thing after the next, and it's very well done because it is very realistic. It works, because we know it could happen in real life. It's like Open Water in that respect. But while that film failed because it really was boring, this one succeeds by handling the tension and the drama infinitely better. Perhaps the filmmakers here studied the earlier film and learned from its mistakes. Kudos on them if they did.

Empty Spaces, on the other hand, took a somewhat opposite approach. It too gave us a handful of characters in a dramatic situation. But while Frozen gave us upfront, in-your-face tension, Empty Spaces provides instead a sort of slow-burning tension. Unlike Frozen's life-or-death scenario, Empty Spaces presents an emotional scenario of a man at a crossroads in his life after his wife leaves him and their daughters. It's filled with emotional tension throughout, but at the start of the film it is barely apparent. We're not given all the details about the situation, but instead we're shown these characters in their life, and slowly things begin to unravel and certain things come to light. We see the tension slowly build, and like in Frozen we can't look away. Here too the tension is very realistic and very well done.

Neither approach is entirely original, but both are rare birds these days, so it was nice to see these films, and back-to-back no less. I got lucky, having happened upon them both by chance. Overall, however, no one will ever call either of these films a masterpiece. Both suffer from the innate shortfalls of their small budgets (amateur actors, limited locations, and technical constraints).

I had a unique viewing experience, as I couldn't help but compare these two films, having watched them so close together. In doing so, I was better able to more easily pick up on the things that they did so well. If I had seen the films by themselves, I don't know if I would have appreciated them as much. If you're so inclined, I recommend viewing these two as a double feature.

Thanks for reading!