Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One

Perhaps the most frustrating film I've seen. The film asks so much of us and yet doesn't give us anything in return besides a series of potential yet ultimately meaningless meanings. In a way, it's a nihilist mockery. It feels like jumping down a rabbit hole yet never reaching the bottom. Any type of bottom, no matter how surrealistic or abstract, would be better than a constant freefall.

An experiment in documentary, fiction, and film form - William Greaves' acclaimed 1968 film concerns a "screen test" being filmed in Central Park from a multitude of cameras. In filming the same sequence over and over again, he hoped to spark a creative reaction from his actors or crew - what happened instead provided the necessary preconditions to transform Greaves' experimental film into an incredible work of experimental art.

Often slow but fascinating. It's the kind of movie that's hard to evaluate because you're not sure what it's even supposed to be, but the discussions are bracing and it's an interesting slice of underground filmmaking.

At some point this might’ve been a fav of mine, but kind of gets blown away by the genius of someone like Kiarostami, no?

"You are going to be filming me and the actors, I am going to be filming the actors, and Terry is going to be in charge of filming the whole thing." Greaves's ferociously original deconstruction of filmmaking doesn't merely break the fourth wall because it never existed in the first place. Utilizing such novel techniques as split-screen and layered sound tracks, Greaves meditates on the boundary between reality and fiction and what occurs when collaboration threatens to rupture that line.

On perception, voyeurism, truth, fiction, and cinema. Simultaneously engaging and subverting verite stylings, it is as free-formed as jazz fusion, and appropriately scored by Miles Davis. Unlike anything else I've ever seen.

Going in with no knowledge whatsoever about this 'movie', it took a while for me to get into it. Once you realise what is really going on, you're watching it with quite a different mindset. Interesting, but might have benefited from some sense of closure. The scenes of the crew sharing their thoughts are wonderful.

A novel experiment in social engineering and filmmaking. Director William Greaves shoots a remarkably (and deliberately) banal scene in Central Park while other cameras record the crew and/or the surroundings. The results are pretty interesting, especially when the crew begins to question the director's intentions.

Hilarious farce that exists in the overlap between Kiarostami and Cassavetes, which works but doesn’t make sense even after watching it.

Positively vibrant. If reflexive texts have a central flaw, it is that little room is left for the reader to participate, so strong is the structural voice. This isn't a problem here, because for all the crew's "Greek chorus" commentary, the film constantly bounds off in new directions, confounding any attempt to pin it down structurally. "You're a woman, I'm a woman, and a man, how are we so different?"

A lot of fun. The crew holds a meeting at one point where one of the main themes is that "[Greaves] can't direct." Worth seeking out, I'd say.

I'm a little disappointed. Yeah it's funny sometimes, and creative, and more than compelling enough to justify its runtime, but I was hoping for something just a bit more cohesive that I could engage with as a whole work rather than a series of moments. Expectations aside, I enjoyed watching it go through its various meta levels of being and seeing them interact in bizarre ways, especially the repetition that captures a different essence on each take.

Sometimes it's hard to wrap your head around it. I knew I'd like this, I was destined to, but I liked it even more than I thought I would. The conversations with the cast in the room are riveting... you could listen to them discuss the film/director all day. Where one person on here said the movie needed some closure, I felt like the last scene was completely perfect... that guy ranting and raving, then they all walk off after that, showcasing the reality of the movie: anything can happen.

A funny and fascinating look into the idea of filmmaking, with Greaves as a remarkably effective guiding hand, especially when he’s doing such a good job of convincing everyone he’s anything but. I do feel it says almost everything it has to say within the first half an hour or so, but it still remains amusing and entertaining after that.

Kind of interesting, but it seemed like they didn't get enough interesting footage to fill up even 75 minutes, so they had to pad it with lots of footage of the lowest level of reality (actors acting). It was also unclear to me why they spent so much time with that one pair of actors. Why did they feel the need to include another pair singing? Why did they include the last speech that was irrelevant to the project? WHY?

While I’m always ambivalent to the revolutionary nature of movies like this you can’t deny the power this has. How apt it is at deconstruction of the merits of cinema.

The idea behind this film is nothing near original. Every single amateur filmaker has a glimpse of the same at some point. I am glad it is done amidst the social revolution with some seriousness. Somewhere along the shooting the film gains a life it's own and becomes a stagediver being handed to the back lines. The tense moments and confessionals at the end of each day is especially worth watching.

An interesting idea with an execution that leaves a lot to be desired. It's occasionally engaging, as in when the individual shots converge to point towards the invisible hand working behind the scenes. But god damn, is watching these guys bitch and moan and mince words fucking tiring. I just can't tolerate them. The fact that the central scene is deliberately banal doesn't make it any less annoying to watch over...and over...and over.

literally nothing else like it. a work of art made on accident, on purpose, on accident, on purpose.

This unique film, a documentary within a documentary within a documentary about a documentary straddles the line between brilliance and pretentiousness. Conceptually interesting and there's enough interesting content to keep your attention.