|
As a debut feature film, CQ is visually poignant and
interestingly conceived, but only partly realized. The choice
of “movies” as a topic and a theme may seem a bit premature
for a first-time filmmaker, but then again, this is the debut
feature from the son of, perhaps, America’s greatest living
filmmaker. But does prolonged exposure to filmmaking make
up for lack of formal experience?
The year is 1969. Everybody is confused and concerned about
the present and the state of world affairs. Concurrently,
everybody is occupied with visions of the future and the search
for a utopian tomorrow. Lost in this world of immediate practical
concern and future-dreaming is Paul (Davies), an American
in Paris editing a big-budget sci-fi film about a beautiful
secret agent code named Dragonfly (Lindvall). Paul
also incessantly films his own life (with and stock stolen
from the sci-fi film) in the search for “truth” and “something
real.” But when Paul is suddenly promoted to director on Dragonfly,
because Andrezej (Depardieu) has become fascinated
with his leading lady and doesn’t know how to end the film,
his search for the aesthetics of truth is side-tracked as
fiction and reality become intertwined.
The narrative doesn’t develop much further. The thrust of
the film becomes Paul’s anxiety as a first-time director (autobiographical?)
and his growing fondness for his leading lady. His “personal”
film and live-in French girlfriend seem to fade out. But in
a unusual narrative technique that grows out of Paul’s tell-alls
to the camera, Paul discusses his problems with a pretentious
group of film critics whom he fantasizes are interviewing
him about his “personal” film. While at first the interview
is all praise, it quickly turns nightmarish as Paul becomes
more lost in the abyss of Dragonfly. The critics do
give him some good advice on how to find his way out of this
abyss though: Give your viewers something they can feel. If
balancing the mixed elements of commercialism, personal vision,
and social politics under the guiding light of “feeling” seems
a little too narrow, it is and it isn’t.
It is because this era of filmmaking is much indebted to
a style based on feeling, as the renaissance that swept Europe
after the influence of the hordes of Hollywood films they
missed during the war came full-circle back to America. However,
“feeling” wasn’t enough to save Hollywood from itself. Just
as soon as the revolution had come, it quickly faded out as
the commercial order established itself. This revolution in
American filmmaking still has influence today, especially
as the next generation (here quite literarily) finds itself
amidst the new order, looking for direction. And who knows
what the future holds; all I know is that it’s not quite here.
—Eric Vanstrom
|
While we would never encourage anyone to destroy a video... 
