Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting
I'm not particularly a fan of Jean Luc Godard film beyond a couple of movies and some loose details of the rest of his long career, but in appearance as a critic and film theorist I can not profess nothing but the utmost respect and consider his opinions "above average." One of the phrases that have aroused curiosity oen me since I have use of cinematic consciousness (to call it somehow) is that of "Photography is truth, and the film is 24 seconds truths" ironically because the film is meant to show impossible worlds, fictional stories. But going into their game, and accept that that phrase is an undeniable axiom, since like it or not, what you see is what you see, and ultimately that is what the cinema, I wonder: What if what we account is a lie? Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting tape, ex-Chilean filmmaker Raoul Ruiz, seems to argue with Jean Luc Godard and blew that statement completely by setting a very complex set of mirrors almost kaleidoscopic based on a premise absolutely unreal. In fact, go beyond the premise nonexistent directory. Why
does not exist? Posts to theorize about a theory, the film remains a mere hypothesis, which is subject to the mere thought, the category of possibility, the idea of \u200b\u200bsubjectivity. Will the art collector right? Can you really be possible that idea of \u200b\u200bthe division of a work of art on so many times? Or directly Ruiz intends to be so banal philosophical, playing with the viewer from scratch and drop a drag, at least it is fair to acknowledge this, only takes us an hour of our life? To me, as "spectator" virgin, unaware of the work of a filmmaker and not really knowing what I was exposing myself, I struggled to discern even the moment that started the tape. Not the right time in starting the film, the physical beginning of the film, if not where it all starts, at which point everything just starts to move. At first it shows us a narrator and another extradiegetic intradiegetic that appear from time to time engage in a dialogue, as if the first will explain its findings to the second (so funny when he first gives a nap, the second is about lowest) . But I can not figure out what makes them get to discuss who's who and what's what in the complex story that suggests Ruiz. Is complex before even beginning to be, since we can say that the tape does not start, if we have caught infraganti the collector digress.
Inevitably, I remembered horrors of Fraud , outstanding film (the other) master Orson Welles. In it, as playful and burlesque as always, the genius of Wisconsin wanted to stay with the viewer, taking him to a site and then leave you with stupid face, by tricks and lies that the audience took as real even though the director insisted its not true. Ruiz does not so bright, but subtle. Posing the story of the painter nonexistent nonexistent, which cross do not know if non-existent or non-existent evil genius painter, passed from one frame to another in a theory that ends up in the head grieving viewer, you have to string together pieces of a puzzle in a rush, and the painter placed a painting of his in another box (or not) joining ends. Because the story (if we can talk about it in this film) seems to break in two different diegesis and seems to have two (or more) different tables within a single, hence the importance of the mirrors and the two worlds appear to contain no apparent link. An example for chaotic abyss seems to break all the schemes when we eventually see the collector and a police "? Walking between all the characters in the story / picture.
Because, what structure we have? Are we on picture? Why history? Is there a truly fantastic series beyond the issue as a technique? The intricate maze in which we find ourselves becomes more and more confused at times, and questions and (average) responses are directed collector and narrator realmene the viewer, who is the author cares. There is no intention to say something, it appears that Ruiz has the desire to look under rocks or expect an answer leave a voice from heaven that solves the puzzle or become a scientific answer the speculations raised. Moreover, being a totally experimental tape and cut a risky, in which the plot advances mainly by assembly and a photo (at times recalling the bold proposals of the early works of Delvaux), the film is based on absolute nothing. And the result of this radical in its proposal, making it a sort of mosaic and clear defense of avant-garde art, ends elevated to a vast and metacinematográfico metaliterary game that challenges a basic premise purely hermeneutic, pointing directly at the viewer and conventions: You really can (or must) interpret art?
0 comments:
Post a Comment