blaud
Posts: 722
Joined: 13/12/2007
|
The issue with such a film as Michael is that the actual concept is the the main attention-getter. The focus of the story becomes the thing that is picked apart, reviewed and condemned, all at the expense of any merit the film actually offers. Unfortunately, Michael is low on merit on a conceptual level. Of course, no bones about it, the theme itself is depraved and horrific, but it seems the filmmakers have banked on this element being able to sustain the rest of the experimental slosh that goes along with it. Technically, it's a very interestingly made film; it has the feeling of an experimental post-modernist piece, utilizing an effective unfolding narrative, as well as various clever audio cues, and impressive performances from the leads. However, any meaning or even purpose to the piece is lost amongst the faux-arty production and the fact that the film wallows in its' on depravity, not giving any answers, or asking any questions. The final act is most definitely the most effective, however, it is unfortunate that the 'big reveal' comes across as trite in comparison to the rest of the films nonchalant, unhurried mood. In terms of actual gratuity, Michael is always tasteful, but also worryingly colourful in its' attention to detail. In seems confusing, when at a time we have more startlingly visceral scenes in films that aren't even about the same theme as Michael, a film like this with nothing to set it apart from the crowd. (other than the bizarre, albeit fascinating production style) To score Michael in the same way as other films (that is to say, for entertainment or watchability value) seems a little unfair, as it is clearly not a film to be enjoyed. However, on an artistic level, aside from persons interested in the visual style, the is really no demographic to recommend it to. Any meaning in the film either does not exist, or is too densely shrouded in arty pretence to be noticed.
|