Looking at some of the other comments here, I am as ever amazed at how much we Belgians like to keep ourselves down. God forbid a movie made within our borders should have a visual scheme in which the camera actually moves, or a plotline that doesn't wrap everything up neatly in 90 minutes. The plot for Tom Barman's directing debut certainly doesn't do that, it just goes... well... any way the wind blows.
We follow the lives of about ten people in the city of Antwerp over a period of about 36 hours. We follow stories of loves lost, attempts at succes that failed, illusions long gone. All of the people that inhabit this movie seem to be looking for something, anything that would give their lives a sense of direction. If the movie seems aimless or unco-ordinated, that's because their lives are.
Barman made a stilistically marvelous movie here, with an incredible soundtrack (even the film's detractors have to admit that much) and a very energetic visual stile. This is probably the first time that a Flemish movie has used a steadycam so often and to such great effect. Anyone who even remotely knows the city of Antwerp, will understand that AWTWB is first and foremost a loveletter to the city, which is lovingly rendered, not only in the images, but also in the characters, who talk in a way that absolutely rang true to me. Barman also gleefully shows off his knowledge of other movies by working in hommages to filmmakers like Godard, Woody Allen, Brian De Palma et al.
Yes, it's true, the movie is too long by about fifteen minutes and I, too, was looking for a sort of unifying theme that would wrap everything together. But ultimately, who cares? This is a very energetic, lively film that's enormously entertaining and does contain some insightful moments. Look at a scene in which a French teacher reads a piece by Kundera to his bewildered class. One of the kids tells him she didn't understand everything in the piece. "Did you enjoy it?," the teacher asks. She answers yes. "Well, that's fine then." The same holds true for this movie - there may be loose strands, but then there are loose strands in life, and it's not necessary to understand everything in order to enjoy it.
It may be style over substance - it probably is - but at least here's a man who's not afraid to make a stylish movie in the first place. Barman takes some chances here, he's ambitious, he's bold, he's going for a big show that has something for everyone - and even if he doesn't quite have enough to make it all click together perfectly, it's still a remarkable effort, that deserves applause.
I'd much prefer a filmmaker who goes for something extraordinary and scores a very, very near miss, like Barman here, than someone who simply aims for the same stuffy old clichés and the same predictable stilistical tics we've seen countless times before (as in the vastly overrated Pauline & Paulette, a movie that faked its way into convincing its audience it was actually about something).
AWTWB was a very successful movie here in Belgium, and if there's one thing no one will ever forgive you, it's success. As soon as people actually go see a movie and have a good time, apparantly, it can't possibly be any good. When Robert Altman or PT Anderson make movies like this, in which different storylines intersect and sometimes but not always congeal into a coherent whole, everyone applauds the way they break with conventional storytelling. When Barman does it, they look down their noses at it and call it a mess "that's not about anything." True, Barman does not yet have the emotional or narrative punch that these American examples have, but the talent is definitely there, and let's not forget, it is a first movie after all. No, I'm not a dEUS-fan, and AWTWB was really a first proper introduction for me to Tom Barman and his work. Again responding to some of the other comments here, I get the impression a lot of people dislike the director because of what he did in the music business or his supposed arrogance or pretention. I really don't care if he's the most arrogant man who ever lived - he did make a good film.
We follow the lives of about ten people in the city of Antwerp over a period of about 36 hours. We follow stories of loves lost, attempts at succes that failed, illusions long gone. All of the people that inhabit this movie seem to be looking for something, anything that would give their lives a sense of direction. If the movie seems aimless or unco-ordinated, that's because their lives are.
Barman made a stilistically marvelous movie here, with an incredible soundtrack (even the film's detractors have to admit that much) and a very energetic visual stile. This is probably the first time that a Flemish movie has used a steadycam so often and to such great effect. Anyone who even remotely knows the city of Antwerp, will understand that AWTWB is first and foremost a loveletter to the city, which is lovingly rendered, not only in the images, but also in the characters, who talk in a way that absolutely rang true to me. Barman also gleefully shows off his knowledge of other movies by working in hommages to filmmakers like Godard, Woody Allen, Brian De Palma et al.
Yes, it's true, the movie is too long by about fifteen minutes and I, too, was looking for a sort of unifying theme that would wrap everything together. But ultimately, who cares? This is a very energetic, lively film that's enormously entertaining and does contain some insightful moments. Look at a scene in which a French teacher reads a piece by Kundera to his bewildered class. One of the kids tells him she didn't understand everything in the piece. "Did you enjoy it?," the teacher asks. She answers yes. "Well, that's fine then." The same holds true for this movie - there may be loose strands, but then there are loose strands in life, and it's not necessary to understand everything in order to enjoy it.
It may be style over substance - it probably is - but at least here's a man who's not afraid to make a stylish movie in the first place. Barman takes some chances here, he's ambitious, he's bold, he's going for a big show that has something for everyone - and even if he doesn't quite have enough to make it all click together perfectly, it's still a remarkable effort, that deserves applause.
I'd much prefer a filmmaker who goes for something extraordinary and scores a very, very near miss, like Barman here, than someone who simply aims for the same stuffy old clichés and the same predictable stilistical tics we've seen countless times before (as in the vastly overrated Pauline & Paulette, a movie that faked its way into convincing its audience it was actually about something).
AWTWB was a very successful movie here in Belgium, and if there's one thing no one will ever forgive you, it's success. As soon as people actually go see a movie and have a good time, apparantly, it can't possibly be any good. When Robert Altman or PT Anderson make movies like this, in which different storylines intersect and sometimes but not always congeal into a coherent whole, everyone applauds the way they break with conventional storytelling. When Barman does it, they look down their noses at it and call it a mess "that's not about anything." True, Barman does not yet have the emotional or narrative punch that these American examples have, but the talent is definitely there, and let's not forget, it is a first movie after all. No, I'm not a dEUS-fan, and AWTWB was really a first proper introduction for me to Tom Barman and his work. Again responding to some of the other comments here, I get the impression a lot of people dislike the director because of what he did in the music business or his supposed arrogance or pretention. I really don't care if he's the most arrogant man who ever lived - he did make a good film.