Innocence

dull dull dull dull dull. And not because I didn't give enough attention, not because it's too intellectual and the metaphor went over my head, not because I have a problem with endless shots up young girls' legs. Just because it's dull. The girls in this film are simply not actors and the director is not equipped to bring out any truth in them, and so they completely fail to engage. With so little plot you really need to feel involved, but nothing here is emotionally believable. Even a paedophile (of course I'm guessing here) would be bored. You can disregard this second paragraph as I'm only continuing to type because this dumb IMDb system insists that you submit at least ten lines. How do you measure a line? I mean, on who's computer? I'm on a widescreen Mac for gods sake. I'd never be able to fill up ten lines on this awful joke of a film. And I don't appreciate IMDb telling me I've misspelled 'paedophile" because I'm British and that is the way we spell -- I was the best speller in my school so shut up.

We're talking seriously bizarre here. Quite by chance I attended a screening which was introduced by the director who asked us not to try to figure it out but just immerse ourselves in it. Some may say that that was a cop out but don't look at me, I never said a word. I don't know the source material - a short story by Franz Wedekind - so I don't know how much help it would be in making sense of what plot there is. The only way to deal with it is to describe it and if that includes Spoilers so be it. After an ambiguous opening shot held for about 30 seconds which could be an underwater shot of an empty jacuzzi in full spate or stryofoam melting under a gentle flame, lungs filling with liquid or practically anything you like we cut to a room empty except for a coffin on a trestle. In a moment about five pairs of legs surround the coffin. The legs are all female, mini-skirted and the owners have an average age of around 8 to 10 years. It's a paedophile's wet dream in spades. One of the girls produces a golden key and unlocks the coffin. Inside is another girl of roughly the same age, apparently dead. After a beat she opens her eyes and the other girls help her out and tell her that this is her new home. So now we're thinking Afterlife-lite, Heaven or Hell, the choice is yours. Once we see the girls in full shot the most startling thing is their costume; identical white tops and white miniskirts which, over the intervening days, weeks, months, whatever, NEVER get dirty. The House -if that is what it - is appears to be in the center of a forest complete with lake and rowboat and a road about one color grade down from Yellow Brick that leads we know not where. It COULD be a girl's boarding school but the only lessons we ever see involve physical exercise and/or dance. Of the three adults on the scene one is a middle aged woman who seems to be a combination cook-housekeeper and the other two younger women seem to be, for want of a better word, choreographers. One girl attempts to row the boat to whatever outside world exists and it fills with water, a second scales the wall and lights out for the territory. The others are told that she did 'something bad' and they won't be seeing her again. The girls are kitted out with butterfly wings and taken to the stage of a theater that appears to be part of the house. The audience in the shadows seems to be solely male and the housekeeper figure tells the girls that these 'shows' help pay the freight. It's perhaps important to emphasise that there is absolutely nothing about the dancing that could be described as even suggestive let alone salacious or pornographic, which means that it's all in the minds of the male audience. There's also a mysterious woman who appears once a year to 'choose' a girl who will be allowed to leave with her. Eventually the two choreographers lead the girls through the theater and down into an endless underground tunnel which terminates in a railway platform where a train is waiting. They take their seats and the train delivers them to a sunlit plaza up to its ass in fountains. The girls frolic in the fountains. One of the girls sees a golden lad probably around 20 through the fountain. He gives her a dazzling smile. And that's it. Back to the opening shot - whatever that was. And there you have it. Stunning! Breathtaking! Pretentious crap. Take your choice. I know what I think.

This movie is bound to go over your head and when I saw it in Toronto in 2004, there were indeed 5 people who walked out, no doubt confused. Most people in the audience watched intently, but treated it with little emotion. The movie was a little slow-paced, presumably deliberately so. It was nonetheless a fascinating examination of the movie's title on several levels: yours, evolution, education as well as a brief philosophical examination of life & death. You need a lot of (socio-political) experience in life to understand the movie. *** Spoiler follows *** Added comment, April 2, 2006: It's been 2 years since I saw it in the theatre and I rented it on DVD just now. They have edited one little scene to make the movie less risqué/uncomfortable so that the movie now can be seen as sticking completely to its symbolic theme, best typified by the girls' butterfly dance routine juxtaposed with the study of evolution and butterflies. This theme, basically of the selection of the best dancer of the girls by the lady who runs the school, is part of a deliberately long scene where the girls are tastefully judged. Not quite like Olympic gymnastics, but close enough. There are many other important and symbolic pieces of the movie, but I take this one scene to be saying that despite their innocence to the processes of natural selection, an external force is acting on them to nonetheless select them for their skills. In the theatre where they dance, I believe the accidental falling, as exaggerated as it is, is symbolic of stronger selective forces of more primitive creatures (e.g. butterflies). Not to argue with myself, but while the dance and training takes place there is the feeling that there is no escaping this place, and I leave it to other commentators to expand on the symbolism of that part of the movie. 7/10

Offbeat? This film is so far removed from offbeat, that previous films described as offbeat are marching in military step unison. Innocence is a gorgeous composition of thought, sound and beauty which is utterly compelling to watch but challenges the viewing audience to a hard fought internal battle, raising questions within the viewer, in a William Blake-ish "Songs Of Innocence, Songs Of Experience" manner. Undoubtedly the cinematography is some of the most striking that has been put to film certainly this side of the millennium, as Hadzihalilovic manages to compose wonderful shots of serene beauty within a hidden sense of malice and darkness. His symbolic use of colours is highly key to the understanding of the events, themes and emotions and aids the viewer immensely in being able to 'try' (and I emphasis the word) and dissect the layers of thought provoking connotations on the nature of innocence. It's not always the most comfortable film to be viewing, as certain IMDb reviewers would hasten to claim it has "pedophilic tendencies", but I fear they're somewhat missing the point of the entire film; yes it is often at times difficult to view, but there is a purpose. William Blakes collection of poems on innocence and experience charts the replacing of the former with the latter. He shows us how innocence cannot be appreciated til you are experienced, but how experience completely taints any notion of innocence, and the same is with this precise film. These unsettling moments for us are only so because of the experience which we possess and have learnt throughout our existence, to the girls they don't see the same sins, pitfalls and traps we do, to them they are merely acting on instinct, as children do, in an innocent, cares- of the world-free way. Thus the film charts the fall of innocence from the elder girls at the hauntingly constructed boarding school, and the continuing of the cycle through metamorphic symbolism, the circle of young life. Although it does make me question the use of the word "film". If I had but one criticism of the film, for all its mesmerising viewing and original premise it comes across more as a case study in innocence rather than a fully fledged story. While undeniably engaging and engrossing it lacks a certain spark, becoming more concerned with the ideas than the progression of any one story, to the extent where the ideas will be ringing in your head for days afterwards, but lacking a sense of resolution. Innocence would be an impressive debut solely on the basis of bravery alone for tackling such a notion, and so effectively, but the hallmarking of this 'case study' comes in the directors striking use of colours, symbolism and cinematography which I personally believe to have been unsurpassed in the films I've seen of recent years. Although you have been warned, the film is an intense experience which will not set well with everyone, but given that you have now been warned, so it's not as if you can claim you were innocent of that.

We watched this film during my Film History and Theory class this past Thursday and aside from shoddy presentation (the projector was absolutely horrible and displayed the film too dark), I have to say that I enjoyed this quite a bit. At first, I almost dismissed it as artsy, pretentious French cinema due to the very slow pace and methodical direction but it had this eerie quality to it that kept my eyes glued to the screen, anticipating what was yet to come. The story is told in a very abstract way and the story is never really laid out for you in a conventional manner. In truth, it is a very simple tale but told in an imaginative way. There was great imagery and the use of sound to create a mysterious environment was very well done. At times it reminded me of the films of David Lynch, (especially Lost Highway and Mulholland Dr.) and Gaspar Noe (Irreversible), which is probably why I enjoyed it so much. The acting by the principals is very good, considering that they consisted mainly of very young girls. The director managed to capture natural performances from all of them and having worked with children on films in the past, I have to applaud her efforts on this end as I know how difficult it can be to get them to give you the results you're looking for. From a negative stance, the film runs just a bit too long and the pacing could've been trimmed a little to make it run a bit faster and leaner. There were stretches where the film felt like it was never going to end. In the end, I would definitely recommend this to those who appreciate art-house cinema as this caters directly to them. This was an impressive debut for Ms. Hadzihalilovic and I am definitely curious to see what she comes up with next. RATING: ***1/2 out of *****.

Personally I could see no artistic merit in this film, and could have predicted the course it would take after 10 minutes viewing. It's view of the female gender was incredibly French, meaning that little girls are viewed as coquettish, and available for the attentions of older men. The final scene with the column of white water, (and the much older male) made us laugh out loud. The film is (in my humble male opinion) deeply sexist and patronizingly to women. The whole pretext of the film is extremely tedious and unsophisticated, and to compare this to work by Bunuel is a joke. It was incredibly dull and long.

If you've ever read the work of German symbolist writer Frank Wedekind then you may already have an idea about how difficult a text first feature writer-director Lucile Hadzihalilovic chose to adapt and execute. But execute she does for a good portion of the film until the rather obvious over-the-top conclusion that fails to answer many of the questions raised earlier. That said, there is much to enjoy this film mainly due to its excellent cinemascope photography and the whole idea of an idyllic place where prepubescent girls are trained to be ballet dancers in order to enter the world as proper teenage women. Since this is a symbolist writing, one can also entertain thoughts of purgatory (the characters are brought into being via a coffin), isolated same-sex societies (with one old man that is never explained), or some of the themes M. Night Shymalan explored in "The Village" with fear being used to keep a small population under control. In any case, this film will provoke much discussion afterwards so bring your most knowledgeable cinema pals and dig in. Young girls in white outfits giggling and playing for two hours may not be everyone's simplification of the world at large, but in some ways it does sum up the dangers of segregated societies. Not bad for a first film with extremely difficult material. A remarkable debut nonetheless.

Reading a lot of the interesting comments people have made about this film, it's obvious most didn't understand it.I admit this includes me. I enjoy an original idea for a movie, one that makes you think, but if it is too obscure surely that defeats the object? A lot of the comments mention paedophiles, an overused word that's fashionable at the moment.I'm a bloke but ye Gods, these were tiny little girls and not sexual. Someone mentioned the bathing and said they were uncomfortable with it. Nobody was *! If a scene such as this makes a person less than happy, I suggest it says a lot about that person's mind. David Hamilton's 'Bilitis' has a scene where a group of schoolgirls strip off and go gamboling in the sea, that is certainly done, (in my view) to titillate. Innocence isn't at all like that. Europeans such as the French and Germans have, it seems to me, a lot healthier attitude to sex than either the Brits' or the US who tend to look for an ulterior motive in anything. Having said that- There is an interview with director Lucile Hadzihalilovic on the DVD, in it she mentions words to describe the movie, such as paradise, prison, nature, appealing and interesting.She says the film is essentially sensual and a claustrophobic universe. Also says that there is no violence and nothing offensive in it. It interested me to hear her say that women would identify with it easier than men, as their own view of young girls will be evoked. For some that may be problematic, for others, not at all. Read in that what you will chaps. There are few sights more pleasurable than a happy female, (of any age.) I remember an old saying, - 'Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse.'

One of the above reviewers associated this film with the works of Tarkovsky in the use of imagery. What an outrageous slur against one of the great directors of film. To give you some idea of what a w--k-fest this film is, the entire credits are shown at the beginning of the film. Most in the audience found this hilarious but only later did I realise why this is done - so we don't find the credits more entertaining than the film. Yet today, 2 days after watching the film, this fact - the credits at the start of the film - were the true highlight of the movie. What innovation! What genius! Despite the long, drawn out feel of the film, it is neither poetic, dreamlike nor moving. Directed by Lucile Hadzihalilovic (one of Gaspar Noe's gang - he of "Irreversible" and "Seul Contre Tous"), the film aims for strangeness and profundity but veers off course pretty quickly. It isn't even kooky, funny, insightful, shocking or (if you'll excuse my language) entertaining... And it certainly is not art. So what the hell was I watching?? Noe can get away with irreverent, eccentric or questionable imagery because there is real muscle on the bones of his films. This film is a flabby imitation, with only the trickery left to prop it up. Don't get me wrong, I love French cinema. My wife is French, I love France, the language, the culture, French literature and history. But this film gives French cinema a bad name. To the clown who ran the Sydney Film Festival in 2005 (Lynden Barber) - you picked an embarrassingly bad collection of films. To have this as one of the closing films of the festival highlighted what rubbish you served up.