Truth is what remains after we have rejected everything that is untrue.
That is how we define our world, ourselves, our very reality. We are- whether we know it or not- constantly questioning, constantly searching for truth in our lives- from the most simplistic and straightforward to the universal eternal questions: the truth about love, and sex, and God, the truth about men and women, and the meaning of life. "Symbiopsychotaxiplasm" is a movie that brilliantly turns the medium of film- and its devices- into the ultimate litmus test of truth. That's all the movie is: the search for truth, experienced in multiple levels of reality and reflecting off itself in a series of mirrors.
It's so much more simple than other reviewers make it sound. When critics start dusting off arcane technical descriptions and pretentious French terminology I usually run screaming in the opposite direction. William Greaves uses the simple idea of a film crew shooting a scene in the park as a departure point for a look at what is real. Is the scene real? Is it intentionally terrible? The absurd, stilted dialogue and over-the-top performances seem to suggest it's a smokescreen for something else, and yet there are times when the actors find Truth in the awful scene by transcending the premise and dialogue and reaching an emotional core. This is the very definition of acting, so in a strange way this zero-budget, atrociously-written scene succeeds more than many big-budget "legitimate" Hollywood films. But then Greaves includes footage of the actors as themselves rehearsing and discussing the scene does seeing their actual personalities and hearing their own opinions enhance or detract from their performances? Or is this aspect of the film scripted as well? We don't know, and it's the absolute ambiguity that makes this movie magnetic and fascinating.
The second level of the film is the behind-the-scenes documentary, which in many ways is the most pure form of cinema ever created. The camera captures the struggles and setbacks of the cast and crew on location, including intruding police officers, crowds of excited on-lookers, and even an eccentric homeless man to reveal the reality of what goes on during a shoot. The crew is frustrated, confused and almost mutinous over the director's seemingly careless attitude about the movie. It says a lot about Greaves' open-mindedness as an artist and a man that he's willing to include this footage that openly questions his talents and motivations. Clearly he's as willing to expose himself to scrutiny as his actors and his crew. That's commitment, and the key to the movie for me. The fact that Greaves included scenes that showed him in an unflattering light convinced me that the man is as pure a film artist as there ever was. Boldly, fearlessly, he stands completely vulnerable on screen in his own film and trusts the audience to judge him for themselves.
The third level of the film is unprecedented and probably the most fun. Thirty years before the invention of DVD Director's Commentary the crew gathers and gives a running commentary on the movie- while it's still in production- and surprisingly questions whether or not the film has any value at all! Their passion is contagious... these are clearly all talented individuals who genuinely care about the project they're working on, and although they have different opinions they basically all arrive at the same conclusion: the movie is a disorganized mess. They're absolutely right, but few of them had the foresight to see that it's the sprawling, imperfect, fun-house atmosphere that makes it such a rich and rewarding experience.
Just watching this movie will make you smarter about movies, if not life in general. It will make you question what you once blindly accepted, it will engage you and challenge you in a way that no other film ever has or probably ever will, and for that alone it is a tremendous success and exceptionally valuable. It is a time capsule of not only an era when artistic pursuits were much more nobly considered, but of a unique cinematic experience in which the audience, cast and crew all switch places like a magical game of musical chairs and in which the truth reveals itself to be just as maddeningly elusive as in real life.
The first time I saw the film I was convinced the drunken homeless man who preaches to the crew was an actor playing a part in a staged segment of the behind-the-scenes documentary. The second time I saw it I was sure he was absolutely real.
Let me know if you figure it out, won't you?
GRADE: A
That is how we define our world, ourselves, our very reality. We are- whether we know it or not- constantly questioning, constantly searching for truth in our lives- from the most simplistic and straightforward to the universal eternal questions: the truth about love, and sex, and God, the truth about men and women, and the meaning of life. "Symbiopsychotaxiplasm" is a movie that brilliantly turns the medium of film- and its devices- into the ultimate litmus test of truth. That's all the movie is: the search for truth, experienced in multiple levels of reality and reflecting off itself in a series of mirrors.
It's so much more simple than other reviewers make it sound. When critics start dusting off arcane technical descriptions and pretentious French terminology I usually run screaming in the opposite direction. William Greaves uses the simple idea of a film crew shooting a scene in the park as a departure point for a look at what is real. Is the scene real? Is it intentionally terrible? The absurd, stilted dialogue and over-the-top performances seem to suggest it's a smokescreen for something else, and yet there are times when the actors find Truth in the awful scene by transcending the premise and dialogue and reaching an emotional core. This is the very definition of acting, so in a strange way this zero-budget, atrociously-written scene succeeds more than many big-budget "legitimate" Hollywood films. But then Greaves includes footage of the actors as themselves rehearsing and discussing the scene does seeing their actual personalities and hearing their own opinions enhance or detract from their performances? Or is this aspect of the film scripted as well? We don't know, and it's the absolute ambiguity that makes this movie magnetic and fascinating.
The second level of the film is the behind-the-scenes documentary, which in many ways is the most pure form of cinema ever created. The camera captures the struggles and setbacks of the cast and crew on location, including intruding police officers, crowds of excited on-lookers, and even an eccentric homeless man to reveal the reality of what goes on during a shoot. The crew is frustrated, confused and almost mutinous over the director's seemingly careless attitude about the movie. It says a lot about Greaves' open-mindedness as an artist and a man that he's willing to include this footage that openly questions his talents and motivations. Clearly he's as willing to expose himself to scrutiny as his actors and his crew. That's commitment, and the key to the movie for me. The fact that Greaves included scenes that showed him in an unflattering light convinced me that the man is as pure a film artist as there ever was. Boldly, fearlessly, he stands completely vulnerable on screen in his own film and trusts the audience to judge him for themselves.
The third level of the film is unprecedented and probably the most fun. Thirty years before the invention of DVD Director's Commentary the crew gathers and gives a running commentary on the movie- while it's still in production- and surprisingly questions whether or not the film has any value at all! Their passion is contagious... these are clearly all talented individuals who genuinely care about the project they're working on, and although they have different opinions they basically all arrive at the same conclusion: the movie is a disorganized mess. They're absolutely right, but few of them had the foresight to see that it's the sprawling, imperfect, fun-house atmosphere that makes it such a rich and rewarding experience.
Just watching this movie will make you smarter about movies, if not life in general. It will make you question what you once blindly accepted, it will engage you and challenge you in a way that no other film ever has or probably ever will, and for that alone it is a tremendous success and exceptionally valuable. It is a time capsule of not only an era when artistic pursuits were much more nobly considered, but of a unique cinematic experience in which the audience, cast and crew all switch places like a magical game of musical chairs and in which the truth reveals itself to be just as maddeningly elusive as in real life.
The first time I saw the film I was convinced the drunken homeless man who preaches to the crew was an actor playing a part in a staged segment of the behind-the-scenes documentary. The second time I saw it I was sure he was absolutely real.
Let me know if you figure it out, won't you?
GRADE: A