Normally, what I appreciate above all else is the long form, the composition as a whole, rendered cinematically.
That means you need some overarching vision, some single controlling mind, some coherent narrative. It also means in general that actors can only be trusted to fill some corners of the thing and never see the whole shape because of their local concerns.
But there are only so many grand arches that can come of a coherent vision. You need a genius to escape this: a Grrenaway, Ruiz, Medem.
Even then, you know what the vocabulary will be. Its the sense that shapes the thing: narrative always is connected by causal links and long form knots.
Now I introduce you to another approach, much riskier. It reads more difficultly but is at least as rewarding, and today for me... more.
The strategy is rather simple: hand pick some exceptionally interesting actors, actors who are aware of their short horizon in the long form. Assemble them under an ever so brief outline and have them invent the narrative. Now, normally you would expect incoherence. But these folks being up on the edge understand this business of folding, layering and nesting narrative. This allows them to create smaller bits and overlay them, avoiding the pitfalls of episodes.
We have the movie. It is about the making of a movie of a play. The play is about plays, specifically about Shakespeare, and deals with decomposition and internalization. On that you have a documentary about the making of the internal film, and in parallel an interview show (these by two warring women). This all takes place in a hotel, the cellars of which host the subconscious drivers for the play within, including cannibalism.
Over this, you have the director, who arranges his own shooting, coma and resulting disembodied state where he becomes our viewer, our camera.
Now nest all of these each in the others. And where possible, show simultaneous action in two or four panes. Afterward, have the (real) director write a score that embodies the thing one of the most effective scores I know, incidentally.
It works. It works spectacularly. One element is of course the shape that has been given to it after the actors went home. But what gives this the juice is the way each layer has grown out of the imagination of the players. Its the only time I've trusted undirected actors, and it works because every node, every connector, every leap in this thing is conceived locally. There is no overall governing logic except the general acknowledgement of the eye (and mouth). Each group of actors grew the logic they use locally, out of their spirits and urges.
Its a collection of residue from disparate urges, unified by deep self-reference... what's not to like?
I am so bowled over by how powerful this is that I am making it one of two films from that year that I deem essential viewing. It, alas, bumps one of the previous selections, the inside-out "The Pledge."
Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.
