This movie's entry in IMDb includes a blurb from the DVD cover: "If David Lynch's 'Eraserhead' could spontaneously reproduce..." the result would resemble "Migrating Forms," and other reviews also cite Lynch. I do see certain similarities with Lynch's dreamlike classic, like the action (such as it is) taking place mostly in one surreal-looking room, and minimal dialogue. But Lynch's one room (there were more locations as it went along) contained significant furnishings, such as the radiator that possibly had an alien living in it, and the dialogue offered a path into the characters' tortured souls. Here the one room looks like a prison cell (table, two chairs, couch) and the two characters ("the man" and "the woman") always wear the same clothes, like uniforms; the dialogue (what little I could hear and comprehend) just seems incidental. The "plot" involves the woman arriving at the man's room for a series of sexual encounters; whether they take place in one day or over a period of days (or weeks or months) is unclear. When she disrobes, we see she has some bizarre protuberance on her back (okay, the early Lynch was also keen on physical deformities). Whether or not he ever notices it is unclear. After a while he develops a similar protuberance on his shoulder. After a while dead creatures appear in his room, to which he reacts with his usual blank stare. A strange kind of humming or whining sound comes and goes on the soundtrack. At times writer/director James Fotopoulos breaks away from his "documentary" style to depict (possibly) the man's interior fantasies, which remind one of 1960's "head" flicks about drug use. Eventually the movie just stops (calling it an "ending" seems presumptuous). It begins and ends with three images: a black screen (which went on so long I was about to check my video player), an annoying black and white "blinking" effect, and some water splashing around. Where "Forms" reminded me of Bresson was that that French director (maybe known best here for "Pickpocket" from 1959) apparently liked to keep his backgrounds blank to force us to focus on the action, which he mostly filmed in long unbroken takes. The problem here is that I can't grasp what we're supposed to focus ON. There doesn't seem to be anything of "universal significance" with these two people; they just seem a couple of shallow jerks who like to "hook up." (They also smoke a lot, which I mention only in search of something else to say about them.) The emptiness of modern existence has been handled much better and more incisively (not to mention entertainingly) elsewhere. Maybe it's meant to be a deadpan comedy? I could try to find an interview with Mr Fotopoulos, but I'm not hugely motivated to do so, nor seek out his other works. To sum it up, I guess I'd borrow a line from the 1960's Brit satanic romp "Bedazzled": "You fill me with inertia..." But if others want to read something "brilliant" (more blurb) into it: Hey, whatever floats your boat, y'all....
Add a Review
-
BigBabe09 November 2013
-
Boba_Fett113812 November 2010It's not like I can't take or appreciate a good art-house movie but this one is hard to even look at.
Guess that this movie could had worked out as art, if it only had been shot more dynamic and visually interesting. Instead the movie now mostly consists out of long lasting static wide shots and the occasional extreme close-ups in between.
The movie is shot in black & white but not just ordinary black & white. It's shot in the same fashion and visual style of a grainy '30's movie. OK that's fine but what does this add? Absolutely nothing in my opinion. It serves no purpose at all for the story. I suppose maybe that the movie is set in the '30's because of the clothes that the characters are wearing but also this on its own seems quite pointless, since it doesn't add anything and it certainly doesn't make the movie any more interesting to watch.
It also really doesn't help this movie that it's being an incredible cheap looking one. The sets are, maybe deliberately, extremely cheap and simplistic looking and basically only consists out of a table, a bed and two cheap plastic chairs. But you can also tell by its sound, lighting and simplistic camera-work and such that this was an extremely cheap production. Because of this alone it already is quite hard to get ever really into this movie and what it tries to achieve.
And quite frankly, I have no idea what this movie tried to achieve. It's story certainly doesn't provide much answers, since there basically is none. It can be OK for these sort of artistic movies to not really feature or try to tell a good clear main story but only if either the movie its message or main purpose remains clear or if the movie has some interesting visuals to make the movie worthwhile. But needless to say that this movie does neither. It makes this movie even an overlong and boring one because it remains a completely uninteresting one.
Fast-forward through this movie and you won't miss anything.
2/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/ -
rakeicuii7 June 2004Film Festival directors must stop encouraging these student film-making rip offs. This film fails on so many levels that someone might mistake it for a test pattern. A parody of itself and most films that feature silly avant pretensions without giving off any sort of humanity at all. The use of black and white stock, the slow lethargic Betty Pages that seem to always inhabit these kind of David Lynch copycat stuff- it's all here. The kind of empty experience that many art critics identify with because of the black clothes.
IF you must watch this film, bring two robots and MANY one-liners. In trying to alienate the audience Fotopoulouse brings new meaning to the word TEDIUM. Strictly for Americans with little knowledge of experimental world cinema... -
akira4937027 December 2003I just saw this movie and am still trying to figure out how it won any kind of award at all. Even for a student/art film this movie fails in everyway. How could anyone give it a ten. That is just ridiculous. I understand we all have our opinion but good grief.
-
polysicsarebest27 February 2009Wow, James Fotopoulos is a rare voice in the world of experimental film, doing something truly different, that most people probably won't care about (check the other ridiculous reviews if you want evidence of that). Yes, this is essentially two people in a room, having sex, and saying a few things, with some cutaway shots of ... other things ... while a cyst grows on a girl's back.
It is purposely abrasive, minimal, disorienting, and hard to take. It is sloooooooow, the music is headache-inducing. It's probably a painful experience to the uninitiated. But I thought it was brilliant. Really some next-level stuff, especially in the field of "no-budget cinema" (though, obviously, this HAD a budget, since it was shot on FILM, and film costs money, you know!).
I can't reveal what I took out of this film, because I took a LOT.. it was a completely beautiful experience. Existentialism is talked about a lot in films but this film truly explores themes I've never seen explored in other films. I loved the glacial pace, the beautiful black and white 16mm cinematography, etc. If you're into films that are different or want to see a director who has really honed in on the vibe Lynch had on Eraserhead, check out this film or any of this other guy's features. I have an odd feeling, since he hasn't worked since 2002 that I know of, that he is no longer making films, despite making a bunch of full lengths and 100 shorts. Has hardly gotten any recognition whatsoever, despite unique, winning winning "film of the year" at a famous NY underground film festival, and clearly being the work of an absolute genius (a misused word if there ever was one). Regardless, this film is a masterpiece and my life feels enhanced for watching it. Forget mumblecore -- this is cutting edge, the future of independent cinema, and James is going to take over the world. My favorite filmmaker besides Godard, Fassbinder, and Kitano. -
Invalid_ID_DI26 October 2017'Eraserhead' meets 'Shame' meets experimental noise. Mostly it's just composed of long static shots of the same room, having a necessary repetitiveness and emptiness to show a slumbering subjective reality, that sporadically reveals something that'll grip ones mind - between the apartment shots we get "delightful" hazy sex scenes, oneiric ambiences, and surreal details describing the protagonist's state. It's very much this type of film that gives the viewer a handful of clues and hence invites to craft one's own interpretation and story, appreciating it more upon further reflection.
To me it's about a man's loneliness and inner emptiness, which is alleviated by sex (or the idea of it, i.e. with masturbation+fantasy). These extended periods of sex engender varying changes - attachment to one person, the mental conflict between that real partner and an ideal one, a sensation of its kinky animality (as is in multiple instances superbly shown through the protagonist's cat, and the likening of his partner with it), and its destructive-deformative effects (STDs, body horror, urino-scatalogy ). All of that is mixed with a dose of rodents, insects and an occasionally superimposed face of a mocking man that looks like Ringo Starr (maybe the guy just listened too much to The Beatles, such that love+beetles permeate his subconscious; but more likely than that the face is his masculine self that laughs at his current states and wants him to perform better, go further). Good stuff, for sure.