So, I was a fan of Baraka. Maybe I'll have to re-watch it, but Samsara might be better. I took my kids, my Mom, and my girlfriend to see it in the local indie theater, and it was outstanding.
For the uninitiated, no one utters a single word in the whole movie. The filmmakers traveled to 25 countries over 5 years, filming every beautiful and terrible thing that you'll never get the opportunity to see, all on 70mm film. Then they set it to hauntingly beautiful music. Almost every scene will have you sitting forward in your seat. Most of them are some of the most beautiful things you'll ever see. Many are some of the most disturbing.
My nine year old son was astounded, coming out of the film with a thousand questions. My Mom was floored. My seven year old daughter, on the other hand, was a little bored.
*** Mild Spoilers ***
Some highlights: - Time lapse photography in deserts and in destroyed cities - Monks building a sand mandala - Workers in a sulfur mine - Volcanoes and magma flows - A rather unique performance artist - Garbage cities on the edge of some of the most expensive metropolises in the world - Abysmal treatment of animals in food processing plants, following our food through the entire production cycle - Third world tribes living life, then the same tribes being given guns - So much more
The film is very thematic as well. A few themes that I picked up on: - The cyclical nature of life - Meditation on modern man as consumer - How our consumerism can be taken to the ultimate extremes, and the impact on culture - How beautiful our world is, and how beautiful we can be - How terrible our world is, and how terrible we can be - How mundane things can be beautiful, if just looked at from a different perspective
*** / End Spoilers ***
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I liked it, but I did not think it that great. Some of the images were quite powerful, which is why I showed up in the first place; so I wouldn't say I was dissapointed. However, it seemed to lack a coherent sense of what it wanted to say (particullarly in the final third) and yet at other times couldn't get over itself on some issues. What I saw when I watched it was the the work of people with a tremendous sense of image and composition but without a clear goal nor real cinematic talent (editing, pacing, etc...). If you want to see monumental work in this vein I highly reccommend Koyaanisqatsi: it is really everything this movie wasn't.
As an aside: I really disliked the performance art piece. YMMV
Hobbes Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
That's funny. I didn't think it was trying to say anything. For the most part, it seemed like it was trying to be impartial and merely focus on a few themes and unrelated compositions. As a meditative piece, I thought it was fairly effective.
Overall, there were many schisms, but I felt like it worked as a series of disjointed pieces of gorgeous, emotional cinematography.
I actually really enjoyed the performance art piece, but I didn't really feel like it fit with the rest of the film. Another case of effective shots that were pretty much "stand alone" and disjointed with the rest of the film.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I actually really enjoyed the performance art piece, but I didn't really feel like it fit with the rest of the film. Another case of effective shots that were pretty much "stand alone" and disjointed with the rest of the film.
Which to me reads like a translation of "bad film-making". You could argue that we were going for juxtoposition but it really didn't play that way. Juxtaposed with what? What did it mean in itself that it was the foil for? If you were juxtaposing content why did the film style also change at that point? It made it, stylistically, the center of the film whereas the content was almost meaningless.
Again, I liked the movie. The images were powerful and amazingly well captured (composition, color, all the technical and aesthetics for image were there) but it lacked the cohesion, self-purpose, or just movie-making skill to really be a great movie. Again, I strongly recommend Koyaanisqatsi; at least as a point of comparison if nothing else.
Hobbes Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
For someone that highly enjoyed Koyaanisqatsi, but simply adores Baraka, what would you suggest? I'm intrigued by this flick.
Nevermind, I just looked up some stuff. It was made by the same people who did Baraka. Must find out where it's playing!
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'll agree to a point. It seems to me that Fricke traveled around the world, filming everything he could. For the final edit of the film, he tried to develop themes around most of the best footage. But it seems that he threw many of the scenes in just because he liked them on their own merit, without any thought toward composition of the film as a whole. Especially the performance art piece (though I can you could make a thematic argument on the "man turning into monster" thing).
Weighed as a whole composition, you could easily argue that it is a failure. Regarded as a "best of" reel of a travelogue, cobbled together into meditative themes where possible? I'd reckon that it works.
Regardless of its faults, it is still easily one of the most powerful pieces of filmmaking ever committed to film. I loved Baraka, which I found a lot more uplifting, but Samsara has its place. And Koyaanisqatsi is definitely on my "must see" list.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:For someone that highly enjoyed Koyaanisqatsi, but simply adores Baraka, what would you suggest? I'm intrigued by this flick.
Nevermind, I just looked up some stuff. It was made by the same people who did Baraka. Must find out where it's playing!
I think you'd enjoy it. I just would downplay the accolades a bit is all.
quote: But it seems that he threw many of the scenes in just because he liked them on their own merit, without any thought toward composition of the film as a whole.
I agree. I think the first half of the film (or so) was tightly edited and well put together. Then it began to meander about and seemed to be just a string of striking images. Which is a lot less powerful and took away from what was being done. It wasn't a terribly long film (around 90 minutes if I recall correctly, which I might not) but I think there would be quite a bit of benefit from a professional editor coming in and trimming it down. It's always hard as an artist to cut out what you love, but not everything fits together and the product would've been stronger if they could've taken a more disspaniote look at the film in the cutting room.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)