Synopsis
It is what is. Right? I guess everything is what it is, no matter how it “seems”. But how can something be one thing yet appear to be another? If something appears to be what it is not, is that lie just the product of a flawed perspective? Or, is concealment just an inevitable fact of being? Pretentious thoughts I guess. In the end, nothing has to mean anything. Yet, meaning from a human perspective is kind of inescapable. Our brains are meaning machines, we can’t help it. I think I write this mainly for people skeptical of non-narrative cinema. If you don’t “get” it that’s ok, neither do I. The film is a structural but largely “meaningless” flow of imagery. It’s not about obscurantism or tricking anybody with pretentious drivel. It is what it is, in the truest sense I hope. Unburdened by narrative or conceptual content which can manipulate imagery into being merely utilitarian. I hope it’s a world of of its own. The conceptual content IS there, unavoidably. If you take the time to read into the imagery there are “ideas”, but I hope it’s a visceral enough experience that it can just wash over the audience like a haunting dream as well.
Stills
