Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Victor Khomenko (M) on April 15, 2006 at 07:01:24

Let me begin by saying there is a lot to love about that film. For the most part, when taken scene by scene, the directing is wonderful. Great camera work, and the directors love for his subject, for his actors, characters comes through clearly and powerfully. That alone has a powerful grab on the viewer's heart. The director is not just an observer, you feel his heart in every frame.

But when considered as a whole, the movie at times loses its drive, and while many have complained about it being too long, it is not its lenghts, but rather its lack of development relative to the screen time that leaves one wondering if things could have been said more profoundly if coupled with a more dynamic story telling.

Mind you, I am quite accustomed to long, slow and insightful films, and I think I understand the logic behind this one, it seems to be related to the Japanese outlook, with Buddhist monks sitting for days staring at their rock gardens... and there is definitely beauty in such slow motion, in seemingly uneventful stories, but perhaps this was not the best possible vehicle for this particular case.

So again, it was not its lenght, but rather its somewhat monotonious delivery that made one restless in its second hour.

Its beauty still carries it forward, and in the end one feels rewarded for his time - a matter of positive overall balance - but I think this good work could have been made even better.

Then there is that element that makes me feel a bit manipulated. I realize the film is based on a true story, but of course, I do not know the details of that true story, and I suspect it differed from the one in the film. The issue of probability enters the picture here, and while I perfectly understand the desired dichotomy - the lonely abandoned island of despair in the middle of a prosperous, modern society - it kept bothering me. I have nothing against the fiction stories, so why my slight resentment in this case? Perhaps the fact that the film deals with a very serious and real issue, that of abandoned, neglected children, that exist in every society today, no matter how prosperous, that required that extra layer of poignancy, the layer that was removed by making the story less than easy to believe. How is it possible that the plight of four little children was not noticed by anyone? That bothered me.

In the final analysis, I am very glad I saw this film - it has plenty to offer in many areas, and it will definitely leave you thinking, often recalling many of its beautiful images. It will not, however, raise to the status of a true masterpiece in my view, but the real question is - would it be right to apply that expectation to every work? This one is extremely human, and with all its faults it speaks the language everyone should understand. It will not change the cruel world, but it will make some be more concerned.

With all that in mind, it is strongly recommended.