criterionforum.org

It sounds morbid in the extreme. "What I have tried to do in this movie is to make choices as if this was the first movie ever made and not to buy into the story of what cinema should be," explains Gallo. This means making the film on the hoof, without much in the way of preparation.

"I shoot a bunch of stuff – improvs, things when people don't know they're being filmed. I look at the footage and separate it into filters. The first category is anything that is beautiful, photographically ... beautiful could be out of focus, it could be a mistake. Beautiful can be intentional. It can be just luck, it can be because the film is processed a little funnily ... Now, I take the film and start to look at the people in the film and I want them to be beautiful. Again, beauty is relative. Beauty can be beautiful ugly. It can be the back of their heads ... "

Continuity editing is deliberately askance. Characters don't wear the same costumes from scene to scene. The director wanted the film to be "honest". He didn't want his cast to "perform" but instead demanded that they behaved naturally on camera. They are mainly unknowns, although Sylvester Stallone's son, Sage, appears.

...

As long as Gallo is satisfied with the film himself, he says that will be enough. "Don't take this the wrong way if you're going to write about it. I am giving zero attention to what the audience thinks. It's not that I resent them or don't care about them. I feel that if I am going to make my best work, I have to take that attitude ... I don't care if it ever gets released, I don't care if anyone ever likes it."

Fiery Angel wrote:oh no, he's baaaack

Playing in the feature competition, "Promises Written in Water" is an incomprehensible, disappointing effort in which he receives producing, directing, writing, editing, music and acting credits, so there really is no one else to blame if this story, about a man who broods on love and death, disappears into the waves almost immediately after its festival outings.

The crowds have gathered to see just how further up himself one man can travel...

True to form, Gallo's drama puts the i in solipsism (and then dots it with a scowly face). It is a film in thrall to the micro-budget monochrome art movies of the 1960s and 70s; a picture that loves the cinema of Andy Warhol and John Cassavetes almost (though not quite) as much as it loves the cinema of Vincent Gallo.

The tragedy, though, is that large sections do not appear to share this ardour, and the film's fumbling miscommunications are accompanied by the constant flap of seats.

This new film stands out from the crowd for the official competition and is an achievement that lingers for a long time. It should encourage young filmmakers to do something different, not something that has been done again and again - with their cameras, dialogue, editing and sound.

Gallo shows what new language in cinema can be about. Several of the scenes in the film should become a part of contemporary cinematic history. Primarily of great interest is the use of the camera, in the most amazing closeups that go beyond how Hollywood uses these. Perhaps silent film closeups have more in common with these shots. These are mega closeups, and executed beautifully by cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi. The body as landscape is part of his introspection.

smak wrote:Everything about the film is on the official site

Mr_sausage wrote:Didn't he declare after the Brown Bunny disaster that he would never make another film?

Duncan Hopper wrote:Gallo has refused to let the London Film Festival screen it.
When LFF contacted Gallo about screening it, his three word reply was: 'For what reason?'

mikkelmark wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:Didn't he declare after the Brown Bunny disaster that he would never make another film?

That is why it is called "Promises Written In Water".

James wrote:

mikkelmark wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:Didn't he declare after the Brown Bunny disaster that he would never make another film?

That is why it is called "Promises Written In Water".

Wait, is this a joke? Or is that the actual reason? If that's the reason it's called Promises Written in Water, then this may be my favorite movie title ever.

I liked it, liked its provocation and its aesthetic – and that affection turned to flat-out love when the end-title screen came up, noting that the film was (and I quote) “bought to you by the Gray Daisy Films Foundation. A viewer-supported organization dedicated to the advancement of outspoken Caucasian non-Jewish heterosexual good-looking male filmmakers and movie stars,” which “needs your support to continue bringing you high-quality films.” Below this text was an address for donations.

The message stayed onscreen for two full minutes. Further proof (as if any were needed) that Gallo belabors his punchlines, but also a hint that there might be slightly more self-knowledge there than many give him credit for.

Ovader wrote:I should contact Gray Daisy Films Foundation for assistance with my film projects

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:He should remake Citizen Kane, and star in it of course.

GTO wrote:

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:He should remake Citizen Kane, and star in it of course.

Close. He should make a movie about an emotionally-stunted jackass who's trying to remake Citzen Kane and star in THAT.

(Said as someone who would finance that, or any other Gallo movie, if I had the cash).