There was a time when I treated arthouse with a noble attitude of "let aspiring directors embody free ideas," but as I accumulated a practical idea of what these films look like, attitudes toward them changed to utter hatred. Each time the arthouse looks like this: against the background of completely empty landscapes, a bunch of people hang out, almost all the time they are silent, naked lie down, light bulbs flash in the bloated rooms and someone with someone creates tin (kills, rapes, eats, turns into something, locks up in the dark or sends a boat into the ocean). No matter who the arthouse director is, no matter what he thinks about, no matter where he lives, in the end he will still shoot this kind of shit. The contents of the film - for 5 minutes, its timing is incredibly inflated. But what annoyed me most was not the length, the twisted plot, the emptiness in every shot, but the fact that the actors were deliberately forbidden to play! For the whole film, the expression on the face of anyone appears 2 times. There are no tears, no laughter, no fear, no gestures - nothing. Absolutely all people behave as if after a lobotomy, are silent and stare dullly at one point. This is a complete lack of acting, below this is nowhere. For those who do not understand the content, I explain: There was a lab that used to do some weird experiments on girls. As a result, they can stay under water for a long time. It is not clear what happened, but the girls have grown up and are now doing their own experiments. Normally, they can not reproduce or do not want to, so decided to create pregnant boys. The script came to the author as her perverse fantasy about motherhood. She had to show her craving for motherhood by giving birth to children, not by making a movie about what kind of women 10-year-old boys should do.
When the Sea Smells of Desperation (The Movie Is Great, But Don't Watch Pregnant)
The movie is wonderful. I am not at all a connoisseur of arthouse cinema. This is probably the first movie that can be attributed to this genre, and which I watched without interruption.
First, the work of the operator. Not so much landscapes (eka unseen) as the atmosphere. Watching this movie, you can feel the disturbing smell of iodine and algae. The hospital is also not bad, working with modern neoarchetypes.
Secondly, the selection of actresses. The face of the nurse is worth it.
There is a horror scene in the movie (in the bathroom). Who gives you goosebumps. This scene is the bottom, which measuredly, without haste, tightened the sea pool of the film throughout it. Here the director had a choice - to push off this bottom and emerge, or leave the hero and the viewer with him, in despair, which can be likened to the Mariana Trench.
And here we go to "Third." Empathy. To achieve this effect is not so easy. The creators of this film succeeded. I was genuinely worried about the boy. Because I believed in this world, in these rocks, in this hospital, believed in these female faces, strangers to me and the boy, but in their attractiveness (just as beautiful can be a starfish, or jellyfish).
What an idea. Again, not every film can boast so beautifully, without the excesses and moralization of the idea (this dish is either served clumsily, or it is completely absent from the menu). The film is anti-feminist (at least in terms of radical and militant feminism). But it's never agitation. Just a world with its own laws, just history in it. Okay. No more than that.
I wonder where they got the boys from. But the director gives indirect clues, and if something is left behind, it is not in the negative of the film: he does not aim to detail the world.
And remember, I never wrote anything about the ending. Watch, savor the video... plunge to the bottom.
I do not recommend watching only pregnant women, because the film deals with the subject of childbirth.
Maybe I should have gone to the movies, then my opinion would have been better. But come on.
The film is simply angry with the information curve. The viewer should be given information dosed, not as in "Evolution". Forty minutes we don't understand anything. And then we start to guess. And at the end of the day, they dump tons of information on us. So to hide the plot, the cost of which is five rubles - at least strange. And the picture does not answer all the questions that she herself posed.
What attracts you in the movie? Picture. The action takes place on a depersive suicidal island. It is inhabited by boys and strange-looking women. The entourage is very dark, sometimes disgusting. Well done hospital (or what is it?), where the worst happens. The atmosphere of isolation, detachment is perfectly conveyed. I wish I had a stronger sense of purpose.
Not much to say about actors. I can only mention Roxanne Durant, who played well with something human left.
It is difficult to drive the film under the genre. A passing movie. The fact that you do not see it, nothing terrible will happen.
I watched the film, being impressed by 'Innocence', the previous and, in my opinion, truly brilliant work of director Lucille Adzialilovich, I wanted to get to know her world better. Unfortunately, my best expectations were not met. If you compare with 'Innocence', then 'Evolution', in my opinion, loses to the previous creation. Probably, it is in the peculiarities of the plot, because here the emphasis is on some hint of science fiction.
I would like to start with the positives. The first thing that catches your eye is the beauty of nature pictures. If in ' Innocence' the full hero was the emerald forest, then here it is the sea. In general, the topic of water, as I understand it, is close to the director. In ' Innocence' water also plays an important role, as indicated by the framing of the very beginning and, subsequently, the titles, as well as, if you remember, the natural science teacher in ' Innocence', Mademoiselle Edith, in her first class said that all living beings on Earth ' came out' of the ocean waters. And here, in 'Evolution', the director directly addressed the topic of water, making sea water a special character of the picture, a kind of primitive chaos, where all living things originate. Water is also associated with the state of some primitive peace, peace, especially when we see underwater footage of floating and diving Nicholas, all this reminds of the waters of the mother's womb, a sense of security in it. The sea in ' Evolution' - the father of all and the king of all. It's a separate world. The way the water is shown in the film, these restrained and soft colors and sounds of the sea depths, the sunlight that permeates the water columns, can not but cause a silent aesthetic delight. It is also impossible not to mention the aesthetics of the desert island town, these bare walls of houses, hospital corridors and empty eye sockets of windows, which creates a sense of timelessness and isolation. The choice of actors I liked, especially struck by the unusual beauty of nurse Stella (Roxanne Durand), largely emphasized by the work of makeup artists who managed to give her features a special shade of detachment, which sometimes looks somewhat frightening, sometimes her face seems almost waxy in its perfection, sublimely ascetic, reminiscent of the faces of women from Renaissance paintings. I also think it's wonderful that in this film, the main characters are children again, with their open and clean faces, without the need for acting as such, in its usual sense.
But if ' Innocence' leaves behind a certain pleasant taste of a mystery, but the general outline, the general idea is still somehow caught and read, then in ' Evolution' as it seemed to me, almost everything remains incomprehensible. These female sea stars, the implantation of foreign organisms in the bodies of boys (as in seahorses, because they have males bearing future offspring), followed by ' birth' which is performed on the principle of caesarean section, which is regularly watched on television by hospital staff, then strange erotic night rituals of women on the beach. . .
The only thing I was able to catch quite clearly for myself, although perhaps (more than likely, given the peculiarities of the genre), I am mistaken, is some hint of the reverse process in the very evolution (as the name of the picture suggests), that is, if we take as a basis that those women are mutants, and not just another race, then this island seems to be something like an experimental closed laboratory in which people try to go back to the sea, i.e. become marine organisms with them, if I may so say, ' innocent ' reproduction, deprived of sexuality, from where we came back hundreds of millions of years.
In the course of viewing questions arise too much, and to a greater extent this is due, from my point of view, to the fact that the director decided to touch on the sci-fi layer, which, together with the basis of the art house (which is already far from obvious and gives space for thought), as it seemed to me, all too complicated and piled meanings.
In my opinion, the film is on the verge that it will lose all charm, and even the pictures of nature will not be able to save it. I really hope that Lucille Adzialolovic will not pass it in the future of his work. I love the riddles and special charm of arthouse, I love films that are ambiguous and give space for thought, I love the asceticism and avarice of acting, almost complete lack of dialogue and music, some detachment and slowness, I love the emphasis on aesthetics, but here my love, respect for the genre, even enthusiasm about ' Innocence' would not allow this film to be ranked higher.
6 out of 10
No one knows where evolution will take us in a few hundred years or millennia. Some scientists say that in the near future we will lose the usual features of appearance, becoming far from the most pleasant individuals without hair and the lower part of the jaw. Other researchers believe that a person will be able to overcome the limitations of the mortal physical shell and regenerate into spatial matter, capable of overcoming giant distances in an instant, being one with the vast Universe. Science fiction writers have repeatedly presented us with their sketches on the future of the human race, and most of their research is very disturbing, making us think about the correctness of the chosen direction of development. French director Lucille Adzialilovich, known for the dramatic fantasy “Entering the Void”, expressed her opinion about what can await us in the future, resorting to the favorite techniques of creative madness that can both shock and inspire. Heavyweight, gloomy anti-utopia under the simple and catchy name “Evolution”, builds frankly tough, uncompromising motives that make the viewer feel in unusual conditions, excluding such a desired and necessary comfort for each of us.
So, the plot of the film unfolds presumably in the future. The action takes place on a secluded island inhabited by elderly women and boys under the constant supervision of the matriarchate. The main character of the story is Nicholas (Max Brebant), a restless child who explores the world around him with special zeal. Once going on a traditional voyage around the island, Nicholas notices the lifeless body of a child who died under obviously suspicious circumstances. Having told about the incident of the mother, the hero does not find support from her and decides to independently get to the truth, but the ruling female elite is in no hurry to share secrets. Instead, Nicholas is placed under the supervision of the medical service, conducting some suspicious experiments, whose results no one is in a hurry to advertise. Without female support, Nicholas has no chance to get out safe and sound, but with a world ruled by the once weaker sex, compassion has not yet dissolved into obscurity and the boy still has a chance for salvation. But whether he should fight and what will lead to his search is a big question.
The firm creative pointer Lucille Adzialilovich ruled out any manifestations of dissent on the set, so that her “Evolution” appeared before us as the fruit of pure directorial fiction, unobstructed by the unwanted attention of studio managers, who allowed to create from an extraordinary story everything that its creator wanted. Adzialilovich is not afraid to play with openly dirty colors, drive history into a tightening swamp, literally infested with disgusting worms. The realities of life shown in Evolution are frightening only by sight, and as soon as we penetrate into the depths of this ruthless commune, we begin to understand what the undivided power of one branch of society over another leads to, and that superficial horrors are only a faint beginning that hides true agony. And it does not matter who is acting as an evil genius under whose auspices a crime against morality and righteousness is being committed. So who's taller? Women or men, young or old, really make no difference, because tyranny and blind adherence to blatantly false ideals lead to a series of mistakes that cannot be corrected. The director deliberately thickened the colors to the darkest tones, proclaimed an ode to despair and turned part of the audience away from viewing, playing on the verge of permissible. But all her creative research does not pass without a trace. “Evolution” does not just burst into our consciousness, filling it with rejection and despair. History tells us that in any nightmare there is a glimmer that is worth grasping, like a lifeline, and reaching for while you have the strength. Lucille Adzialilovich’s philosophy may be too simple, but it poses urgent questions. And while we think that an alarming future will never come, and if it does, it is clearly not soon, we are already losing the fight, gradually approaching the edge, crossing which we will not return.
Thus, on the opposite side of all-consuming darkness, hopelessness and dirt are bright colors, smiles and hope, cherished by nature itself. Lucille Adzialilovich is in no hurry to reveal all the secrets of her own fantasy, she talks to us with riddles, the answers to which we must search for ourselves. And this is precisely the true beauty of her production, communicating behind the audience with hints that express thoughts much more clearly than facts openly thrown in the face that exclude any manifestations of logical thinking. Inhospitable island houses, gray corridors and gloomy medical facilities are replaced by delightful landscapes of virgin nature. “Evolution” seems to be torn between two completely different worlds and forces us to draw unequivocal conclusions about the fact that man is guilty of all his misfortunes. The constant desire to acquire more wealth, to subjugate all things, and to rise above their fellow-tribes ultimately leads to the same result: the end of the path after which there is nothing else.
In conclusion, I want to say that “Evolution” builds frankly frightening eyes, brightening up the shocking revelations of life of a gloomy future with the beauty of nature, which looks somewhat alien at this feast of depressing feast. After watching the film, there is a persistent taste of decay caused by our personal indifference, shortsightedness and egocentrism. Lucille Adzialilovich openly does not talk about this, but the world created by her extraordinary imagination allows you to make appropriate assumptions. “Evolution” is going to seem attractive to everyone, it’s what it is, without too much embellishment. I will not say that you want to continue familiarizing yourself with the story of the unfortunate Nicholas, but it is not recommended to refuse to travel to the island of revived physiological nightmares for an audience scouring in search of a non-standard and non-stupid movie. So welcome to another anxious dream that can penetrate deep into memory without invitation and remain in it for a long time.
7 out of 10
In general, the ratings of the film are good and the annotation is intriguing. That made me want to watch, but alas. Behind the external originality hides a stretched and smeared nothing.
Since the film does not provide answers to the questions that naturally arise when watching, I will offer my version. Probably, we have the future and sublimation of the ideas of the filmmakers on the theme of feminism, matriarchy and its tragic consequences. The consequences are obvious: everything falls apart.
Before us is a depressive island in complete ruin, inhabited by strange-looking ladies and (presumably, but not fact) their children. Most likely, the long years of complete isolation led to the fact that the ladies gradually seized power on the island into their own hands (well, maybe this happened while the men were engaged in some important business), then they exterminated the men and gradually mutated. Naturally, in such a society everything is in total disintegration. Look what's going on! Aunts can not even insert glass into window openings and seal the current roofs of their ruins. There are residents of the island have black slime with worms, because there is no one to go fishing in the nearby sea.
The main story is presented on behalf of someone who, among this splendor, was not lucky enough to be born a boy. It should be noted that he is surprisingly humbly and frankly, stoic about his hard share. He is more a spectator than a participant in events. And his fate is unenviable: they intend to spend it for the appearance of another individual without eyebrows, useless, like all other inhabitants of the island.
The main idea of the film seems to me something like this: women stopped giving birth, therefore, they became, in general, and not needed, so everything fell apart. In general, when watching you understand that the future of the shown society is in question.
The only thing that is truly beautiful in the film is the creations of nature, which failed to spoil the distraught mutants. I mean, of course, the seascapes. I also note that the film looks quite nice from the point of view of entourage. I love decadence and all kinds of beautiful devastation. The hospital's interiors aren't bad either. In itself, the action is exceptionally leisurely, with long close-up plans and several controversial scenes from the point of view of the Ural Parental Committee.
Now think about what kind of world you can create, followers of Lucrezia Mott. Get to the stove!
An interesting study of the fascinating and mysterious seabed can lead to a terrible find: eleven-year-old Nicholas discovers at a shallow depth near the shore the body of a drowned boy. Water washes no less mysterious island, the inhabitants of which are siren-like women of somnambulistic appearance and their children (boys 10-12 years old). The characters of the picture live in low buildings of the same type, deprived of the benefits of civilization - the cold and gloomy entourage of living quarters supports the restless and terrible atmosphere of the mystical island. Mothers treat their children from an incomprehensible disease with strange means of their own preparation, and at night gather on the rocky coast and conduct mysterious rituals.
“Evolution” is a minimalistic superhermetic story with sterile landscapes and riddles at every turn, verbose heroes and the mystery visible in this isolated space. Deceptive mothers-women (not who they say they are) with similar facial features (all at once resemble Tilda Swinton) and the same dresses are united in a secret community and use their children to achieve only their known goal. The 50-60s-style medical facility, where boys are placed, is shrouded in depressing and disturbing shades that permeate dark corridors, shaded wards and medical offices.
Khadzikhalilovich placed the characters of the picture in a certain theoretical model (in the spirit of the new “Greek wave”) with clear restrictions, blurred goals and objectives (sacrificing children; liberation from the burdensome fetters of childbearing and motherhood). The visualization of the absurd fabulous motif is a unique experiment in the education of feelings in the conditions of despotic female society. A fascinating journey through the uncharted territories of an unearthly established matriarchy is of value from both aesthetic and ideological points of view.