Just as writers and other artists have experimented over the years with new forms and ways of telling their stories, performing their songs or painting their works, filmmakers have done the same thing. Whether it's simple experimentation or taking advantage of the latest technology or developed techniques as they become available, many filmmakers have made strides in pushing the cinematic envelope.
Notable examples range from Merian C. Cooper taking advantage of the stop-motion effects supplied by Willis H. O'Brien in "King Kong" to Alfred Hitchcock and his single take shooting - at least until each film magazine ran out - in "Rope" to George Lucas and the innovative visual effects in "Star Wars."
Of course, sometimes the new techniques are nothing more than pure gimmicks (including 3-D, Sensurround, and William Castle's "Percepto" used in his film "The Tingler" to electrically jolt select viewers from their seats), while others simply follow the latest technological advancements (such as the introduction of sound, color and the Steadicam).
Now, Oscar nominated writer/director Mike Figgis ("Leaving Las Vegas," "One Night Stand") combines all of those elements together and takes them to an entirely new level with his release of "Time Code." Simultaneously shot in real-time, and without edits, using four digital cameras, the film unfolds on the screen in four distinct quadrants, each telling a separate, but eventually interrelated story (with the sound moving from one quadrant to the next as needed).
With no script and only a predetermined structure from which the actors and actresses improvised their performances and dialogue, the film is unlike anything most viewers have probably ever seen. While split and multi-screen images have appeared/been used in films before, they were never originally shot simultaneously and in real-time, where a character from one image could seamlessly move to the next and interact with the characters there.
I'll readily admit that I was skeptical before viewing this film, not only because it sounded like nothing more than a new twist on an old-fashioned gimmick, but also because I really disliked Figgis' last film, the abysmal "The Loss of Sexual Innocence."
As such, I can happily report that I actually liked this film. Beyond the impressive fact that Figgis and his cast and crew excelled from a logistical and technological standpoint (meaning if just one performer flubbed his or her lines, or a camera operator - shooting ninety some minutes of straight digital video -- missed their mark or a given shot, the filming of all four stories would have to start anew and from the top), the film is nothing short of mesmerizing to watch.
While the basic underlying story of various people involved in the making of a film isn't particularly that noteworthy or intriguing, the fact that the viewer must consciously chose what part of it to watch means that the film never has the opportunity to become boring. Although most viewers are apt to watch the quadrant that's accompanied by the sound at any given moment, they're likely to sneak peeks at the other three, worried that they'll miss something - especially when they hear other viewers reacting to something they didn't see.
Of course, for some viewers that might amount to sensory overload and become too much to behold in one sitting. I occasionally found myself "zoning out" while watching the other silent events, but never lost interest in the film. Others may also find that the story occasionally needs a bit of a push or jumpstart every now and then, particularly at the beginning. Once we've grown accustomed to the format, and the characters and basic gist of the plot have been introduced, the film does begin to lag a bit, but our interest in how the four stories will overlap and interact does maintain the intrigue factor.
Unfortunately, all good things have to come to an end and that's where the film is probably at its weakest. While Figgis obviously had to wrap things up - not only in the overall story but also in connecting the four ends - the way in which the film culminates wasn't particularly satisfactory to this viewer.
On the other hand, and considering that there were no cuts or stoppage of shooting, and that they had to improvise throughout, the performers deliver good takes on their characters. Reminiscent of the large ensemble casts of many Robert Altman films, the thespian collection here features plenty of big and/or recognizable names and faces.
While some of the characters aren't that particularly well-developed, such as the wife played by Saffron Burrows ("Deep Blue Sea," "The Loss of Sexual Innocence") who may have been cut some slack since she is/has been involved with the director, overall they're good enough to keep the story interesting and moving forward.
Most notable, and seemingly getting the most screen time, are Jeanne Tripplehorn ("Mickey Blue Eyes," "Basic Instinct") and Salma Hayek ("Dogma," "Wild Wild West") as a lesbian couple whose relationship is threatened by one of their aspirations of becoming an actress. While Hayek gets to play off other characters, Tripplehorn is pretty much left by herself to eavesdrop on her lover's activities, and she does a good job conveying the emotions her character is experiencing.
Stellan Skarsgård ("Deep Blue Sea," "Good Will Hunting") gets the other meaty part as a film executive facing both a substance problem and failing marriage, and he does a decent job of portraying such a character. Julian Sands ("The Loss of Sexual Innocence") gets a funny bit as an overeager masseuse, but Leslie Mann ("George of the Jungle") can't do much with her flatly developed, aspiring actress character.
A subplot involving Kyle MacLachlan ("Hamlet"), Alessandro Nivola ("Mansfield Park") and Mia Maestro ("Tango") doesn't go anywhere or really do anything for the overall story, but it does provide for some funny moments where Figgis pokes fun at what he's doing with the film by having Maestro's character "pitch" doing the same with her next film. Meanwhile, the likes of Xander Berkeley ("Gattaca"), Richard Edson ("Strange Days"), Holly Hunter ("The Piano") and Steven Weber (TV's "Wings") are pretty much wasted in their supporting roles.
Although it's not clear whether this is an example of the future of filmmaking or simply a brief aberration of the norm, this film is certainly worth watching, if only for making the viewer more of an active participant in the proceedings. While the basic story isn't anything special, the way in which it's presented (and was shot), certainly makes it a film that may have viewers wanting to see it again to make sure they didn't miss anything the first time around.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
