"Cutting the Skin" (16 Hour)
16 Hour is one of the most talented, and the most audacious film makers that you can expect to meet on the internet, and with his, his latest short film, clocking in at a little under a minute and a half, he only cements my beliefs that he has, indeed, the key to the visual style. Each single frame is a different picture, and each picture (in fact, I paused sometimes), I would like to look at and grasp, since for as short as this film is, as plotless as it is doomed to be called, I found reason in it, and a message, told metaphorically, of man’s greed, and humanity’s shortcomings, and with every passing illustration, I see this point only being pushed with more and more boldness.
The entirety of the project, I scarce call it a “movie”, consists of the slicing and the eating of an egg. However, the manner it is shot, and the way it is handled leads to a more broad and all more revealing view of the world as we basically see mankind greedily lusting on the bounty of the world, at first cleaning his utensils, as man values his money, with a meticulous nature. Then, once he beings feasting on the world, it is messy and we lose that carefulness from before; thus, the ignorance of us to the natural world. It excites me and impassions me to see a point being taken where a film says something without words, when so much films fail to say anything, loaded with two hours of dialogue. It is a reminder why the visual style in films are perfected and enhanced and why imagery is more important then straight plot, in my view.
One thing, though, on the surface, is the camera work. It is a beauty that is mesmerizing the behold and awe inspiring to gaze at. I could be told that a weeks work went into this, and I would be all the believable. I have watched this film twice now. Both times without HD (I am not able to yet). One viewing was the initial presentation, my mind clean from bias or from expectation; the second time was shortly after I started this very review. Each time I saw something different in it and new ways to interpret the same scenes; and I actually found myself trying to find meaning behind every single artifact on the set. Foolish of me, but not preposterous, as that is the wonder of 16 Hour’s films, they let you get carried away, and dive into your imagination. I plan to watch it a third time, next in HD, for the experience, and I am whole heartedly looking forward to it.
Now, this is a film I can see many shrugging off as a visual flair, nothing more; a short spark of art that disappears all too quickly, though this is one you can find my raving about, I feel this is a wonderful film, and a great one, and one which should be seen at least twice to truly appreciate it. I cannot fully recommend you all watch it in such a light of high hopes, but I implore to, at the least, try to explore with it, to make a path in its wilderness. Sometimes it feels daunting, as no clearing can be seen; but gripping a single concept in it can move mountains.
Overall, this is a film that I find hard to forget my respect for, even if it will not live on long, and the kind of thing that, though rarely seen, wakes me up and reminds me why I am still reviewing films; not to see stories mapped out but to see real adventures, real explorations of the medium. Is it nonsensical dribble being over-hyped by someone seeing too much into it; or is it a wonderful experiment with the camera? You decide for yourselves, either way I put it; I’m bound to have hearty disagreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment