The figure of the "unreliable narrator (unreliable narrator) has given the film and literature of some of his most memorable moments (think of anything else at the end of Memento , one of my favorites for instance). It is, as its name clearly states, the use of a narrator whose credibility is compromised for any reason. The disclosure of this situation is (usually) the "twist ending " that allows the dots that first appeared loose and rediscover and reinterpret history. But as its name also expresses with clarity, the figure needs a narrator to work: a character in history or elsewhere, but in the end character. So what happens when it seeks to use the resource, but replacing the character narrator, by the camera? With several successes and errors, Gustavo Hernández proposed to answer to this question in Muda House.
Inspired by an unsolved crime in the Uruguayan in the 40's, House Muda tells the 78 minutes during which Laura (Florence Colucci) tries to escape from people or presences that inhabit renovate the house to be with his father. Promoted with the line "real fear real time", the film achieved notoriety long before its release because it was shot entirely with a still camera and one large 78-minute sequence shot (more than an afterthought to credit.) And perhaps the main problem lies precisely in the way deal leaving too random content. It must be said, in its technical aspects the movie shines. The camera work seems impossible in a set that is a real house and not a decoration, and yet the camera movements are completely stunning, especially when we consider that respond to both the suspense to be generated and the need the "single shot" (in quotes, yes. I do not want to accuse anyone of lying but there are cuts, at least three. If in fact would not have no need of an editor as listed in the credits. Anyway continuity is not affected in any time). It is this technical feat, however, that demonstrates the impossibility of transforming the "unreliable narrator" in a "reliable observer (the camera). House Muda is certainly an heir to The Blair Witch Project -1999 - (The scene in which Laura momentarily out of the house can not be, in fact, nothing less than a tribute) but unlike this film (or the most recent deliveries Paranormal Activity), not the premise for "documentary" of film found or similar excuses, ie: the camera is not operated by any enabling character witness the truth of what happens in the film (for the purpose of the film, of course). By losing the cameraman as part of the scene (as Laura is supposedly one), we must accept that the eye that looks is an external entity (the director) and not at the scene. The resource Hernandez then chosen to maximize the approach "real" action, which is ultimately what doomed from the moment when the director chooses CHEATING, showing that in reality things are not happening as well as the sample (Hitchcock would be horrified). When the traditional scheme of the unreliable narrator, the twist is revealed and the condition of "unreliable" narrator is evident, the viewer is able to reconstruct what was seen and new meanings from the new viewpoint. But if the "twist" does not come from the hand of this figure, as in the case of House Muda, we are deprived of the elements necessary to reconstruct the history and the final feeling of confusion and of being deceived, but without the usual reward of being able to decipher parts of deception (at least not first hand).
is not, however, a terrible experience, because as a horror film, House works Muda through very well (with 3 or 4 times very effective) and as an experiment in form is really interesting, especially as the Uruguayan market. Still, something is missing ...
2.5/5.0
Thanks for reading, are a wonderful audience
Gonza
0 comments:
Post a Comment