ray-94

Although I have mixed feelings about *Otesanek,* I can't get some of its images out of my mind, which, to me, is the mark of a good work of surrealism. Just as a powerful dream can haunt you, a film, a poem, a painting that employs the energy of the subconscious can imprint itself on your consciousness so much more strongly than art that works at "higher" levels. So it is with *Otesanek.* And, as in the best surrealism, it's the little things that hit hardest: e.g., the way the animated roots (the "toes" of the "baby" Otik) push themselves through the cracks in the bin in the basement; the way the food is shown in such hideous ways (shades of David Lynch's *Eraserhead*); even the baby monger at the movie's start. Like comics and other myths, surrealism starts with the assumption that anything goes and takes it down its own dark corridors. Apparently, Svankmajer doesn't consider himself a filmmaker so much as a surrealist, and, watching this film, you can see the importance of that statement. It helps you get over the film's flaws, which are, to me, mostly flaws of omission. As a fan of American horror movies (both the well-made and the shoddy), I kept hoping Svankmajer used some of the language from that genre (again, I am reminded of David Lynch, who enhances his art by dipping into the conventions of genre). But this is a relatively minor quibble.

As a modern day fairy tale, the movie works brilliantly. Someone else thought of it as anti-Disney, and that is a good way to think about *Otesanek.* All the nasty aspects of life are here, as in any good dream: the digestive process, which starts with consumption, is a major consideration here (for the squeamish -- who probably couldn't stomach this film anyway -- I must add that elimination is not portrayed, unless you consider picked over skeletons as elimination). Life is not clean, except in our sentimental portrayals, which gloss over the seamier side of organisms. *Otesanek* (and lots of good fairy tales) start there.

See this movie if you love the surreal, especially the European take on it. See this movie if you love the horrible wonder of authentic fairy tales. See this movie if you're sick of slick digital animation and love camera-based animation (I've always loved the poetic beauty of stop motion animation, from Willis O'Brien, through Ray Harrihausen, to Tim Burton and the Brother Quay). See this movie if you know what children know about power. If my digressions make some sense, I don't think you'll be disappointed. Me, I'll never again be able to look at a tree root in the same way as before I saw *Otesanek.* That's what art's supposed to do: change the world utterly.

Someone in France must have thought to exploit the potential of Buster as a schlemiel and a comic mime (which is his character in a nutshell, no?). Certainly this movie respects and uses him better than, say, "What, No Beer?" He is the central character and he gets a chance to run & look beleaguered, but the film lacks any sort of brilliance or madcap inventiveness, except in little details where Buster may have been adlibbing. It's worth seeking out for Keaton fans, for a few reasons: Buster gets to speak French (though he is speaking the lines, his voice is dubbed with a sort of scratchy French voice -- except at one point where his actual voice says "Ouvrir la porte!"); he gets to play a bad guy, an escaped American gangster who leads a chase for the "good" Buster & who shoots cops as he flees them (a surreal perversion of Buster's usual dilemma); and, probably the strangest sight, which comes just before the final fade (to "Fin") where Buster gets the girl, says "Oh, Baby!" and breaks into a big grin. Keaton fans can just imagine how odd it is to see that smileless face (& he remains stonefaced throughout the movie) lighten up and show how happy he is. The fact that this film is in unsubtitled French isn't too much of a drawback, since its sense is conveyed through action. Buster gets to dissolve societal order into chaos at least three times (he tosses away 5 million francs, he gets caught in a knight's helmet & disrupts a stage show, and he leads the cops & gangsters onto the stage of a very boring play, where they shoot each other & the stodgy orchestra, and rouses the audience from its lethargy). Some have said that this movie might have revived Keaton's career from its 1930's abyss, but I don't think so; the acting is too European and the setting is obviously not America, yet it's commonplace, rather than "exotic." It's true that Buster looks good and is in fine form, rather than seeming obviously drunk & depressed, but that doesn't necessarily relate to a movie's acceptance. A curio, particularly if you don't understand French.