there a limit insurmountable cinematic storytelling to the story in general: imposing a combination of the film as a physical support and projection / playback as cumulative experience. Narrative cinema the argument flows in the same direction as the arrow of time: under normal conditions, is unable to attend a scene which requires understanding the effect or had not seen the previous (unless half the movie starts). For the same reason, while a scene occupies space and screen time can not occupy any other. And when the argument is concerned with facts that might not have happened - like at the end of Mystery von Bulow (1990) - they should be shot like the rest, like scenes from dreams or desires. 's narrative as possible, the non-existent, for the viewer, is to attend multiple non-linear plots that are managed as a discontinuous series of parallel stories (which tend to reconstruct in our mind because our brain is designed well) . Never mind that the narrator stating that certain actions take place in the past and future ones, or that some are contained within the other , or acts that are potentially of what might have been but was not. Anyway, all these variations - each more complex and / or subtle - is consumed as a linear sequence. Because cinematic storytelling is sequential . Possible Lives Mr. Nobody (2009) by Jaco Van Dormael explores the possibilities of narrative parole, an idea for which he had bet some films partially - Rashomon (1950), Mr. Arkadin (1955), Blow up (1966) - but related to the issue of narrative truth ( "what I see, what they are telling me, is part of the real part of the story or a dream? ). As this issue arises in a film's interest tends to focus on know if, as viewers, we are witnessing the main level of the narrator instance (which really is telling the story), or if, from the doubts of some people above them is an upper. It seems logical: if the protagonist starts to doubt the reality in which it is immersed, it is normal to see everything then can be seen as an option or a hypothesis. The problem is that potential Lives Mr. Nobody limits the problem of childhood and adolescence, as if the first years of life were the only ones subjected to random certainly - in this case, as is customary in the film, associated with romantic relationships - and the rest just give him to bear the consequences of uncontrollable circumstances established in the past (a drop of rain, a boyfriend who came that day to his girlfriend, a meeting at a station ...)
not enough to raise the possibility of what might have happened if ... Van Dormael actually set the story in a hyper future in which the protagonist is the last mortal man whose longevity it raises serious doubts about the things he has lived. In practice, the argument merely raises the issue of stock made possible by Mr. Nobody's relationship with three women to speculate on what his life would have been done with each of them. But it takes more to prevent the viewer that fits in what eventually becomes a discontinuous series of parallel arguments of those who try to reconstruct its linearity. Not just a technically and conceptually dazzling transitions between scenes (the mirror and the photo I think the best). not need as much thought about entropy in a story about chance, enough to make a movie that played with the elections or not sensed discarded (the image of the railways is very effective) without question the narrator or attribute everything to a dream . What's so much emphasis on these other lives that we give when we choose if everything is the product of the imagination of a child trapped in a decision worse than Sophie . Or put another way: how to specify the random images and the different possibilities of a dilemma vital means of expression if the employee is painfully stuck in the sequentiality? How to explain the discovery of a new primary color from our limited electromagnetic spectrum?
The case of Memento (2000) is not comparable, because Nolan used the same rules of causation and motivation holding classical narration to bring back the argument. Van Dormael, however, can not do the same because its approach is based on that, faced with a dilemma, there is no discernible cause or reason to explain the decisions we make .
Possible Lives Mr. Nobody confuses profit from the random will (the dilemmas that mark the existence of the protagonist is a resignation of the will, a mere blind choice) the story with the intention of telling (the same character questions the existence of a reliable narrator), and the fact of the narrative with a transcendent destiny (the dilemma that sustains the film is much more important than apparent minutiae that could have caused major changes in the existence of Mr. Nobody). The random chance is not only unexpected, a sudden unthinkable, but also the miserable, I repeat, the ugly, the error, the disposable. Things that fit poorly with the interest that we require all fiction . That is probably one of its limits.
0 comments:
Post a Comment