The Book of Vision

A real mixed bag. A twin timeline, one in 18th century Prussia, a second in modern day. The actors play similar roles in both timelines which flicks backwards and forwards incorporating dream sequences that play a major part in the telling and formulation of the plots. Occasionally, the timelines and dreams are mixed in present day and can become confusing or intriguing depending on how you cope with non linear storytelling.

The Good parts are, as ever, Charles Dance, the costumes, settings, the dream sequences and the basic plot outline.

Where it falls down is in the execution. The script is wooden in parts, delightful in others. Some actors have had their parts overdubbed for some reason. The ending fails to deliver the emotional punch that the film builds up to. That said it's a pleasant enough ride up until that point.

THE BOOK OF VISION (2020) tells a story of love through the passage of time, with medical science's advancement as the backdrop. Due to its nature and slightly complicated arrangement of characters' relationship (mind you, the plot is interwoven between 18th century and modern days), this movie is deemed to appeal to certain audience and limited box office result. Nevertheless, Carlo Hintermann in his debut as feature film director has crafted an exquisite and thought-provoking work.

When our cinema is swamped with comic heroes, jump scares and meaningless violence, THE BOOK OF VISION is nothing but a bit of fresh air or, tell it like it is, a good 90 minutes of human emotion drama.

Enjoyed watching this film, very much. Not one of Terence Malik's best. Personally I'd suggest The New World is his best followed closely by The Tree of Life. This film is still extremely good on so many levels. I guess the reason I didn't give it 10 is because the point of the story is a little hard to understand or 'get'. This isn't always a bad thing for me, in that with what I consider a good piece of film entertainment, if I don't quite 'get it', it usually follows with a 'I need to watch it again', and a few times. What could possibly be better than sitting down to watch a film over and over and over again, years apart? I've been watching my favourite Malik's over and over - and over many years. It's fun. It's enjoyable. Very much the same for a great many other great films and great film makers. I find it curious to consider a 'line' in this film where the Charles Dance character questions the Lotte Verbeek character, during a strained dinner party, over which he questions why she spends her time studying some obscure past instead of using her talents to live and work in the now and the future. The answer of course, here, is because one cannot understand the now or have any idea of the right future without understanding the past and all the tangential discourses along similar lines. Perfect. Different people like different genres of films but criticising one genre because it's not the type you like is not at all correct! Talking of which, 'context is everything'. Worth considering with regard to everything. Otherwise an opinion is utterly pointless. Talking of which, I am amused on my IMDB ... thing ... that under the title of 'similar titles you might like' (or whatever it is), the crazy machine shows a whole load of titles that are not at all similar ... in any way, that I can discern. It would appear that for AI and/or IT algorithms, 'context is irrelevant. Oh well. "What a marvellous modern world we live in". Was this review helpful? Probably not.

The film's premise is certainly interesting: a multi-period exploration of the transition to modern medicine, the interplay between scientism and Western esotericism, and the subsequent change in doctor-patient dynamics.

Dance lends his usual gravelly tones, Korovkin is terrifying, and Dychauk's performance is heartbreaking, yet all are shackled by Hintermann's clunky dialogue. Gudnason and Verbeek's talents are sadly wasted on underdeveloped characters.

Indeed, it's the script that fails the actors. The dialogue is so disjointed it feels like a good deal was left on the cutting-room floor, and what remains is devoid of any poetry. The characters are one-dimensional receptacles for Hintermann's reductive ideas, either passionately romantic or coldly clinical, but never complex. It ruins what would otherwise be a very touching story.

Hintermann has chosen to approach symbolism with all but the kitchen sink. Visually interesting as individual set pieces, the continuous lack of subtlety climaxes as Verbeek bursts into a 90-second musical number before swooning into Gudnason's arms with all the grace of Fanny Squeers. The next thirty minutes is a fever dream of dynamic shots and ever-changing Dutch angles more suited to a noughties flick than a sombre period piece. Many static shots are filmed on a shaky Steadicam (oxymoron intended) and occasionally the audio dubbing is visibly out of sync.

That said, Tufano's costume design is breathtaking, the set design is gorgeous, the music and foley superb. The film's more artistic shots are beautifully composed. I appreciate the film for what it tried to be and look forward to Hintermann's next project - but this is a diamond in the very, very rough.

Eva (Lotte Verbeek) has given up her career as a surgeon to study the history of medicine. She is suffering from a mysterious illness and under the care of Dr Morgan (Charles Dance). In her studies she is given an old book written by an 18th century surgeon Dr Anmuth (again played by Charles Dance) whose understanding of medicine extends to the need to understand a patient's feelings, dreams and fantasies, indeed, that maintaining a strong relationship between doctor and patient and body and soul is critical. We are taken into Anmuth's era with Lotte Verbeek / Eva now his patient, Elizabeth. Eva looks to understand in light of her own illness and the book why the approach to medicine has, rightly or wrongly moved away from a deeper understanding of a patient to merely understanding the bodily mechanics of sickness.

Straddling the present and the 18th century, this does possess a dreamlike quality. However make no mistake we're in true Terrence Malick territory here where there's more than enough allegory and symbolism ripe for interpretation to last a lifetime with only the bare bones of anything you'd call a story. It's a perfectly reasonable aspiration to create a stylish piece at the expense of storytelling but here I found it often a touch heavy going and with too many existential targets. In terms of performance I'm not entirely sure I was entirely convinced by the ensemble, although Dance gives one of his best performance, bringing the needed gravitas for the piece in spades - it would not have worked without him. Overall I would have preferred a bit more story and substance.