Time Code by Mike Figgis

I read about Time Code in a DV magazine. Mike Figgis sets out to revolutionize the way we view films, allowing the viewer to do their own editing while watching four simultaneous screens. Our eye moves from one of the four squares to another, as we follow four characters. The action all occurs in real-time, with four cameramen following different scenes as all the actors improvise the general storyline.

Okay, how is that for a review? Basically, this movie is about structure and form and itself. The idea of the movie is perhaps more successful than the movie too, particularly if you try to follow these little scenes on your t.v. at home, like I did. The actresses are all very attractive but they are not perhaps the most dynamic improvisers (particularly if compared to the comedians that improvised Spinal Tap, for example).

I've got a very high tolerance for artsy movies, and go so far as to truly enjoy Godard, but somehow I wanted more from this film. When the film started referring to itself and why it was structured the way it is in the form of a character who stands up in a meeting and talks about her film, I got very impatient. How could I suspend my disbelief? I mean, really this is something like Survivor or Big Brother taken seriously, various digital cameras recording different things in real-time. The actual content isn't as radical as the form. (*note - I do hear the dvd version is different from the vhs, if it matters.)

When the story line depends on a psycho lesbian, a slutty Hispanic actress and other characters in questionable taste, we grrls get a tad jumpy. If it is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, then there should be more humour overall, I think. More rehearsal!

In contrast, Higgis' other digital video movie, Miss Julie, has rapidfire dialogue with intense performances, so that the verbal overrides the image quality issues. The script becomes the star, in a way (and I'm not just saying that ÃŽcause scriptwriter Helen Cooper is a friend!). In Time Code, however, we are lacking a script and the camera is the star.

What happens is that instead of being bullied by an editor into viewing what he wants, we end up at the mercy of cameramen who do not necessarily compose their shots nicely (I hate that) or let us see what we want in any given scene. And we also rely on sound editing to direct our eye as well. So really it would work better if we had our own multiple screens, our own sound boards and our own cameras. The cameras aren't objective enough. Webcams and viewcams are perhaps a better vehicle for this kind of thinking, but hats off to Figgis for attempting to add some of the radical new notions to what has become a conventional medium. I'll just shuffle off to my own internet movies and ponder his experiments with form there, where they can be applied more readily.

official film site

---

Leave a comment

name
email (if you want to be notified)
<-- Please retype the word you see here:
Notify me when someone replies to this post?

---