In this semi-documentary, Apichatpong Weerasethakul provides an original portrayal of his fellow citizens. Battling food vendors, a boxer addicted to TV, a pious policewoman and a loveless rubber-tree tapper each contribute to a serial narrative.
Denne filmen vises for øyeblikket ikke på MUBI, men 30 andre fantastiske filmer gjør. Se hva Viser nå
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
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.
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.
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.
Scattered granules of a folk tale delicately, thoughtfully harvested by Apichatpong as he delves into the stories of his fellow countrymen. A new form of cultural transmission emerges between generations, marked by his budding somnolent, magical style.
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.