I could only speculate. Perhaps because he used things that are typically exploited by American cinema such as the mirroring of beginning/ending (god, how many modern American films rely on this device? it’s NOT profound! really! ) or the typical ambiguous feeling at the end that most American films seem to associate with “depth.” It’s difficult to know WHAT the director meant.
Don’t get me wrong, I rather liked the film, but there were times where I found it entirely predicable, not only in the events/narrative, but in the progression/fate of the characters and the way in which it was all concluded. Anyway, my fondness of the film (which isn’t necessarily pronounced, but … existent) likes in the presentation and “the way” the director took predictable events and stereotypical characters and turned them on their ear as if to say, “Oh, well I can do it this way as well.”
It’s difficult to explain American cinema anymore IMO because it’s such a conglomeration of other styles and progression of origins that it becomes thoroughly confusing. Not to say, other nations have fared much better lately in blending genres, styles, etc., but still, the U.S. has that reputation of being both technologically innovative and emotionally vacuous … bah, I don’t know, am I rambling? Blame the Chardonnay.
Anyway, what I was getting at is WHO KNOWS what the director meant by that statement. One can only surmise.
I just saw this film a few days ago and I thought it wasn’t bad. I like how he used medium or long shots and didn’t resort to closeups, giving the viewer a detached way of viewing the film and allowing the viewer not to be manipulated by editing for example. I like the beginning shot with the reflection of the forest in the river and the stone creating the ripples. It’s not to say that I don’t like films that have a lot of editing or resort to a lot of closeups like Ingmar Bergman films, but for what Gotz Spielman was intending I think it worked fairly well. I like the contrast between the urban and rural environments and how the characters deal with the situations they have put or have been placed in. On the Criterion disc, he mentioned that he would rather let the film be felt than thought through. He is making a statement about morality and how people deal with the consequences of their actions which, if I remember correctly, he stated on the special features on the disc. I also believe he said on the special features that people are interconnected rather than separated from other people or their environment. This can be noticed because the shots are not chopped up into smaller ones but rely on just a few shots for most of the time during a scene.
Alexander Frost
The director noted that he expected this film to be unusually well received in the United States. Can anyone explain what he meant?