Change Your Image
Zingarese
Reviews
How to Draw a Bunny (2002)
Drawing your own conclusions
Well not really, its all pretty much drawn out for you. This film is a very solid documentary about Ray Johnson an underground artist from NY, that never grew in popularity as his peers from the scene. The film presupposes that the "mysterious death" was not "mysterious" at all but in fact was really something that could be considered his final performance. The film is extremely linear in that sense. We get a quick summary of his childhood, we get a quick peek at the NY scene, and we get hints throughout the film how he loved the idea of messages in a bottle, or things associated with water and floating. So yes, you pretty quickly build up a theory he committed suicide and that it was a performance. The film is so absolute that their is not even a hint of doubt in anyone interviewed that his death was an accident or foul play, that the idea of this film being about solving his death, is misleading. (Which I personally was annoyed at because I misjudged what the jacket description considered the arch of the film, not the directors fault, but I was still tossed by that for a minute).
The true arch of the film is also a bit shallow, "Who was Ray Johnson?" This question is answered in the first lines of the film. Friends, Gallery owners and even mailmen knew a little bit of him, but when pondering the question, everyone realizes no one really knew who the man really was. After reiterating this point again and again, we finally come to the closest realization (From I believe Billy Name) when he says, "To try and separate the man and the art is impossible when talking about Ray Johnson". Not a direct quote, but something to that effect. Ray was art, and what he did was not a creation of art but art itself. This of course then concludes the big question, "Was his death a performance?" This answer again is pretty self explanatory.
This film is a good look at an artist and does a good job at detailing a man's life, but in relation to the elements that surrounded this man, we are left a bit shallow. We interview famous people from the art world, but the film never dives deeply into the art scene, or for that matter anything.
There is nothing wrong with a film that stays directly on its subject and this film exceedingly does that well, but if you wanted to learn more about the art scene, this is a good film to pick up AFTER you have learned about the scene from other sources. This film only allows you to put faces to all the artists you have heard or read about before.
I do recommend this film on the basis that you get a strong solid film, but do not be misled to feel that this film is revelatory in any such way.
Hommage à noir (1996)
one pretty music video.
Depending on what you are looking for in terms of this film, it can be considered good and bad. First off, it is pretty. My main concern these days is that films like Baraka, the Qatsi trilogy (Godfrey Reggio)show an interesting world, but really does not teach us much about where these images are coming from. Of the films I just mentioned I will not say they are bad films. Quite the contrary, they are wonderful visual poems. I just care not to call them a documentary because while I might walk out of the film wondering about what I have seen, I do not think I have learned all that much about how to perform a monkey chant (as in Baraka). Cut to the beat is often the most important element in these films, it is an emotional tug. Often this emotional trick works and we walk out of the film praising its beauty and truth. This is not the case with Homage a Noir.
The film is a failed attempt of that equation. Beautiful scenery, exotic locations, indigenous people, and heart wrenching music. Homage has all of this, but what it really leans on to pull us in is the weakest instrument in film, the slow motion. While most of this film is actually in slow motion the music drives us forward hoping that we are not paying attention to the glorious attributes of mundane life in Africa. Most of the footage is just this, citizens of Cameroon (where the majority of the footage was shot) either staring at the camera or almost living in a sterile environment that most likely feels like a choreographed dance for the camera. Even the shots of just a dollying camera through the marketplace has been slowed down to the point that were it not a moving shot it would seem like a still life painting.
While usually slow motion is an effective tool for slowing down and examining the world it is presenting here it has an opposite effect. If we were to study it really close in this slow motion it seems like the African citizens really do nothing but stand around all day. It almost seems demeaning at times. Maybe I am inferring too much in that case. But whatever the impression one gets, if we were to step back and dissect this film intellectually, one would find nothing more than the great visual poem of a certain aspect of filming a society. Nothing is explained, nothing is described, it is up to the viewer to just go for the ride. The music is the key component to letting the film succeed. The music is so strong that we forgive the shallow shortcomings and start allowing the mindset "Gosh, this is a really pretty film" to sink in. Yes, it is a beautiful film, it is well choreographed, a brilliant showcase of talented editing, and great cinematography, but where Baraka, and the Qatsi films succeed in having a certain theme, prayer, technology and nature, whatever it be... Homage has no theme, just a locale and a lot of willing models.