The film becomes a sort of “opposite’s attract” love story, with a dose of Stockholm syndrome thrown in for good measure. Thus he plays the sax very poorly, but becomes drawn to Anne’s art style because she can express things so clearly. He knows what he likes, he knows what he desires, but he has difficulty in expressing it clearly. His hobby, when he’s not collecting art, is playing the saxophone. Opposite of Anne is Milo (played by Dennis Hopper), a hitman for the mafia who also has a taste for the abstract art. She isn’t truly happy, and she subconsciously wants something different, but she can’t figure this out for herself because she is so literal. While her art is easy to understand, her wants/needs/desires are not. Normally they are used for advertisements, for shallow consumption but she aims to use them for artistic merit.Ī reference to another artist, Georgia O’Keefe.īut in so making her art so literal, the abstract is sacrificed (to the point where other artists, including one played by Bob Dylan, look down on it). LED lights appeal to her because they are familiar, they are everywhere, and people are drawn to them. She specializes in LED light art for politics, personal relationships, cliches, and for statements on the excessives of average people. This is the art style of one of our main protagonists Anne Benton (played by Jodie Foster). I WALK IN AND OUT OF THE CRACKS OF MY SKULL WHEN THERE IS NOTHINGīlatant, literal, with very little wiggle room for interpretation. I AM CRAZY BORED AND FAMILIAR WITH THE ENDING The statement is made early on with one of the LED art signs which states: had yet to hit, but it was just around the corner after this film’s release. Granted I’m only speaking from my current experience, but I do recall there being plenty of 70s and 80s films that generally had bleak endings and/or formulaic plots and atmosphere/progression that seem to come straight out of an assembly line the independent film wave of the 90s. A film that is aware of how stale films in general have gotten, which is something more relevant today than back when this was made. This film is a cry for something different. Also underrated because it is misunderstood, primarily because of the TC treatment, also because few have seen the DC version, and because those who do watch it tend to view it more as a guilty pleasure than anything else (though I will admit, that’s how I initially viewed it until giving it a closer look). This is a criminally underrated film, underrated because of the ravished treatment it got by studio interference which made it more shallow than intended (to the point where Dennis Hopper demanded his name be removed from it as director). To make a long story short, the DC is far superior to the TC. Also hurts that it’s not available in widescreen unless it’s the TC version. So I had to settle for lesser video quality, which is a shame because it becomes impossible to make out some text that, while not mandatory to see, would certainly improve the viewing experience. It has never gotten a DVD release, let alone a Blu-Ray release. But as far as I can tell, it’s only available on VHS. The Director’s Cut (DC), on the other hand, can be found and can be viewed. Either way, it’s most likely the theatrical cut (TC). Sometimes the film goes by the alternative title Catch Fire, other times it goes by the intended title Backtrack. Upon my first viewing, that’s the version I saw.
This is one of those films not many know about, and if they do know about it they’re probably only aware of the theatrical cut.
0 kommentar(er)
