Not only being unaware of any review but also about any fact of its content, I watched it because Peter O'Toole featured in it. However, this is a movie that requires thorough preparation. Not only does one need to know some of the history, and of course the actual Katerina, no also about Eastern religion should one know at least a bit. Sadly it is only the latter of which I know something about.
But first to the movie itself. It was one of Ingmar Bergman's paradigm not to use music unless it is actually played in the scene, e.g. when the stereo plays. This movie is the most extreme antithesis to it. There is a constant stream of string music, occasionally supported by some drums. It would have served the atmosphere simply to not use any sort of music at all. My rating would have gone up at least a star.
While the music poses some sort of (bright neon-) red thread, the film itself lacks it. It is some sort of patchwork that especially in the beginning seem like completely random bits of flashy colors. As an ideology driven under-budgeted piece of work it rather feels surreal. This is the most positive feature of the film Michael Redwood has achieved.
While I absolutely enjoyed Nicole Keniheart as Katerina from the perspective of acting (was that accent natural? If not: Why, Redwood? Why?), her character entrapped herself in inconsistencies.
Not knowing the historical Katerine, I was at first lead to believe she was denouncing any deities, being some sort of atheist. You might think, how I could have done that since it clearly must have been a Christian but I would hold the utter surrealistic atmosphere as possible explanation for this misconception. She does sound a bit like a Buddhist at times. And this is where the grandest mistake of the films writers occurred. Lending from ideologies, philosophies, or religions one should actually have understood their notions. This was obviously not the case here.
While it was a strange mix of feminist and Buddhist/Hindu thought to portray her as the incarnation of Nefertiti, and sort of brave, in the end it did not work. She was confronted by this evil guy--sorry, I did not remember that name--showing her a, rather the, bust of Nefertiti which could identify although she had never seen it, nor heard this name in her present life. Okay, for me its fine to, just like that, introduce reincarnation into Christianity. The question whether that can make sense or it is completely contradictory remains.
Where she got entangled in inconsistency with the foreign source was when she foretold the evil guy that after this life his soul would end. Not only that but that was even a bad thing. The guy got upset and she felt so sorry for him, that she shed a tear. So why is that inconsistent. Reincarnation is part of Hinduism and Buddhism in which it is a rather clearly explained sort of natural law. Both the Hindus and Buddhist actually try to escape this cycle of existences because it entails endless suffering. At this point we have our first inconsistency--unless Katerina shed tears of joy. Which by the way she did not. She gave that evil guy the prophecy like it was something really bad. Now we need to go a bit further. According to Buddhist belief (I am not well versed in Hindu thought) any sort of conventional happiness experienced within this prison of consecutive lives is impermanent and as such is not desirable. The goal is a sort of ultimate happiness, the utter liberation from suffering, nirvana. So, is the evil guy about to achieve this state after his present life? Rather not. How should we understand this state? Katerina tells the evil guy that he would simply stop to exist. That is of course not Buddhist and, granted, it was not supposed to be. The state one achieves at enlightenment is beyond any sort of extremes. This is already in the sutras, i.e. the earliest Buddhist texts. Later the thought was put into a wonderful system by the Buddhist saint (can we actually say that?) and philosopher Nagarjuna. The Buddha made it clear that when achieving enlightenment he will neither be existent, non-existent, both, or neither. He will be beyond such dualistic concepts.
While that was just a bit off-topic, it makes clear that there is much more to reincarnation than what Western media is able to digest. Filmmakers should give such notions more thought before they assimilate truncated, if not completely twisted, versions of them. I mean seriously, there is reincarnation but that one evil guy will simply stop to exist? The last time I was politely told that unbelievers will simply stop to exist after the purgatory at the end of the world was when I actually let in some Jehovah's Witnesses to have a chat with them.
But first to the movie itself. It was one of Ingmar Bergman's paradigm not to use music unless it is actually played in the scene, e.g. when the stereo plays. This movie is the most extreme antithesis to it. There is a constant stream of string music, occasionally supported by some drums. It would have served the atmosphere simply to not use any sort of music at all. My rating would have gone up at least a star.
While the music poses some sort of (bright neon-) red thread, the film itself lacks it. It is some sort of patchwork that especially in the beginning seem like completely random bits of flashy colors. As an ideology driven under-budgeted piece of work it rather feels surreal. This is the most positive feature of the film Michael Redwood has achieved.
While I absolutely enjoyed Nicole Keniheart as Katerina from the perspective of acting (was that accent natural? If not: Why, Redwood? Why?), her character entrapped herself in inconsistencies.
Not knowing the historical Katerine, I was at first lead to believe she was denouncing any deities, being some sort of atheist. You might think, how I could have done that since it clearly must have been a Christian but I would hold the utter surrealistic atmosphere as possible explanation for this misconception. She does sound a bit like a Buddhist at times. And this is where the grandest mistake of the films writers occurred. Lending from ideologies, philosophies, or religions one should actually have understood their notions. This was obviously not the case here.
While it was a strange mix of feminist and Buddhist/Hindu thought to portray her as the incarnation of Nefertiti, and sort of brave, in the end it did not work. She was confronted by this evil guy--sorry, I did not remember that name--showing her a, rather the, bust of Nefertiti which could identify although she had never seen it, nor heard this name in her present life. Okay, for me its fine to, just like that, introduce reincarnation into Christianity. The question whether that can make sense or it is completely contradictory remains.
Where she got entangled in inconsistency with the foreign source was when she foretold the evil guy that after this life his soul would end. Not only that but that was even a bad thing. The guy got upset and she felt so sorry for him, that she shed a tear. So why is that inconsistent. Reincarnation is part of Hinduism and Buddhism in which it is a rather clearly explained sort of natural law. Both the Hindus and Buddhist actually try to escape this cycle of existences because it entails endless suffering. At this point we have our first inconsistency--unless Katerina shed tears of joy. Which by the way she did not. She gave that evil guy the prophecy like it was something really bad. Now we need to go a bit further. According to Buddhist belief (I am not well versed in Hindu thought) any sort of conventional happiness experienced within this prison of consecutive lives is impermanent and as such is not desirable. The goal is a sort of ultimate happiness, the utter liberation from suffering, nirvana. So, is the evil guy about to achieve this state after his present life? Rather not. How should we understand this state? Katerina tells the evil guy that he would simply stop to exist. That is of course not Buddhist and, granted, it was not supposed to be. The state one achieves at enlightenment is beyond any sort of extremes. This is already in the sutras, i.e. the earliest Buddhist texts. Later the thought was put into a wonderful system by the Buddhist saint (can we actually say that?) and philosopher Nagarjuna. The Buddha made it clear that when achieving enlightenment he will neither be existent, non-existent, both, or neither. He will be beyond such dualistic concepts.
While that was just a bit off-topic, it makes clear that there is much more to reincarnation than what Western media is able to digest. Filmmakers should give such notions more thought before they assimilate truncated, if not completely twisted, versions of them. I mean seriously, there is reincarnation but that one evil guy will simply stop to exist? The last time I was politely told that unbelievers will simply stop to exist after the purgatory at the end of the world was when I actually let in some Jehovah's Witnesses to have a chat with them.