Or perhaps more accurately, a film review... Post Tenebras Lux (2012, directed by Carlos Reygadas) is a foreign art film that I decided to watch. The title means "light after darkness" in Latin. I wasn't entirely sure what to expect since I don't typically watch super art-housey films. This film is going to be screened in a small independent theater soon, but I wasn't sure I wanted to drag myself all the way out there to watch it. It seemed interesting enough that I was willing to watch it at home though.
It is pretty bizarre and experimental, very different than mainstream movies and even independent films that aren't quite as arty. For the most part, this is a Spanish-language film although there are small portions in English and French. The storyline, to the extent that there is one, is depicted in a pretty disjointed manner.
The cinematography is fairly distinctive to me as well; it's very different than standard cinematography and goes hand in hand with the disjointed scenes. Every so often, a scene change will show things skip forwards and back in time, as far as I can tell. There are moments where the screen will freeze momentarily to linger on a certain image, almost as if things are glitching but I think it was actually intentional.
The colors are typically these foggy or hazy, dusky, twilight-esque hues. It had a very film-esque appearance so I wonder what equipment was used. There are multiple scenes where a blurred, double-vision effect is used on the edges of the frame, while a center circle remains most in focus.
The cinematography and directing, in terms of the shots chosen, structure, and the scenes, felt very pared down, naturalistic and minimalist. It produced an effect as if the viewer were observing the events in real life through a window, or as a fly on the wall, or some kind of ghost. I don't know if there's an official name for this kind of technique, but it's distinctive. [ETA: the term for this is cinematic realism, and this movie utilizes it to a rather heavy degree]
This type of cinematography and overall feel of the movie is very different than how mainstream movies or TV do things. It felt as if you were watching all this play out in real life somehow, maybe through a surveillance camera (in a way). The dialogue, when there was some, seemed very naturalistic, the way people talk in real life. The same goes for the costuming, it was clothes that you could envision a regular person wearing.
Additionally, the structure of the film didn't follow the usual beginning - middle - end flow or the exposition, rising action, climax, falling action plot diagram. That disjointed atypical structure also lent a real-life feel to things, since events in real life don't necessarily follow strict plot structures either. Most mainstream movies are more heavily plot-driven, but this film is decidedly not.
I also just realized that the film doesn't have a typical (musical) score, or at least not that I noticed. There are various portions of it where a rushing noise is heard, like water flowing or maybe rain, or even air whirring out of a vent... I'd describe it as being a bit similar to white noise, I guess.
It is definitely not for everyone and I'm not sure I liked it all that much, even though I did make it to the end. There were portions by about 2/3 of the way through where I was starting to get bored and think it was dragging somewhat.
The film follows a family of four who move out to the countryside in Mexico when their two children are rather young. It depicts various events, in snippets, of their life. There are other snippets that focus on other people the family knows or encounters somehow. You see a number of scenes depicting various happenings in the family's domestic life, though these scenes aren't very plot-driven. This description really does not thoroughly capture the nature of the film; it's really something you have to watch to fully get a sense of it.
I found a review on Reddit from 7 years ago that describes the events in the film in a more complete and comprehensible manner, although one of the conclusions this person made about a certain part of the film is different than what I thought. Obviously, this description contains spoilers.
The film takes a very European approach to nudity, which in retrospect isn't necessarily surprising but I will say I wasn't expecting certain parts of the film that contain ample amounts of complete nudity. Usually in American movies, full nudity is seen much more sparingly. There was a segment of the film that was bordering on pornographic (but it was also done in a rather arty way), in my opinion.
On the whole, I would not recommend this film to people unless they specifically are interested in obscure art house foreign films. People who have more mainstream tastes are most likely not going to enjoy or understand this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment