Interesting contemporary film Perfect review of this film: "There are a couple of cool long plans."
___
However, let me give you a more detailed description of what I saw. First of all, the movie is just very good. “Split” is somewhat reminiscent of “Cremaster” by Matthew Barney, but it turns out to be more cinematic, and therefore wins. “Cremaster” does not reveal its own capabilities, and years later “Split” phantomly completes his project. Second, the film appears to have been directed by a woman, and this is one of the few instances in which the film induces such differentiation. From the observation of such subtleties, it is impossible not to make assumptions about some basic difference between men and women - about the fundamental difference in their perceptual models. Different-image-perception becomes what does not allow in the future to ideologize this problem – a man and a woman is impossible to oppose each other, because because of their difference they are in the same boat: they are different about the same thing. However (and this is “third”) in “Split” there is an inverse logic, disidentification, moreover, gender-to-species distinction, which results in the attributes of the ideology of feminism, in particular, the victimization of female images. However, the film does not go into ideology, although it has all the prerequisites for this, and brings the conflict of existence of human characters into an interesting aesthetic form. It turns out, in fact, fantasy, but some subtle, delicate, on the verge of performance. From the feature film "Split" breaks to turn into a theatrical confession, and sometimes non-verbal.
The film crew worked hard on the props, it just can not fail to pay attention when watching. It's also a beautiful lighting job. In general, this film unobtrusively resembles many modern films, mostly independent properties. It is interesting to see how festival, mass and underground films are trying to mix in their practices. "Split" can also be attributed to the number of tapes located at one of these joints. However, it stands out because it does not give the upper hand to the outrageous performance, and therefore the film looks quite harmonious.
It was funny to see Amy Ferguson there, it’s nice to meet in the cinema such “hellos” from the film “Congenital Vice” – each time it is perceived as an Easter egg from the conspiratorial bowels of culture. But I will not elaborate on the internal structure and navigation of cinematography as a historical organism, for this topic is no longer the subject of my review.
9 out of 10