Al Hartley's Trust has been introduced as a work of the "theater of the absurd". Theater of the absurd is defined as "drama using the abandonment of conventional dramatic form to portray the futility of human struggle in a senseless world", and emerged in the late 50's primarily in Europe as a new style of film that focused on existentialism.
It's pretty obvious that Hartley has thrown most of dramatic convention out of the window, and has created a work that is, quite obviously, absurd. Through his direction, he seems to create a work perfectly fitting the mold of absurdity laid down before him.
In moments that are meant to seem awkward and weird, Hartley grasps at what he is truly looking for in his quest for absurdity. Unfortunately, many of these instances were predictable, and because of it he failed to hang on to what he had been reaching for. Instead of finding deeper meaning in the scene, the surface awkwardness is what seemed to stick. It appears to me that the "perfection", for lack of a better term, of his absurdity takes away from the innate absurdness.
It's hard to judge a film without having yet finished it, and perhaps it will change my mind by the end. And it's not as though I don't like the film, in fact, I think it's perfectly fine. It just seems to me that on his journey to find peak absurdity, Hartley only scratched the surface
I agree that the film is most absurd. However, I am going to have to disagree with you because I actually happen to find the absurdity very unique and unconventional. I find those awkward moments heartwarming and in the gaps that lay between, inspiring in some ways. Obviously you have a different take on it, and I respect that, this is just what I thought.
ReplyDelete-Great post though!
Cole I only somewhat agree with you. You claim that Hartley has only scratched the surface of absurdity. I feel that this is robbing him of some of the credit that is due to him. How do you feel Hartley could've delved deeper?
ReplyDelete