source: Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One

Moviecut—Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One

Are we, prospective viewers, supposed to be impressed with the title "Symbiopsychotaxiplasm"? It certainly piqued my interest, enough to get the DVD from my local public library. Plus I have an attachment to the 1960s, as I finished college, got married, started my career, and had my first child. However I simply could not get into this, I watched some, skipped a bit, watched some more. I was not entertained and I could not find anything intellectually stimulating about it. I see that there are a few really positive reviews here, it makes we wonder if they really are that high on it, or are they simply trying to do a favor to the producers and distributors of this film. There are also what I will call "balanced" reviews, discussing pros and cons, I would trust them more if I were reading reviews to see if I wanted to invest my time. I suppose I probably should have done that first.

After reading the handful of IMDb reviews, I believe the ongoing debate about how well Greaves executed his directorial vision is justified. I do like that I still wonder how much was planned and how much was impromptu. However, I'm not convinced the film makes a point. What was so much fun for me is Patricia Gilbert's performance. In the beginning of her "screen test", I found her mesmerizing. She's angry, she's loud, she's enraged. Ironically, in a different "screen test", she downplays it, even lamenting when not filming that she thought she'd over-acted prior. I was surprised by Susan Anspach's appearance. I recognized her from Five Easy Pieces with Nicholson, as well as other projects. It was a welcomed delight. Although I will be watching this again when given the opportunity, I won't seek it out. I also don't recommend it for those looking for your typical, Hollywood send-up. It's for cinema addicts who enjoy experimental fare.

It's simple. It's a documentary (or is it?) about people trying to film a scene, and the people filming the scene are themselves being filmed, and Miles Davis is playing consistently in the background, and there's interludes where people talk behind the scenes about the nature of the film they're both in and making - including whether they're actually acting or not, and whether anyone will see the film, and how things may or may not be edited - and all the while, everyone has to deal with various interruptions as well as general existential dread and confusion, and then a very interesting homeless man (or is he?) hijacks the film and it then ends, and then there's an apparent part 2 made almost four decades later. I might've missed something. Like I said... simple.

An audition for a fake movie scene is played out over and over again. the filming of this movie is in turn being filmed as a "making of" or "behind the scenes". and both the fictional movie and it's "making of" movie are being filmed by a third crew. all of it intercut with behind the scenes meetings of the crew trying to ascertain what the director of it all (Greaves) wants. it is not certain how much any of these meta-layers is intentional or scripted how you approach this depends on what you ask of a film. if you seek unbridled entertainment, seek it elsewhere. if you seek an intellectual meditation on the nature of fiction (or at least quasi-intellectual) this is the place for you. if you believe that movies should both entertain and enlighten, again this is not for you. that Greaves acts shocked that few would want to bankroll a film that used up to 100 hours of expensive film stock for a movie with a very very VERY limited commercial appeal is proof positive of the terrible effect that DuChamp had on all of the arts. calling attention to the nebulous boundaries by which something is classified as "art" is old hat by the time this came out and anyhow works better couched in word better than image. as a quasi intellectual exercise this might be great for late high school and college aged students to watch and then rhapsodize about later over a few mind altering chemicals. it is not recommended for anyone who's over 30 and has their feet planted firmly on the ground.

This is a documentary unlike any other. It has so many layers and shows us so much that trying to analyze it all at once is nearly impossible. Documentarian William Greaves shows us the process of film-making from a different perspective. We see the struggles of the actors, the director, the sound crew, and everybody else trying to hang in there and make this film successful. If this was just about a movie being made it would be ordinary. What Greaves does is make it more complex by having a crew film the actors, and then this will be filmed by another crew, only to have another crew film the whole thing. Three cameras, each with a different goal. It has an almost dizzying affect on you but at the same time is exciting. I like the parts where the crew organizes together and discusses what is going on. Even they are somewhat in the dark as to what Greaves is trying to do. Half see this as an experiment while the other half sees it as a chaotic and confusing failure. No matter what side you choose, you can't argue that Greaves doesn't get you involved in this process.

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm points the way toward so many later development in film. It manipulates reality by provoking the hapless cast, crew and bystanders to play roles by provoking them. The director of the film uses his own behavior as a Rorschach test. The whole genre of reality television as well as avant-garde documentary styles are anticipated in this film. In addition to its historical importance the film is fascinating on its own terms for anyone who likes to think about the nature of performance vs. reality. Gender, race, sexuality and the march of time also make appearances. Criterion has done its usual terrific job in rescuing this forgotten masterpiece from undeserved obscurity.

A film of high intelligence and activity. As well as being a strong capsule of the time and persona that was the 60's, the film is also TRULY a surprise in its forward-thinking themes and the unique presentation of the system of power in a group. William Greaves appoints himself to the authoritative role in the group. He asks his crew members to film and film and keep filming. First the two actors, then the crew filming the actors, then the entire set including bystanders, policemen, and finally a homeless man whose been living in bushes in Central Park for 9 weeks. Greaves edits the film (thousands of feet) together and surprisingly makes a strong narrative with an interesting arc and motivations. Don't expect to be bored by this film. Each of crew make for engaging conversationalists and often times are voicing the thoughts that the observer has watching this film. Greaves does well at integrating the multiple camera takes using synchronized three-in-one pictures and other attention shifting methods. In the end, the film will really only be effective if it's what YOU'RE looking for: if you're looking for some abstract arty film that feeds your own self-indulgent ego while never having a point, look elsewhere. If you're looking for a film that will have you talking and thinking long afterward about the desire for honesty and sincerity in documented "reality" and the inevitable transparency that comes of it, then this is the perfect film.

I gave this film a three only because it kept me interested enough in watching all of it. The film was an interesting experiment but brilliant? That's a stretch, at best, but for its time a big maybe, perhaps. It's a film about nothing but it is a film that is also filled with egomaniacs, misogynists, wannabes and hangers-on. I saw more talent from the candid crowd shots than I did the cast and crew combined of what the third party film crew was filming when the lens was actually focused or the view finder wasn't fixed at a treetop because someone was holding the running camera under their arm. It was a depressing journey on a continuous loop going nowhere, a carousel of blathering idiotic dialog and smug pseudo-intellectualism. It is an interesting time capsule but it's cringe inducing for any woman to watch. The interesting aspect is how many women were involved in the film crew (as well as the actresses) and not one of them flinched at the blatant and nasty undercurrent of misogyny that flowed throughout which was about the only constant this film accidentally chartered a course on and that was the subsequent impact this film left in its cinematic impact and wake.