Movie Review
Unknown White Male

By: Dave Micevic
2006-03-21



Posted 03/21/2006 - 03:23:48 PM by cwperry:
 I had a much different reaction. First, I don\'t think Bruce becomes muted by the film\'s style as it proceeds, as you assert; rather, Bruce becomes comfortable with his retrograde amnesia. This is emphasized multiple times in the film. To say the film would be better if he\'d remained as intense (i.e. frightened and worried) the whole time is to wish for Bruce\'s suffering for your own amusement. I know you\'re not truly doing that, but think about what you\'ve posited for a moment and you may understand what I mean. Perhaps Bruce\'s eventual comfort with his amnesia unsettles you in the same way it unsettled his friends, who felt he was not \"playing along\" as they expected or needed him to.
 
Posted 03/21/2006 - 05:43:55 PM by dmicevic:
 I said intensity, but what I should’ve said was honesty, since by no means did I expect nor even want Doug to suffer throughout the film. However, it’s when his pain is at its greatest that he speaks most sincerely, unafraid to hold anything back. But as the film progress his words become less frequent, less intriguing, less personal as he seems more and more closed off from us. I’m not sure whether he was no longer interested in explaining himself to the camera or if he simply had nothing more to say, but it effects the film significantly, dragging it all the way to its anticlimactic conclusion. By the end we’re left we something that is no longer fascinating, inspiring or, scrapping all else in favor of appealing to our basest desire, even entertaining. Is it enough for it to merely exist or am I asking too much?
 
Posted 03/25/2006 - 10:26:21 PM by cwperry:
 Mr. Micevic, I understand your comments. I guess I'm fine with the film being a document of a strange time in one man's life rather than a thrill ride.
 
Posted 03/27/2006 - 12:50:36 AM by dmicevic:
 Assuming it even succeeds at that which in itself is a stretch. I'm curious still where you get the idea that I expected it to be a "thrill ride" since my main concern lies in the lack of sincerity in its subject rather than its lack of entertainment value. True, I did say that at the very least, it could have been entertaining, but the key phrase there is "at the very least," suggesting that since the film fails at everything else a film like this should strive toward, the last vestige of hope would lie in its entertainment value, which it still manages to fumble. I don't know, maybe I've just seen one too many decent or competently handled documentaries to really give a fuck about this one.
 
Posted 03/27/2006 - 11:09:22 AM by cwperry:
 I don't think you expected a thrill ride. I don't see a lack of sincerity, but I understand how one would find the film lacking. As for myself, it brought up many questions and thoughts that had me talking about it for days. Perhaps that has nothing to do with the film's cinematic virtues, but a film that keeps me talking for days has something going for it in my book.