I've just finished watching 'Phoebe in Wonderland' and for the first time I can remember I can't wait to see the movie again. It speaks volumes for his powers as a director that he can so fully engage a masculine 25 year old man on the focused tale of a precocious, imaginative and slightly troublesome 9 year old girl. I'm announcing a future Academy award winning director right here folks.
Here are my criticisms after seeing the film again.
CRITICISMS
Use of music is old fashioned and out of sync with our times. I think its almost a turn off for the young and restless in their twenties (Not to speak of teenagers). Timeless is a word, it doesn't actually exist in real life, a director should try to make his movie as relevant as he can for as long as he can. In this case I'm talking about the sound in the film, which is exclusively violin and piano, with stereotypical entries from the xylophone and wind chimes.
Another problem, is his static documentary camera work when filming his actors in dramatic scenes are basic and fail to engage the viewer. This is crucial, since the opulence and density of his film, leaves one unprepared for the sparse and solitary environment one finds oneself in, making one turn into oneself in introversion and contemplation, when face with these relatively empty dramatic actor scenes, thus making us miss out on these parts of the movie. (Or perhaps the actors lack sufficient charisma, but that is still only partly an excuse) In short, the scene changes are too quick, especially and detrimentally when switching to crucial actor dialog closeups.
On a lesser note, from that serious problem. Is that his camera shots in the film are too basic and static. They fail to engage the viewers attention on the cameras focus and like I said, this is crucial due to Barnz's visual image being dense and rich with meaning on its own. The pan & scan format of the film might also have exacerbated this problem.
Also related to all of the above. His films are challenging, in the sense of being fully understood and in the sense of being fully enjoyed as entertainment. A lot of people will miss out on what this movie has to offer as they will only pick up the surface, which is still impressive nonetheless. This may be a genuine cost of directing such a high caliber movie but I nonetheless feel that Steven Spielbergs early genius for storytelling can nonetheless be imitated and what will result will be a slightly stronger movie, certainly a movie more affective and accessible to the layman. In short there is a lack of storytelling focus. Or more accurately the simultaneous focus on many stories overwhelms the viewer leading to confusion, boredom or impatience. I think it needs a stronger central story so that the rest of the film meanings are complementary instead of distracting and overwhelming.
On another line of thought, the dialog in the film is so genuine and the acting of such high quality, that one sometimes gets the feeling that one is a covert observer. But just like in real life, it suffers from the same weaknesses that we all must bear in real life. Failing to understand, not being able to hear or decipher, misinterpreting and becoming distracted from someone speaking directly at you. Very rarely have I felt such an experience in a movie, but in this film it is standard. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
And finally. The principal, psychiatrist, father even the future gay basher/criminal little boy are all forgivable and admittedly effective. And as a counter balance of sorts the director offers us one decent male character, but this character is not enough. Why? Its not because he is obviously gay, but it is because he is weak and not masculine in the least.Fearful of others opinions and lacking confidence he does not embody a single masculine value. Phoebe's sister is also not masculine, her two primary traits are being outspoken and being petulant. This spoiled the movie for me once I realized it, as I find it difficult to enjoy a film that ridicules and disparages my entire metaphysical world view, without so much as offering a shred of affirmation for the male gender. I hope in your subsequent films you will be able to remedy this.
Here are my criticisms after seeing the film again.
CRITICISMS
Use of music is old fashioned and out of sync with our times. I think its almost a turn off for the young and restless in their twenties (Not to speak of teenagers). Timeless is a word, it doesn't actually exist in real life, a director should try to make his movie as relevant as he can for as long as he can. In this case I'm talking about the sound in the film, which is exclusively violin and piano, with stereotypical entries from the xylophone and wind chimes.
Another problem, is his static documentary camera work when filming his actors in dramatic scenes are basic and fail to engage the viewer. This is crucial, since the opulence and density of his film, leaves one unprepared for the sparse and solitary environment one finds oneself in, making one turn into oneself in introversion and contemplation, when face with these relatively empty dramatic actor scenes, thus making us miss out on these parts of the movie. (Or perhaps the actors lack sufficient charisma, but that is still only partly an excuse) In short, the scene changes are too quick, especially and detrimentally when switching to crucial actor dialog closeups.
On a lesser note, from that serious problem. Is that his camera shots in the film are too basic and static. They fail to engage the viewers attention on the cameras focus and like I said, this is crucial due to Barnz's visual image being dense and rich with meaning on its own. The pan & scan format of the film might also have exacerbated this problem.
Also related to all of the above. His films are challenging, in the sense of being fully understood and in the sense of being fully enjoyed as entertainment. A lot of people will miss out on what this movie has to offer as they will only pick up the surface, which is still impressive nonetheless. This may be a genuine cost of directing such a high caliber movie but I nonetheless feel that Steven Spielbergs early genius for storytelling can nonetheless be imitated and what will result will be a slightly stronger movie, certainly a movie more affective and accessible to the layman. In short there is a lack of storytelling focus. Or more accurately the simultaneous focus on many stories overwhelms the viewer leading to confusion, boredom or impatience. I think it needs a stronger central story so that the rest of the film meanings are complementary instead of distracting and overwhelming.
On another line of thought, the dialog in the film is so genuine and the acting of such high quality, that one sometimes gets the feeling that one is a covert observer. But just like in real life, it suffers from the same weaknesses that we all must bear in real life. Failing to understand, not being able to hear or decipher, misinterpreting and becoming distracted from someone speaking directly at you. Very rarely have I felt such an experience in a movie, but in this film it is standard. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
And finally. The principal, psychiatrist, father even the future gay basher/criminal little boy are all forgivable and admittedly effective. And as a counter balance of sorts the director offers us one decent male character, but this character is not enough. Why? Its not because he is obviously gay, but it is because he is weak and not masculine in the least.Fearful of others opinions and lacking confidence he does not embody a single masculine value. Phoebe's sister is also not masculine, her two primary traits are being outspoken and being petulant. This spoiled the movie for me once I realized it, as I find it difficult to enjoy a film that ridicules and disparages my entire metaphysical world view, without so much as offering a shred of affirmation for the male gender. I hope in your subsequent films you will be able to remedy this.