The exercise is coarse with an irony involuntarily self-explanatory of the texts off and an unintentionally banal and aleatory editing of the images that sustain the texts, plus a simplistic conception of "experimentality" - thus repeating the mistakes of the second part of "Tabu", which guaranteed the director many moons and praises.
A surprising exercize. Maybe this is what art can/should/must do, after all. About politics, I mean. It is so hard, still digesting this film after seeing it a few days ago, to understand if this is a provocation, a political act, an emotional response. It is art. That, I've no doubt. And good one, too. Not the kind of art that is harmless fun. But the kind that changes something inside. Like seeds. Water. Thoughts.
The contrast between personal impressions and the roles performed by those we are told are fictitiously responsible for those words, makes for a relevant problematization of the current "subjectivity" in today's culture.
Aren't politicians supposed sometimes to speak on the behalf of a whole nation? What does it mean for a person to divide themself between public and private? How does time & society shape our beings?