Not strictly speaking an "experimental film." You would (strictly speaking) have no choice but to call it a "hybrid film." But doubt not, compadre: MYSTERIOUS OBJECT is the product of pure experiment. One imagines that Joe went out in search of something elusive and slightly immaterial. You discover as you go. This is essentially alchemy. Essentially essential alchemy, the film itself the titular object.
This is enigmatically produced with some equally enigmatic content. Stylistically inventive and original, it seems to be a microcosmic representation of folktales and a document of the feelings of these people through storytelling thematics. More layers exist, like Apichatpong's influence on both the fictional and documentary narratives or the included behind-the-scenes-esque shots of himself. Proper meta stuff.
I love the idea of the "Exquisite Corpse" too. This film doesn't always hits the target it aims at (too many unnecessary longueurs) Fascinating concept nevertheless and at times I was transfixed as it worked a special kind of magic on me. Would love now to see his other films.
This is a bit different from his following films, but still Joe's idiosyncrasy could be seen throughout. His films did not only portrait his own world, but also they depicted the spiritual culture of Thai people in their traditions or folk tales, which I - as a neighbor - can't find something more close and related
the more of Weerasethakul's films i view the more i recognise them as stages & stones on a single project - nobody is engaging with the very nature of storytelling like he is - storytelling as folk wisdom, as sense-making, as grass-root inheritance, as rope held tight thru a house-fire - fast becoming one of my favourite artists never-mind directors - the moment where the troupe enact the story through song kills me
Con un estilo narrativo tipo cadáver exquisito, esta historia morfa de acuerdo a quienes la cuentan. Aunque a momentos la narración pierde fuerza, sorprende con la diversidad de la manera de presentarse, la facilidad con la que pueden cambiar los personajes y el nivel de entusiasmo de los cuentistas.
The director himself admits that his intentions with the film changed halfway through the 3-year production. And it shows. While I found the first half entertaining and masterful, the second was more passive. Not sure if it's completely a bad thing, but I honestly prefered the first half. Although the second provides some good moments, it's more on the boring side, or at least requires more patience. B.
Using random people you encounter to create piece by piece a story seemed like a fun idea, however after seeing the film I got the completely opposite impression. It was almost like Weerasethakul was using the story as a tool to expose the people. After watching each person input their section of the story I felt I learnt a little about them and for me this was the most rewarding part of this film.