SpelingError

What begins as a standard drama soon morphs into a complex fusion of fiction and documentary filmmaking. Once the changeover occurs about at the halfway point, the illusion this is just a movie is broken and the remaining film feels hobbled by this restriction. Mina reminds us she was merely acting in the first half on a handful of occasions, the grumpy old woman on the bus is unmasked as an actress, the microphone attached to the lead occasionally cuts out and gives feedback, and numerous shots are ruined by cars and buses blocking our view of Mina. With these alterations, the identity of the film feels discarded, yet the narrative though line of Mina attempting to navigate Tehran to make it home still persists from beginning to end. So, do we experience transcendence from the limitations of the film, or is this transcendence just an illusion since a clear essence of the first half is still present? At any rate, this is perhaps the most seamless blend of fiction and documentary filmmaking I've seen since the spirit of the first half still remains fully intact after the fictional narrative ends.

I put off watching this one for a while as I had concerns it wouldn't live up to its potential. Maybe not for the reasons some other people have coldly dismissed it for (I'm sure this will find the right audience in the coming years), but because a lot of what I read about it from my close movie friends lead me to believe it wouldn't live up to its potential. While my somewhat low expectations helped, I'd say it stuck the landing. Here are some loose thoughts:

-I read from a handful of people there would be a jumpscare every ten minutes, but the film was actually much lighter in this area than I expected. There are numerous scenes where a moment of loud audio would disrupt an otherwise quiet scene, but I think the only reason some of these moments came off as jumpscares was due to how ambient silence filled so much of the film. Had this been shot in a conventional manner, I don't think it would get this criticism to the same degree. Taken as a whole, there were only four moments I'd count as jumpscares. Could I have done without them? Yes, but I didn't feel they were that frequent.

-Could they have shortened the film? Yes. Were most of the house shots interchangeable and repetitive? Yes. Given the atmospheric design though, I think the length and repetition captured the feeling of being stuck in a dream. You lose sight of when the dream started, are unaware you're even in a dream until you wake up, and time feels non-existent as a result. This justification makes perfect sense in the context of this film since the idea it was all just a dream was a possible interpretation to what was going on. I understand this approach will still be trying on many people's patiences, but I'd say this film is exactly what it wants to be. Any minutes cut would've simply made it more conventional.

-This does utilize a handful of horror clichés, like going into the basement, looking under the bed, kid's cartoons, and the aforementioned jumpscares. I would argue the film managed to find its singular voice in the process of navigating these hurdles though. For instance, heading into the basement and looking under your bed at night are fitting for this film since they're exactly the kinds of things we dreaded as kids. Also, while the bed sequence culminated with a jumpscare, it occurred when I least expected it (a more trite payoff would've wasted the jumpscare immediately when the camera panned back up). The kid's cartoons were a harder sell, but while I'm not sure this was the intention, I actually found them to be a comforting relief from the surrounding darkness since the lightness and warmth of them served as a contrast from it.

Anyways, I can understand why this film is as divisive as it is, but I think Ball knocked it out of the park. As a staunch avant-garde fan, this was right up my alley.

This would've been a four star film had it not leaned so heavily into animal cruelty in the last act. The animal scenes are thematically appropriate, but I wish they used a different device to communicate the cyclical nature of oppression. As it stood, the film really left a sour taste in my mouth once I finished it. Still though, it's very good. I imagine the usage of dwarfs will be too weird for some people, but that's a brilliant storytelling device. Since the world around them feels oversized (not a single human of "regular" height is shown), the oppression extends to their surroundings, making for effective visual storytelling. Not the most subtle film around, but it makes for another worthy edition to Herzog's large body of quality films.