Discussion about Exotica Add your own comments to the debate. | Return to the review. Michael Barry writes: Dear reviewers at Tokyostomp, I like your concept for reviews, ie obscure videos, etc. However, your review for EXOTICA was not really well considered. It is a film which benefits from multiple viewings, as do all the films from Canadian maestro Atom Egoyan. Generally, I will not make an informed judgement about a film like this without seeing it at least twice. To quote Robert Bresson, "A highly compressed film will not yield its best at the first go. People see in it at first what seems like something they have seen before". He's right: one tends to compare each new film experience with ones from the past. Atom Egoyan is an incredible film maker (I'm biased; he's one of my favourite contemporary directors) and certainly makes unique cinematic statements - he is one of cinema's most original thinkers. I work part time as a film projectionist - and I've seen Exotica about two dozen times. This has not worn out my desire to see it again. For me, that defines a masterpiece. (I liked it right from the start, I must admit.) I also read your review for Belle De Jour, and I can see a pattern: you have described the synopsis in both films (with quite a few insights, I might add) but you have only partially identified that both these directors do not work on the level of plot, but are more concerned about expressing themselves through a more arbitrary use of temporal structure. With EXOTICA, as with other Egoyan films, I'm STILL not sure what happened exactly. But that's my point. It doesn't matter - because the storyline is the least important ingredient in a film directed by these artists. They are trying to evoke a feeling rather than tell a literal story. If Egoyan wanted to just "tell the story" he would be more than capable - believe me. But by experimenting with time and memory with his films he is creating something altogether new and challenging. That's what makes his films so interesting. The story he made into a film directed by someone else in the same way that 3 million other hack directors would have done it would have produced a conventional, drab, boring movie. Also, there are plot elements - as you discovered - that Egoyan just won't disclose. You are left with the feeling that you haven't been told everything - he is making the film deliberately ambiguous, not every question is answered or spelt out - there is room for interpretation by the audience - yes! a generous director! If not everything is made aparent and spelt out in this film - isn''t that a bit like life itself? What's the "point" of life - if you really think about it. Bunuel's films are totally anarchistic and attempt to unravel the fabric of cinematic as well as societal convention. Everything everyone has told Bunuel about "how to make a movie" - out the window thank you very much! What would they know anyway? And he's right! That's why Bunuel is one of the world's greatest artists. My suggestion is, when reviewing a film by more esoteric directors, the review style should be sensitive towards the context and artistic framework of their films. If the director is evidently not focusing on the plot so much, then you shouldn't worry about plot either in your review of the film. Try instead to consider whether the director has succeeded in other areas. Instead of advising to "avoid Exotica like the plague", perhaps consider what the film does have to offer (maybe not much, but in the case of EXOTICA, you cannot say that there isn't A LOT GOING ON). People have written their thesis on Exotica, so there's got to be something upstairs in the mind of Egoyan, wouldn't you say? Try watching a film by Jean-Luc Godard like "Every man for himself" or "Weekend". There IS NO PLOT!!! But they are fascinating and individual artistic statements, well worth pursuing. Keep going...like I said it's a great idea. But if you are going to be reviewing more left field material, keep this in mind. It's just as bad when people go to see INDEPENDENCE DAY and tell you that they thought it wasn't fun, it was crap...like duh! what were they expecting...Shakespeare? If they can't get into the spirit of the movie they are about to see...they are watching the WRONG MOVIE!!! Thanks, Michael Barry. Dear Michael, While we appreciate your commentary and obviously thoughtful consideration of both Belle de Jour and Exotica, we still beg to differ in the case of Exotica. Your entreaty to "see it at least twice" in the hopes that we'll enjoy Exotica the second time around is kind of like saying "I know you didn't like the roller coaster the first time, but now that you've thrown up and your stomach is empty, I'll bet you'd like the roller coaster if you tried it again." Uh-uh. Doesn't wash. We agree with Bresson: Multiple viewings do enhance one's enjoyment of a complex and well-made film. Some of our favorite films epitomize this: Casablanca, Lone Star, Citizen Kane, A Fish Called Wanda, The Killer. But each of these films, while not "yielding their best at the first go," certainly yield something good -- something worth watching again. Exotica, on the other hand, didn't yield enough to inspire watching it again. Indeed, it did just the opposite. We're aware that Exotica was reviewed very favorably by most critics. That's what confirmed our attraction to the title after we saw the intriguing trailer on another videotape. Our point is that we felt misled. Whoever used the word "thriller" in conjunction with this film must have been on downers. Egoyan used the strip-club motif to disguise his true intentions for a much more sedate film and deliberately allowed it to be marketed in a deceptive way. However, we have been misled by marketing before and been happily surprised, so we'll forgive that point. The real bone of contention in this case is the story. You claim that if Egoyan "wanted to just 'tell the story' he would be more than capable" -- but our assertion is that he doesn't really tell ANY story. There's not enough of any one (interesting) thing going on here to make us care about what we're seeing. Any movie has to keep you interested enough to watch the next scene. We suggest that throwing a bunch of characters with 'inner pain' on the screen, and making us watch them for 90 minutes as they stumble about, is not great cinema. We got the sinking feeling while watching this film that the only reason it took place in a strip club was that the director felt that was the only way he could keep a sizeable portion of his viewers wanting to see the next scene. To return to Citizen Kane for a moment, we can see the same sort of storytelling that Egoyan is allegedly engaged in, but in a way that works. Welles doesn't give us all of the character motivations, but he gives us enough to care about C.F. Kane and the people who surround him. We never really find out what Rosebud is or just exactly what it means to Kane, but we find out enough for our imaginations to start running. Citizen Kane doesn't just "tell the story," but it tells us enough that we can tell what the story is. In the case of Belle de Jour, the same is true -- you'll notice that we actually gave this film 3 lamps, as opposed to Exotica's single lamp. Bunuel's story-telling methods are a bit more obscure than Welles' (they don't call him a surrealist for nothing), but Bunuel concentrated on Severine. Bunuel gave us enough of Severine that we came to care for her, and even understand her a little bit. Bit by bit, an actual story emerged that was worth telling and worth watching. Film is about storytelling -- even films as bizarre as Un Chien Andalou (another Bunuel effort) communicate some sort of story. The question is whether the story is told in an effective way and whether the story is a good one. Exotica makes the mistake of believing that symbolism and abstractions can take the place of the plot rather than complementing it. As a postscript, the suggestion that because people have written their academic theses on Exotica, Egoyan's work must be profound, is rather silly. We know of people who wrote their theses on Star Trek, but that doesn't mean that Gene Roddenberry was the premier philospher of our time. It means that some people have too much time on their hands. (Yes, we'll confess to being guilty of that, too.) Thanks for taking a stand in favor of Exotica. It has proven to be our most controversial review so far, and this is probably not the last we'll hear about this movie. Drop us a line the next time you disagree. Add your own comments to the debate. | Return to the review. All reviews are © copyright 1996 Chris Holland & Scott Hamilton. Blah blah blah. Please don't claim that it's yours blah blah, but feel free to e-mail it to friends, or better yet, send them the URL. To reproduce this review in another form, please contact us at guys@stomptokyo.com. Blah blah blah blah.