Nothing Girl
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:48 pm
I reckon we may need a separate thread for discussion of this film ...
I was not a BIAFF judge this year, but I certainly agree "Nothing Girl" is
a Gold Standard. Whether it is one stage higher as an International Standard
I am not so sure ... but that's a relatively small question.
There seems to me to be a difference between breaking the "rules" (orthodoxies)
of film making accidentally and doing so deliberately. Pierre Daudelin was
doing it deliberately.
The opening shots where just a strip of the screen was used forced us to
realise this movie is a construct. We are reminded that we are seeing only
what the director chooses to show us and are not given the whole picture.
It is not the type of movie where you let yourself be immersed in the story
and emotions.
The ultra-soft-focus shots make us curious to discern what we are seeing
and again reminds us that we are not given the privileged position usually
offered to film audiences where we can see and understand all.
I am not so convinced that the skaky shots had the same effect but I think
they were intended to do so.
These "bad shots" were intercut with crisply focused ones to demonstrate
that they were intentional.
Why all that alienation of the audience?
It forces us to think more than we usually do for a movie. Normally we allow
the actions and words of characters to propel us through a story - here we
have to analyse the action ourselves a bit. How innocent is the girl? She
seems like a kid with an idle curiosity about the mechanic - he seems as
alone in that place as she is (c.f. the playground she looks at through a
wire fence.) But putting her knickers through the laundrette is an odd move.
Getting into an anonymous car at the end of the movie is an odd move. Could
she be a child prostitute?
Mind you as a later film, "Reasons", reminded us perceptions can be misleading.
Dave
I was not a BIAFF judge this year, but I certainly agree "Nothing Girl" is
a Gold Standard. Whether it is one stage higher as an International Standard
I am not so sure ... but that's a relatively small question.
There seems to me to be a difference between breaking the "rules" (orthodoxies)
of film making accidentally and doing so deliberately. Pierre Daudelin was
doing it deliberately.
The opening shots where just a strip of the screen was used forced us to
realise this movie is a construct. We are reminded that we are seeing only
what the director chooses to show us and are not given the whole picture.
It is not the type of movie where you let yourself be immersed in the story
and emotions.
The ultra-soft-focus shots make us curious to discern what we are seeing
and again reminds us that we are not given the privileged position usually
offered to film audiences where we can see and understand all.
I am not so convinced that the skaky shots had the same effect but I think
they were intended to do so.
These "bad shots" were intercut with crisply focused ones to demonstrate
that they were intentional.
Why all that alienation of the audience?
It forces us to think more than we usually do for a movie. Normally we allow
the actions and words of characters to propel us through a story - here we
have to analyse the action ourselves a bit. How innocent is the girl? She
seems like a kid with an idle curiosity about the mechanic - he seems as
alone in that place as she is (c.f. the playground she looks at through a
wire fence.) But putting her knickers through the laundrette is an odd move.
Getting into an anonymous car at the end of the movie is an odd move. Could
she be a child prostitute?
Mind you as a later film, "Reasons", reminded us perceptions can be misleading.
Dave