Film is still young enough for there to be credible arguments about just what it is.
Its entirely possible for someone to believe it is about what photography is, what the majority of us think photography is.
Here's a photographer, and he believes that. His photographs evoke remembrances of an innocent sexuality, false memories certainly but sweet smelling. There's a deliberate unreality in the photos, with girls in nearly surreal poses with the lens gauzed as if there were a barrier of sorts between our reality and that we see or is it imagine?
There's all sorts of implied narrative in these still photos. They are so, so very rich in what they imply.
Now to film. I've seem "Laura," which was successful in a minor way because the artist dreaming about the new woman was placed in the story explicitly. Oh and he has vision problems, and he needs to translate his story by shifting senses (to touch) just as we do from photo to movie.
This is his next project. I really don't know what he was thinking. Before he had sexual imaginings, here he simply has sex. Before he focused on a wonderful symmetry: our imaginations of a young girl balanced with her imaginings of an older man. I guess he thought he could work a similar symmetry here with a young boy instead of the older artist. But it fails in an extraordinarily large way.
I think that is because in this case he invested too much in the story, the power of the story to carry the thing, and he drifted too far away from where he has power, the image. I think "Walkabout" successfully does what this attempts. Go there instead.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
