Chronos

Space, time and matter. While the first might have started at the birth of the universe and the later is created and destroyed everyday, time stands alone. It cannot be undone and if there is anything that can resist time, it is time itself. In this sense time is the most mysterious. Is it even real? Is it only a creation of mankind to explain the beginnings and the ends? In Greek Mythology, Chronos is known to be the god of time. In this sense, Ron Fricke is trying to unite both conceptions of time through vast, open spaces and closed, personal areas. In his film, he tried to put the matter and space in perspective, showing that time had a greater influence.

When it came out, Chronos was considered as a very advanced, an "ahead of its time" kind of movie. The ground breaking Koyaanisqatsi was nearly 5 years old. The technical attributes of the movie were far greater than what could be found in popular, conventional cinema. The synthesized music was relatively new to the world and Michael Stearns was already establishing himself as both a leader and a pioneer in the ambient music department, even creating a particular instrument for the film. And of course, when Chronos came out back then, similar movies were hard to find.

Needless to say: Chronos relied heavily on the overall technology of 80's.

Nowadays, the technical attributes found in Chronos have been beaten by other movies. Music can now be created with complex, yet easy to use programs by using extremely effective computers which can produce an almost infinite number of sounds, effects, etc.. And finally, there are many similar movies nowadays, and we can find time lapse captures everywhere from typical Hollywood movies to televised advertisements.

This now leads people to believe that this movie is unoriginal, lacking depth and that the music is not good. As ironic as it sounds, Chronos is slowly being killed by time itself, whether it be real or not. But that does not mean that the movie is now bad today. Of course, there are obstacles that the viewer must surpass in order to view the movie and to think " Let's compare it to other movies in the 80's ".

When criticizing this movie, many people will compare it to Baraka ( which was made many years later, must I add ) and automatically point out the obvious: It's always the same areas, the music is always the same, the overall "message" is lacking.

Fricke didn't have the budget he had for Baraka. Stearn's music was innovative and fresh at the moment and yes, there is a "message" in Chronos, you just didn't take the "time" to see it.

In Baraka, the message concerning spirituality and humanity is easier to understand for a simple reason: Ron Fricke did it on purpose. The most important religions and areas of the world are shown. The whole movie is made in a way to connect with the entire world. In this sense, Baraka is a movie about the Earth and its inhabitants and what is around and beyond it. You will notice that in Baraka there are things you can easily understand and point out while there are others more obscure themes that you might not even notice.

Chronos is far more complicated for the viewer. While Baraka is still an experimental film, it is not an abstract film. Chronos is both an experimental and abstract film. In this sense, it is way harder for the viewer to acknowledge Chronos to actually have a meaning and to make something out of it.

This shows how Ron Fricke truly is a mastermind when it comes to giving other people the opportunity to come out with their own interpretations of his movies. A short comparison with Geoffrey Reggio ( Fricke's partner ) can be made. While Reggio builds his movies on a specific message which make the viewer think after watching the films, Fricke chooses to make the viewer think while he his still watching. Most viewers will often try to find a meaning to Chronos after watching it or they will try to associate a specific series of scenes.

Of course, Chronos is not as good as Baraka. I believe everyone can agree on this. But everyone should all agree that Chronos was some sort of cinematic homework for Fricke. Not only was it his first own film, but he was also stepping on a different kind of path than Reggio's. He actually found his own path, his own style, a cinematic trademark. And for this originality and advance in film, Chronos deserves to be considered as a good movie. Not the best, but one of the good.

Chronos is an interesting movie, it doesn't have any conventional storyline, and no dialogue, it's just really gorgeous imagery and music, which surprisingly was a one long continuous track composed by Michael Stearns which ran throughout the entire movie. I really like how this film was shot, it's mostly Time-Lapse cinematography, which is just footage that is recorded for multiple hours at a time and then sped up to make it look ultra-cool, and the cinematography is just flat-out amazing, and with the locations that they capture, that makes it even better.

As I said in the summary of this review, you might want to slow your brain down before watching this movie, this isn't your typical documentary, like I've stated earlier, there's no dialogue in this film, which might make it a bit boring, I'd actually recommend listening to the commentary on the DVD and Blu-ray releases for this movie so you won't be bored to death, but nevertheless, this is an amazing visual experience, and the only reason I'm giving this a 9 is because it is a bit boring at times, and it's only 42 minutes long, other than that, I'd highly recommend "Chronos".

Comparisons between "Chronos" (1985) and "Koyanisqaatsi "(1982) are rather inevitable. Both films were written and shot by Ron Fricke, who also directed "Chronos." (Godfrey Reggio directed "Koyanisqaatsi"). Both films are filled with richly poetic images of pristine natural settings counterpointed with man's intrusion into those settings and the evolution of his civilization. As a great admirer of "Koyanisqaatsi," these commonalities are what drew me recently to watching "Chronos" on HD home video. Unfortunately, the comparisons pretty much end there.

"Chronos" is a much less satisfying undertaking. Not only is it merely half the length of its cult-classic predecessor, but it's less than half the film in terms of ambition and coherent vision as well. Whereas "Koyanisqaatsi" had a strong (some would say heavy-handed) political and philosophical message concerning man's corrupting - even diabolical - impact on the globe, "Chronos" doesn't seem to have much point at all behind its slide show alternation of natural and man-made imagery.

To be fair, the film does clearly communicate the notion that the relatively short history of human civilization has bequeathed many majestically beautiful works of art and other grand artifacts, from awe-inspiring pyramids and cathedrals to the great sprawling cities of the world like New York and Paris. Yet, if the point of the film was in part to redress the extremely negative view of man's "progress" delivered by "Koyanisqaatsi," it just doesn't come across very strongly. And, if re-balancing was the point, then what is the audience supposed to make of the frequent used of accelerated motion that suggests to me not only the passage of time alluded to in the film's title but also that man's course has been too rapid and perhaps reckless? It just doesn't add up.

Like "Koyanisqaatsi," "Chronos" relies entirely on image and music to structure its minimal narrative. Neither film offers plot or character in a conventional sense, but "Koyanisqaatsi" manages nevertheless to forge drama by progressively intensifying the conflict of its man versus nature imagery. "Koyanisqaatsi" also benefits from a much more powerful score and from its Native American titular keyword, chanted repeatedly as a choral expression of the film's simple but abstract theme that indeed "life is out of balance." "Chronos" could definitely have benefited from similar devices to give its imagery thrust and significance.

Instead, "Chronos" is essentially a glorified image music piece. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Many of its images are arresting and some - like the city nightscapes - are breathtaking. Though I think not part of its intent, "Chronos" also offers parlor-game amusement for anyone trying to identify the cornucopia of natural, artistic, and architectural wonders that pour past one's eyes. All in all, the film is a pleasurable but forgettable viewing experience.

This film is one of the most exquisite films I have ever seen. It is comprised completely of time-lapse and aerial photography, and is a tremendous accomplishment. Highly recommended for anyone interested in time-lapse photography, cinematography, or film making in general.

I was fortunate to see the movie in HD on cable recently. The movie is a bit like Koyaanisqatsi but concentrates more on a aesthetic look and does not transmit a political message. The images are astonishingly beautiful. The use of quick-motion and time lapse is great and give the film a very nice artistic touch. The electronic score composed by Michael Stearns accompanies the corresponding footage very smooth and nicely and adds to the overall atmosphere. If you like movies like Baraka or Koyaanisqatsi this movie is a absolute must-see. The photography and composition of this movie is just mesmerizing and brilliant.