Suspicious River

A perfect example of "traumatic reenactment," Suspicious River might confuse those who have no familiarity with the concept, but it is not far-fetched. The Nflix synopsis is uncharacteristically accurate and complete. What is left for the viewer to discover is the story-behind-the story. What compels Leila (Parker) to behave in the clearly compulsive and self-destructive way that she does? Some of the other reviews that I've read made me wonder if I was watching the same film. But I have the advantage or disadvantage of having known and worked with hundreds of women like Leila; most end up as addicts or in prison, or at best just trapped in abusive relationships; or all that and more. The significance of Suspicious River is that, for those willing to suspend judgment for a moment, it gives a glimpse into the roots of this particular kind of self-destructive behavior. But for those who don't appreciate (or are at least open to consider) severe trauma and it's effects, the information will go right over their heads. Leila's trauma is particularly intense, and her response is proportionately extreme. This could have been a great movie. It covers edgy and important ground, and included some very brave performances: Molly Parker is dynamite and turns this flawed production into something quite moving in spite of itself, and both Callum Keith Rennie as the smooth sadist, and Michael Shanks in a short, but crucial role, are very good as well. Most of the rest of the acting is quite sub-par, however, and as other reviewers have noted, there are problems with the editing, and with the screenplay. The subplot with the little girl is too tricky and precious for it's own good. Most viewers will figure out her significance immediately, and all the decoys thrown at the audience serve simply to weaken the impact of the story, and make the ending unconvincing. The film is brutal, not graphic, yet edge-of-the-seat palpably ominous from start to finish. 10-21-09

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm is an experimental film unlike any other experimental film you are likely to see, because it is not just playing and experimenting with the medium, techniques, meaning, and impact of filmmaking, it is also a social experiment, where only the director really knows what's going on—and because it is an experiment, the outcome is uncertain. (Never mind that because it's all being filtered through the instrumentation of filmmaking it's all “Heisenberg uncertain!” LOL) The social and political hot-topics of the time the film was made (many still with us today) all show up too, but in some very sly and unexpected ways. You have to be willing to do one of two things to really “enjoy” this film (and yes, I “really enjoyed” it—it was an absolute hoot on so many levels, while also being intellectually stimulating, and fly-on-the wall voyeuristically fascinating.) Either you must watch the hour-long documentary extra first (which I don't recommend in this case as it will take you, the viewer, outside of the direct experience of being a very real part of the experiment), or, you must accept ahead of time that you, and everybody in the film itself, are subjects of the experiment, and just decide to “go with it!” Expect to be confused! Expect to be annoyed! I won't say much more, because I think half the fun is the WTF? transforming into the Aha! No, not everyone will like it, or “get it.” This is absolutely, positively a “not for everyone” film! But for cinephiles, I think it's a “must see,” and for the intrepid and adventurous viewer, it's really marvelous fun. After it's over, make sure you watch the documentary—a very effective “debriefing” for the film itself, and for those not familiar with William Greaves, a concise introduction to a brilliant “Renaissance Man.” 10-06-09