polysicsarebest
Joined Jul 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings1.9K
polysicsarebest's rating
Reviews107
polysicsarebest's rating
How do you film nothingness? How do you film emptiness? How do you film the unfilmable? Close your eyes and rub them hard with your fingers. Push your eyelids as hard as you can. Then, release. See those images? Those fluttering, static-y "images"? How do you film that? No matter what advances we've made in modern technology, there are simply some things that can't be filmed in any meaningful way. We can allude to them, make references to them, talk about them -- but there is no way to accurately present them, no camera built yet to make this happen. It's this frustration that often seems to motivate Adam Cooley's work as a filmmaker. He wants to film scenes -- and emotions, thoughts, ideas -- that can never really "exist" in a "filmed" way. He doesn't use sped-up footage and reverse footage like most directors, who use them in dream sequences or cutaway centerpieces; he uses them as just another tool in editing. He uses it just like he uses elliptical editing and jump cuts and every other style of editing we've taken for granted for 50 years. Indeed, he -- stylistically and aesthetically -- is just trying to present an awkward, cold, disillusioned reflection of his own personal demons, drama, and psyche. He gets as close as possible to filming the unfilmable, the real drama of his life and "career" as a musician and filmmaker: filming director's block.
This film is about making a film. Or, rather, NOT making a film. Adam Cooley starts with himself, a good 10 minutes where he stares directly into the camera, and tries every trick he can think of to present something "meaningful" and "important". He plays with color schemes as if to ask, "How SHOULD I create this; how SHOULD you see it?" Indeed, there are an infinite number of ways to present a scene -- the colors, the music, the structure of a scene; instead of presenting one way, Adam presents different interpretations of the same scene. He may repeat a scene -- or a scene very similar (there are constant reoccuring images of Adam holding toy guns for seemingly no "reason") -- to show that he CAN, but has no idea how to, show a scene in many different ways.
Editing ranges from sloppy, amateurish, and jarring to stylistically unique, individual, and daring. Minutes 11-20 focus on Adam and a girl and their love. Should the film, then, become a romance? What is this film trying to say? Soon, the film begins to dump animation, HUGE crowds of people, and more, into the framework, everything but the kitchen sink is eventually explored.
All of it adds up to nothing. The first 30 minutes or so is basically saying: "I make films because I don't know what else to do. Oh, I CAN do other things, but I love making films so much that even if I have nothing to say, I want to say SOMETHING. At the same time, I want to entertain -- I want people to watch. But how do I get them to watch? How many tricks can I use?" Adam does, indeed, use many tricks: musical numbers, LOTS of animation that is at least as good as anything you'd see on Adult Swim, and some pretty insane editing and sound (keep in mind this was all filmed on a $24 camera, with no budget whatsoever, primarily with only two actors, and all did with Windows 95 freeware programs). Eventually, though, things chang. The final "part" of the film becomes REAL. Whereas the first 80% of the film is a somewhat absurd recreation of apparently true events, the final part is a straight-up documentary: the first part of the film is shown to an audience, in a theatre, and Adam documents the failure of the film. His director's block led him to create something worthless. This film -- to quote the title of another of Adam's work -- has no reason to exist.
The actual meaning of this project will vary greatly depending on whoever watches it. But no one can deny that a LOT of work was put into this thing. There are many haunting moments of piano, lots of rather insane stop motion/time lapse animation; before your eyes, you will see landscapes covered in snow and then all the snow melting. You will see arms get infected with bloody wounds and then the wounds scabbing and healing. You will see buildings being created. You will see people disappearing from landscapes. Day turning to night turning to day turning to night. Hair growing. People getting older. People completely changing their dispositions. People become characters and then become real.
Maybe "fiction" and "reality" aren't too far off. Maybe the truth and lies are one in the same, in some strange way. Whatever CURRENTLY UNTITLED means to you -- and, really, the meaning is probably right there in the title -- it is certainly one of a kind in the world of experimental, underground filmmaking.
This film is about making a film. Or, rather, NOT making a film. Adam Cooley starts with himself, a good 10 minutes where he stares directly into the camera, and tries every trick he can think of to present something "meaningful" and "important". He plays with color schemes as if to ask, "How SHOULD I create this; how SHOULD you see it?" Indeed, there are an infinite number of ways to present a scene -- the colors, the music, the structure of a scene; instead of presenting one way, Adam presents different interpretations of the same scene. He may repeat a scene -- or a scene very similar (there are constant reoccuring images of Adam holding toy guns for seemingly no "reason") -- to show that he CAN, but has no idea how to, show a scene in many different ways.
Editing ranges from sloppy, amateurish, and jarring to stylistically unique, individual, and daring. Minutes 11-20 focus on Adam and a girl and their love. Should the film, then, become a romance? What is this film trying to say? Soon, the film begins to dump animation, HUGE crowds of people, and more, into the framework, everything but the kitchen sink is eventually explored.
All of it adds up to nothing. The first 30 minutes or so is basically saying: "I make films because I don't know what else to do. Oh, I CAN do other things, but I love making films so much that even if I have nothing to say, I want to say SOMETHING. At the same time, I want to entertain -- I want people to watch. But how do I get them to watch? How many tricks can I use?" Adam does, indeed, use many tricks: musical numbers, LOTS of animation that is at least as good as anything you'd see on Adult Swim, and some pretty insane editing and sound (keep in mind this was all filmed on a $24 camera, with no budget whatsoever, primarily with only two actors, and all did with Windows 95 freeware programs). Eventually, though, things chang. The final "part" of the film becomes REAL. Whereas the first 80% of the film is a somewhat absurd recreation of apparently true events, the final part is a straight-up documentary: the first part of the film is shown to an audience, in a theatre, and Adam documents the failure of the film. His director's block led him to create something worthless. This film -- to quote the title of another of Adam's work -- has no reason to exist.
The actual meaning of this project will vary greatly depending on whoever watches it. But no one can deny that a LOT of work was put into this thing. There are many haunting moments of piano, lots of rather insane stop motion/time lapse animation; before your eyes, you will see landscapes covered in snow and then all the snow melting. You will see arms get infected with bloody wounds and then the wounds scabbing and healing. You will see buildings being created. You will see people disappearing from landscapes. Day turning to night turning to day turning to night. Hair growing. People getting older. People completely changing their dispositions. People become characters and then become real.
Maybe "fiction" and "reality" aren't too far off. Maybe the truth and lies are one in the same, in some strange way. Whatever CURRENTLY UNTITLED means to you -- and, really, the meaning is probably right there in the title -- it is certainly one of a kind in the world of experimental, underground filmmaking.
As a longtime Godard fan (especially his later works, like "Every Man For Himself" and "King Lear"), the wait for his latest film was excruciating; it had been 6 long years since the brilliant "Notre Musique" confounded and shocked me with its eye-popping imagery, jarring editing, and poetic dialogue. Something I've noticed about Godard is that he always strives for more and is always willing to take his ideas and methods and approach further and further. I was expecting a pure information overload with "Film Socialisme", and I was not let down. There is a lot going on in this picture, and it's going to take many, many watches for me to understand everything, to piece together all the information. No matter -- Godard's works have always been densely-layered and offer rewards for those willing to keep watching.
Such is the case here; Godard seems to be be in Histoire(s) du cinéma mode here, since this film -- for the most part -- resembles his work with that brilliant "film essay" series, as well as calling to mind films like Numero Deux and Comment Ca Va? Godard, for the first time, shot this entire film on digital, and the results are fascinating, sometimes even... funny. During one part, the crappy digital camera he had been shooting with appears to have been failing -- or at least, there was some failure when transferred to the computer for editing -- as parts skip ahead, and backwards; there are artifacts on the screen, audible and visual glitches, obscuring moments of a character's speech. This wasn't my DVD -- this was definitely part of the film. Other parts of the (early parts of) movie seem to have been filmed on really crappy webcams, then the footage was oversaturated... the results are quite jarring, especially when some of the "crap" footage is put next to some of the most beautiful digital filmography I've ever seen. There are audio messups, video glitches; recording synch sound on a boat in itself is absurd, as you mainly hear wind, people screaming in the distant, the engine of the ship; in sequences filming a party, you basically can't hear anything but fart sounds, a loud distorted booming and crashing. So, Godard seems to be using new technology against itself, in a way. He plays with jump cuts (which he popularized 50 years ago and has rarely used since), stop-motion (filming a camera being reassembled), dramatic pausing, silence, glitching, and slow motion. The first 40 minutes are all kinda like this; voices from who-knows-where delivering lines that were important to Godard, as image after image is shown in very quick bursts; some images were jaw-droppingly beautiful, some were distorted beyond comprehension -- all were striking. Godard is first and foremost an artist, and rest assured that the first 40 minutes are highly artistic. Not a dull moment in what can only be described as a postmodern documentary. Has Godard been watching the Current Channel? Has he been surfing Youtube? There definitely seems to be a lot of influence from outside sources in this part of the film, maybe even some of video art manipulating master Ryan Trecartin...
Then, the next part of the film -- a good 30-40 minutes -- is extremely "Godardian". It should be very familiar to people who have seen any of Godard's recent films. There's not a lot of image or sound manipulation here; just lots of long, quiet takes of characters discussing life... usually filmed in front of strikingly beautiful backdrops. This section calls to mind every film he's made in the last 30 years, Some people call this "alienating", but his style is so brilliantly personal, I can't help but be fascinated. The direction in this section is topnotch, of course...
...and it leads to the final 30 minutes, which is mostly a film essay, with dialogue over top of mostly stock footage (scenes from other films).
So, it's an overwhelming experience, but I never felt it was 'tiring'; I could've watched another hour or two of this stuff, definitely. Therein lies its brilliance. While, indeed, its difficult to sum up in a few words, its not difficult to understand why its so compelling; this is one giant ball of images, sounds, quotes, hitting us so fast that we can barely keep up. I'm not qualified to put forth everything this film meant to me, after just one watch, but I do know I will be watching this film 100 more times in the future, because it's just so captivating.
Forgot to mention... LOLcats are on this, as well as a lama who lives in a garage.
A truly brilliant experience that a lot of people will find "difficult" or "challenging", but to be completely honest, this is one of Godard's most easy-to-get-into films in a long time; by adopting the elliptical "youtube editing" and by going into "Sensory overload" mode (at least, for a lot of its length), Godard has actually managed to make a film that even an A.D.D.-addled teenage could probably enjoy... all the while, commenting on aspects such AS sensory overload, technology, language, and how impersonal and cold everyone in 2010 is. Characters speak but don't "converse". Talk, talk, talk... but no one listens. No one responds. In many ways, this is a style Godard has always utilized, but this is his best display of it; this might be the ultimate Godard film.
PS: I originally had a LOT more written on each section, but I had to keep removing chunks of it to get it to the 1000 word limit. I suspect anybody who tries to review this film will probably face the same challenge; there is just simply too much to say about this film. Truly the best film of the past 10 years.
Such is the case here; Godard seems to be be in Histoire(s) du cinéma mode here, since this film -- for the most part -- resembles his work with that brilliant "film essay" series, as well as calling to mind films like Numero Deux and Comment Ca Va? Godard, for the first time, shot this entire film on digital, and the results are fascinating, sometimes even... funny. During one part, the crappy digital camera he had been shooting with appears to have been failing -- or at least, there was some failure when transferred to the computer for editing -- as parts skip ahead, and backwards; there are artifacts on the screen, audible and visual glitches, obscuring moments of a character's speech. This wasn't my DVD -- this was definitely part of the film. Other parts of the (early parts of) movie seem to have been filmed on really crappy webcams, then the footage was oversaturated... the results are quite jarring, especially when some of the "crap" footage is put next to some of the most beautiful digital filmography I've ever seen. There are audio messups, video glitches; recording synch sound on a boat in itself is absurd, as you mainly hear wind, people screaming in the distant, the engine of the ship; in sequences filming a party, you basically can't hear anything but fart sounds, a loud distorted booming and crashing. So, Godard seems to be using new technology against itself, in a way. He plays with jump cuts (which he popularized 50 years ago and has rarely used since), stop-motion (filming a camera being reassembled), dramatic pausing, silence, glitching, and slow motion. The first 40 minutes are all kinda like this; voices from who-knows-where delivering lines that were important to Godard, as image after image is shown in very quick bursts; some images were jaw-droppingly beautiful, some were distorted beyond comprehension -- all were striking. Godard is first and foremost an artist, and rest assured that the first 40 minutes are highly artistic. Not a dull moment in what can only be described as a postmodern documentary. Has Godard been watching the Current Channel? Has he been surfing Youtube? There definitely seems to be a lot of influence from outside sources in this part of the film, maybe even some of video art manipulating master Ryan Trecartin...
Then, the next part of the film -- a good 30-40 minutes -- is extremely "Godardian". It should be very familiar to people who have seen any of Godard's recent films. There's not a lot of image or sound manipulation here; just lots of long, quiet takes of characters discussing life... usually filmed in front of strikingly beautiful backdrops. This section calls to mind every film he's made in the last 30 years, Some people call this "alienating", but his style is so brilliantly personal, I can't help but be fascinated. The direction in this section is topnotch, of course...
...and it leads to the final 30 minutes, which is mostly a film essay, with dialogue over top of mostly stock footage (scenes from other films).
So, it's an overwhelming experience, but I never felt it was 'tiring'; I could've watched another hour or two of this stuff, definitely. Therein lies its brilliance. While, indeed, its difficult to sum up in a few words, its not difficult to understand why its so compelling; this is one giant ball of images, sounds, quotes, hitting us so fast that we can barely keep up. I'm not qualified to put forth everything this film meant to me, after just one watch, but I do know I will be watching this film 100 more times in the future, because it's just so captivating.
Forgot to mention... LOLcats are on this, as well as a lama who lives in a garage.
A truly brilliant experience that a lot of people will find "difficult" or "challenging", but to be completely honest, this is one of Godard's most easy-to-get-into films in a long time; by adopting the elliptical "youtube editing" and by going into "Sensory overload" mode (at least, for a lot of its length), Godard has actually managed to make a film that even an A.D.D.-addled teenage could probably enjoy... all the while, commenting on aspects such AS sensory overload, technology, language, and how impersonal and cold everyone in 2010 is. Characters speak but don't "converse". Talk, talk, talk... but no one listens. No one responds. In many ways, this is a style Godard has always utilized, but this is his best display of it; this might be the ultimate Godard film.
PS: I originally had a LOT more written on each section, but I had to keep removing chunks of it to get it to the 1000 word limit. I suspect anybody who tries to review this film will probably face the same challenge; there is just simply too much to say about this film. Truly the best film of the past 10 years.
Mystery Train, Broken Flowers, and Dead Man are neat little films, but for the most part, this director's films are usually a bit too dry for me to get into.. they always feel overlong and don't seem to do much of anything that interests me. It's hard for me to criticize his work -- certainly, there's' nothing particularly BAD about ANY of his films -- but it's just not something I usually get into.
Along comes this film, which COMPLETELY blows me away -- I truly think this is up there with REFLECTIONS OF EVIL, NOTRE MUSIQUE, SONGS FROM THE SECOND FLOOR, SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY, and a few precious others as the best film of the decade.
Without getting too into what the film means to me, I think this was sort of an update on the classic film BRANDED TO KILL (which the director has noted as a big influence on his work before, there are tributes to it placed in Ghost Dog for example).
This film is a huge influence on me, personally speaking... I've watched it 10 times now. An absolutely incredible film experience. I hope he makes more films like this; at the top of my head, I can't think of another film of recent memory where sound and image came together in such a compelling and beautiful way. Simply an incredible movie experience, one that is rare and should be treated with the utmost respect for its rarity, as well as its quality.
Inevitably, some people will be put off by this "boring" "mess" of a "pretentious" film, or whatever. I didn't see anything about this film that wasn't directed with the utmost care and quality, in shot composition, storytelling, dialog, character development.. what a beautiful film -- there are some truly beautiful camera movements, costumes, quotes, etc. embedded in this film. Most viewers will be hard-pressed to walk away from this film without taking some facet of inspiration.
A true work of art, one that will continue to inspire people for the rest of the humanity's existence. It's too bad no one gave a crap about it, or even tried to.
A masterpiece.
Along comes this film, which COMPLETELY blows me away -- I truly think this is up there with REFLECTIONS OF EVIL, NOTRE MUSIQUE, SONGS FROM THE SECOND FLOOR, SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY, and a few precious others as the best film of the decade.
Without getting too into what the film means to me, I think this was sort of an update on the classic film BRANDED TO KILL (which the director has noted as a big influence on his work before, there are tributes to it placed in Ghost Dog for example).
This film is a huge influence on me, personally speaking... I've watched it 10 times now. An absolutely incredible film experience. I hope he makes more films like this; at the top of my head, I can't think of another film of recent memory where sound and image came together in such a compelling and beautiful way. Simply an incredible movie experience, one that is rare and should be treated with the utmost respect for its rarity, as well as its quality.
Inevitably, some people will be put off by this "boring" "mess" of a "pretentious" film, or whatever. I didn't see anything about this film that wasn't directed with the utmost care and quality, in shot composition, storytelling, dialog, character development.. what a beautiful film -- there are some truly beautiful camera movements, costumes, quotes, etc. embedded in this film. Most viewers will be hard-pressed to walk away from this film without taking some facet of inspiration.
A true work of art, one that will continue to inspire people for the rest of the humanity's existence. It's too bad no one gave a crap about it, or even tried to.
A masterpiece.