criterionforum.org

The girl is truly spectacular as everyone seems to have pointed out. Kids really do say "What?" that many times when you speak to them. People do that sometimes but kids take it to that level where it is all the time and I believe that is part of what works in the movie. The problem I suppose I have with the images is that they reminded me more of commercial photography than the cinema. That maybe does not make the most sense but to me staring at these images that took however long to produce and are so slick just became uninteresting. I prefer to see the cinema as more of a moving and breathing thing than what seems so static with The Fall.

Floyd wrote:The problem I suppose I have with the images is that they reminded me more of commercial photography than the cinema. That maybe does not make the most sense but to me staring at these images that took however long to produce and are so slick just became uninteresting.

I absolutely agree with you 100%. Tarsem's supposedly revolutionary images are numbingly familiar from his many obvious antecedents and, even more tiresomely, the now standardized image fetishism of the international advertising world. Sadly the images here mean about as much. "Plot" notwithstanding it's all ultimately arbitrary pretty pictures in grandiose frames (in the commentary Tarsem relates with amusement the fact that the Balinese ritual he records was created purely as a seemingly authentic ploy to lure naive tourists; the irony in his own employment of it appears to escape him).

I was left utterly indifferent by that aspect of things which is a shame since, as has been noted, the relationship between the two leads is extraordinary stuff in its own right. Still that is where I turn from indifference to disdain. For Tarsem is not, in the end, all that persuaded by the value of the fantasy narrative anyway except as a possible palliative (the old standby that fantasy is only and can really only ever be a consolation); any capacity to envision the workings of fantasy as having farther reaching consequences or import beyond the reductive and purely personal eludes him utterly.

It's very telling that elsewhere in the commentary Tarsem mentions that someone suggested to him that the film might be stronger with no fantasy sequences at all and he considers that this may be correct. He's right to of course, but such is the real measure of his respect for the form.

I kind of wish Tarsem had just gone ahead and devoted all this time and effort into making a straight fairy tale, because co-opting the well-trod device of elements from a child's life showing up in their fantasy makes the whole exercise pretty weak. I thought there was a brief lull in the film where it finally brought something new to the table

Spoiler

when Pace begins callously killing off all the characters

but really, so many movies contain great visuals anymore that a film has to offer more than pretty aesthetics, especially when many of those visuals are computer-aided. I got more joy out of visual spectacle from watching last night's episode of Pushing Daisies, and hey, it was better-scripted and had Lee Pace too.

If you are basing your opinion off of a DVD/BR viewing rather than 35mm, then you haven't seen the film. I don't care if you have a 106 inch screen or whatever. This film has, by far, the most spectacular outdoor footage (or whatever you want to call it) of any film I can think of. Zabriskie Point comes in second. =P~

Domino wrote:especially when many of those visuals are computer-aided.

Apparently the movie doesn't use computer effects, everything was done practically.

Mr. Sausage is right. From the Ebet article/interview:

After filming all the scenes involving the two characters, Tarsem shot her visions in 28 countries over a period of four years. There are sights in the film you cannot imagine are possible, but Tarsem says he used no computers to create them. They exist.

What I don't understand is this:

"If you think it’s hard raising money for a film, try telling people that the script is going to be written by a 4-year old. It’s going to be dictated to me by a child. For seven years wherever I would shoot a commercial I would send people out with a camera to schools, and one day I got a tape of this girl at a school in Romania, in the middle of students talking. I was amazed. She was perfect. She didn't speak English. The penny dropped. She was six, but if she didn’t speak the language she would be using, the misunderstanding would buy me the two years that I needed. Because she had to seem four.

"I found a mental asylum in South Africa that gave me a wing. I figured everything for her had to be visual. I explained to her where she lived, where he lived, where everything was. And we taught her the English of her lines, word by word. She would say them, and if she didn't get it right in three or four takes, we changed her dialog because she needed to sound spontaneous, not rehearsed."

So the script existed or it was "dictated"? Untaru knows no English and only repeats memorized lines? Huh? Can someone explain this.

Mr_sausage wrote:

Domino wrote:especially when many of those visuals are computer-aided.

Apparently the movie doesn't use computer effects, everything was done practically.

This doesn't sound quite right... they actually painted all those background buildings blue? How did the cloth soak up all the red paint live on-camera? And the arrows were a practical effect? If it's an accurate claim then my feelings are a little more charitable, though it does underline the unfortunate reality that all that effort was expended at the service of such a tired plot device.

domino harvey wrote:This doesn't sound quite right... they actually painted all those background buildings blue?

from the Ebert interview:

And as for the Blue City...

"Jodhpur, the blue city, is a Brahmin city where you’re only supposed to paint your house blue. I made a contract with the city; we would give them free paint. We knew legally they could only choose blue. So they painted their houses blue and it looked more vibrant than it ever had before."

Interesting. Was there a credit about the film employing only practical effects? If I was a filmmaker who went through all that trouble, I'd sure make a point to mention it. Maybe he did and I missed it in the sea of location credits?

While Tarsem didn't use computers to create the landscapes, he did use computers to edit them occasionally..taking out extra trees to highlight one in particular, perhaps. He makes reference to this on the commentary somewhere. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the natural splendor of the film's scenery is truly awe-inspiring. Its hard to believe locales like that exist anywhere else besides the imagination! Its true that so many movies offer great visuals today...but The Fall is on a whole other level.
I understand where you're coming from re the story, and I'm not going to defend it...all I can say is that I was in the right mood to be completely enchanted by the film, and I was. With every aspect of it.

Yeah, that's what I initially figured (and said in my first post). I didn't speculate that he created the visuals wholesale, just that he had altered them after shooting. I certainly don't begrudge anyone liking the film, but it left me fairly indifferent, which in a way is probably the worst response a film of this magnitude can trigger.

I want to know how they filmed the elephant scenes. That was a visual WOW! -- even if it didn't make much sense in the storyline.

Well, the opening credit sequence is striking, but The Fall soon sbegins to feel like an extended perfume advert, visually 'colourful' yet deeply conventional visually too, whimsical and shallow. The girl is interesting. Quickly forgotten.

I finally got around to watching this and apart from the scenes with Catinca Untaru (who is fantastic!) the film ultimately lacks any kind of soul or emotional depth. The story/voyage is very weak and purely a vehicle for delivering the visual images. Even though it is full of beautifully composed landscape and architectural shots there is never really any sense of awe when looking at these fantastic places. It somehow manages to make places that are real look unreal and in doing so diminish their impact. That said, the film is exactly what I expected it to be so I'm not disappointed in that sense.

I remember the disappointment of The Cell all too well, so I wasn't expecting too much from The Fall, especially since the story sounded so much like a bunch of other films I felt had mined this territory (Pan's Labyrinth, etc). But it worked out. I was deeply unimpressed with the first 30-40 mins or so of this, and then it really sucked me in, largely due to little Catinca Untaru. It's very clear on the DVD's two documentaries and in the commentaries how they sort of scripted/de-scripted/re-improvised most of the screenplay with her and Lee Pace and Tarsem on the fly, and the effect is remarkable and absolutely enthralling, moreso than even the incredible visuals to me. The feeling and the rhythm is exactly how young children are with adults. The characters in Roy's yarn are 2-D, but they are supposed to be.

The final act is the killer that made me really appreciate the film, but the big false note that keeps me from truly loving it is

Spoiler

how forced into the otherwise real performances Roy's sudden change of heart seems, as he lets the Bandit live. We know intellectually why he should, and why Alexandria's plea would affect him so, but I don't buy the way it was executed. It seemed slapdash, probably because they had real trouble with poor Catinca during those takes and had to make do with what they could.

All in all, the film turned out surprisingly lovely. Yes, it drips with sentiment, but it's made for that, and it's also harsh and very real in the places that count. I hope Tarsem is able to get more work, and can keep that kind of realism with actors and character, because I honestly felt that outdid the visuals. As another person said, it did for me what Pan's Labyrinth should have. I wish I'd gotten to see it in theatres; my TV is okay, but woefully inadequate for this spectacle.

I think Bab'Aziz (2005) is the film that The Fall wanted to be. It's a slow walk through the desert, as a blind old man and his young granddaughter lead each along the dunes. The old man and a few travelers they meet tell stories, fantastic at times, of their experiences. Some characters are interwoven in both the various stories and the story of the film. The film is informed by Sufism and mysticism, and tries to recreate the sensation of being a dervish -- wandering, begging, having no concern for possessions -- even an elliptical narrative to mimic the whirling.

The narrative, and their elusive destination, are much less important than the journey and lessons learned. The desert scenes are beautiful, while the mosques, oases and ruined cities are all visually impressive. Some of the buildings are submerged into the sand, creating an otherworldliness. There just seems to be an intelligence and cohesiveness to this film which I didn't experience in The Fall.

There are some nice touches, as when the old man sits down to rest and rubs his face with sand. For its coolness? Preparing himself for the grave? Or possibly just communing with the desert world around him. It's a brief moment, unexplained and unremarked, of an elderly man seemingly washing his face with sand.

This is the third part of Nacer Khemir's Desert Trilogy, made over a 20 year period. I hope to find the other two films -- Wanderers of the Desert (1986) &
The Dove's Lost Necklace (1991). Not to hijack this (relatively spent) thread, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone's seen those. Khemir comes from a small enough country -- Tunisia -- that intellectuals still feel a duty to identify the soul of their people, and to examine their flaws, their history, and the possible paths forward.

The full title of the film is Bab'Aziz - The Prince That Contemplated His Soul.

I picked this up from a going-out-of-business Blockbuster, having heard people rave about it- and while the comparison to Pan's Labyrinth that's popped up a few times in this thread came to mind for me as well, I thought specifically that this suffered horribly in comparison to the del Toro. Del Toro's story holds together in every dimension- the political, the fairy tale, the visual, the coming of age, etc etc etc- whereas this seemed to turn almost entirely on the gimmick of a story made up on the spot, sold by the beauty of the images and the charm of a five year old's way of thinking (and the actress, who is admittedly terribly charming.) Which is fine, I guess, but I prefer Axe Cop three panels at a time.

And as I have a projector, I did watch this on a movie screen, albeit via blu-ray rather than 35mm. The images are certainly striking enough, but they didn't feel as though there was anything in particular to hold them together- not just in that the story was self consciously incoherent, but the actual visual storytelling from scene to scene seemed weak. It may be that this is the kind of movie that just hits the spot for some and not for others, but it's genuinely difficult for me to imagine seeing this as superior to Pan's Labyrinth, or even Tideland.

Since the thread has been revised, I'd like to put in a vote of confidence in THE FALL. To me this is a completely charming film and I love that the epic visuals are in service of such a small story. I found the film to be less lopsided than PAN'S LABYRINTH which I enjoyed but felt had too little fantasy to balance the heavy "Franco" horror (I prefer del Toro's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE for a better fantasy/reality balance). What is disheartening for me is that I fear this may be the last Tarsem Singh film I will enjoy given that he appears to have now become a hired hand for big budget multiplex entertainments.

Sorry, but projected blu ray is not 35mm. I don\'t care if the wall in your house is 500 feet wide. This film is one of the 5-10 most beautiful films I\'ve ever seen and is mindblowing in 35mm. The \"small\" story is quite moving. And the \"big\" visual sequences aren\'t intended to be coherent from scene to scene and don\'t need to be--they are part of a story being told to a small child.

If you\'re willing to popcorn out a bit, \"Immortals\" is also a very high quality film and from interviews I\'ve read, Tarsem did not view this as a corporate hack job. It is very intelligently assembled. Snow White (or whatever) may be a different can of worms.

matrixschmatrix wrote:

whereas this seemed to turn almost entirely on the gimmick of a story made up on the spot

You mean, like, I don't know, say, One Thousand and One Nights? Perhaps The Fall's most famous ancestor, if not all of narrative's. The oldest, first and still quintessential story made up on the spot to forestall death, one which was deliberately episodic and digressive.

I'm not the biggest fan of The Fall, but if I may quote you back to yourself from an earlier post in the Meek's Cutoff thread:

I think it's just not interested in doing the things you want it to do, and if you did not persist in trying to watch a different movie you may have had less trouble with that.

There's no aspiration to political allegory or coming of age tale here, as in Del Toro's film. I also think Tarsem has a fairly different visual agenda from filmmakers like Del Toro and Gilliam.

Well, that's fair, I think I copped to that myself- this evidently just isn't a movie I'm going to like. My point in comparing it to the del Toro is that, in my view, Pan's Labyrinth does the things this movie does well at least equally well, and has vastly more to offer beyond that- such that it's hard to imagine preferring this one.

The comparison to One Thousand and One Nights has some structural logic, but this isn't a compilation of short stories, each of which is complete in itself- apart from the Alexander opening, it's one long, rambling story that goes nowhere.

Maybe The Fall is a fantasy film for people who don't (usually) like fantasy films then? I can often get into the broader French category of fantastique, because it includes things like David Lynch films, but most fantasy films bore me precisely because they seem more interested in the elaboration of a world and the creation of creatures than the telling of a story. The foregrounding of storytelling itself in The Fall, even if the resultant story seems slight and improvised in retrospect is part of what hooks me into it. And the dilemma is exactly like Scheherazade's, except she's now the listener instead of the teller: To keep the story going is to stave off death.

And I do seem to remember One Thousand and One Nights as far less coherent and more twisty than you. Not very much at all like a modern compilation of literary short stories, where every tale is neatly wrapped up and clearly demarcated by chapter breaks, where none of the characters seem to be influenced by their maker and the frame narrative never bleeds into the story-stories or vice-versa. In a way these tales were meta before meta. Proto-meta, prolepticly pomo. And that's a part of what The Fall is playing with too.

The "story" in THE FALL is based on emotions and events in the lead character's life, dressed up as a costume adventure to hook in the little girl. By its nature, the story is not well thought out but reflects the disposition of the storyteller on any given day that he is telling the story. This is similar to how THE TREE OF LIFE seemingly presents random moments from a man's childhood out of chronological order to represent how memory works. In THE FALL, the story's success as one continuous narrative is not as important as how it reflects the lead character's perception of his circumstances.

Yes, except that the lead in Tree of Life is a well realized and well rounded character, whereas the lead in The Fall is an inexpressive blank in and out of his fantasy sequences. Just because that's intentional doesn't mean it's excusable.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Yes, except that the lead in Tree of Life is a well realized and well rounded character, whereas the lead in The Fall is an inexpressive blank in and out of his fantasy sequences. Just because that's intentional doesn't mean it's excusable.

When you say "lead", I assume you mean Young Jack because "inexpressive blank" seems to aptly describe what quite a few folks feel Sean Penn is bringing to THE TREE OF LIFE! Differing opinions I guess, but I found Lee Pace's character in THE FALL to be quite dynamic.