Here is a rare complaint to have for a film---it relies too much on its own cool nature. It should be noted that The Zero Theorem is perhaps the only film I have ever had and will ever have this complaint about. I suppose it's the most appropriate film to have this complaint about seeing as it's Terry Gilliam's latest film. Outside of the Monty Python films he has directed, I have never actually loved a film of his. I have highly respected and immensely enjoyed such films as Twelve Monkeys, Brazil and Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas but they've also irritated me in the process. He too often feels like a man who's too wrapped up in the process of being cool to actually focus on other elements that would improve his work immensely. He's the equivalent of the high school star football player that everyone loves who gets very, very, very mediocre grades. I admittedly do understand the getting wrapped up in coolness factor of this one perhaps more than others. After all, it does star the already legendary Christoph Waltz and has an exceedingly kooky and wholly creative premise. However, those things can only last so long (maybe Waltz's legendary pull can last forever but the premise, not so much.) This is a film that will certainly only speak to a certain few. I can't decide whether I want to put myself in that group or not. Most people will hate this film due to its story that is, mostly, intentionally hard to follow. One minute a premise will be introduced but the next there won't even be a hint of what happened for the last 60 seconds. This may be a tactic that Gilliam is using since the film is about a man desperately searching for the meaning of existence and being contradicted by one thing or another every step of the way. However, most people will just find it pretentious and tedious, or so I imagine.
The film stars Waltz as Qohen, a worker bee in one of those futuristic societies that's actually a metaphor for our society today. Other films that have this kind of future society can be seen in would be the classic 1982 film Blade Runner, this year's Snowpiercer and a few hundred films from those 32 years in between. This is not to say this is an awful concept. The two other films that I have mentioned are both fantastic and stick with you long after you leave the theater. However, it's a tricky concept to maneuver if the writer(s) and director(s) don't have every idea in their head predetermined. There has to be a specific reason that the people involved in this kind of film are making it. Usually these types of films are love it or hate it. I suppose this one will be for most people as well but I'm fairly on the fence about my feelings for this one.
The plot? Oh yeah....I forgot to explain that. Qohen is tired of working day to day at his dead end futuristic job and decides to rebel against the highest power (I know that sounds familiar to anyone reading this as well.) However, when Qohen does this, he's assigned to a job in which he has to try to make these millions of cubes fit with one another and thus prove an idea named The Zero Theorem, which states that life has no purpose and everyone lives and dies and there's no reason for them to do so. Of course, in order to prove this, Qohen has to consistently almost but not quite figure out the idea of the cubes. A computer will tell him "0 equals 96.79 percent and 0 must equal 100 percent," and so on and so forth. The plot goes further, with a sexy, bubbly blonde (Melanie Thierry) who proves a temptation for Qohen and an annoying but helpful teen (Lucas Hedges.) I choose not to really go into the actual plot because part of the intrigue of the film is where it's headed and why.
Gilliam is exactly like Lars Von Trier to me. I don't like Von Trier's film per say but I totally respect his approach to simply making what he wants to make and the audacity to make everyone watching the film furious when all is said and done. Giliam does the same with his films, including this one. The ending seems to wrap things up nicely but is rather a disguise for just how little the film and all its events ending up meaning. Waltz is incredible in a role that requires a lot of effort to pull off. This is a blank slate of a man who must be made sympathetic in order to be interesting. Faults does this with perfect ease. Waltz is very similar to Christopher Walken in that he is inherently fascinating because no one can match the type of presence that he has on screen. He continues that here and is mostly why a fair amount of the film actually works. Get someone else in his role and every single part of this film falls to pieces.
First time screenwriter Pat Rushin brings a certain energy to the dialogue and situation. However, he seems more invested in the idea of this world than actually giving any of the characters any kind of, well, character. For example, Tilda Swinton shows up, seemingly just having walked off the set of Snowpiercer, as a goofy "woman" (she's actually a computer program) who serves as an overly nosy therapist to Qohen. This is a very cool and potentially great idea and while it does work to some degree, Rushin is too obsessed with the sheer bizarre nature of the character. It is never explained what her motives are or why she's even there. This happens consistently during the film. Characters that could potentially be a great counterpart for Qohen show up but are given absolutely nothing to do beside be wacky. Even the blonde and the teen, who are both on screen a lot, are just people who are there for no real reason and with no real motivation driving them. Come to think of it, Qohen is also a meaningless, non-driven character but he works simply because Waltz is so great and gives the character significantly more depth and meaning than was written for him.
As you may be able to tell at this point, I don't really know my own feelings for this film. Sure, it's kind of inventive and somewhat enjoyable but it's also a shallow project with no real payoff. I feel as if this is a film that will reach cult status but more in the way that something out of Troma does than in the manner that Brazil did. I can not stress enough how incredible Waltz is but a line must be drawn somewhere between what's a good film and a film that's just a flash in the pan. This film goes across the line to just a flash in the pan but only by a nose. I can't say I hated it and I may even watch it again in a few years and get more out of it. However, I must say that, as of now, this is a film for anyone who wants some nice visual imagery and a great performance but who don't care if there's any purpose to what they're watching. I am not one of those people.
(2 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language and some sexuality/nudity)
No comments:
Post a Comment