
I thought the movie had great visual content, but the sound design seemed overlooked and the music did terrible harm to the film. A good friend of mine said it reminded him of Our Daily Bread, and when he made this question to Daniel Rosas, he said he had watched it after he had finished the movie and had also found the similarities. I haven't watched Our Daily Bread, so I can't comment on that comparison. What I can say is that I didn't understand why the synopsis says the movie is about illegal Mexican people who work on the field, when I though it was more about a different approach to the field. Just like the title says it, I think the documentary gives us the opportunity to appreciate the field in a way we never could have expected to appreciate it.
This documentary is by nature contemplative and descriptive, more than narrative. I think that the part that I didn't like about it was just that, the director not being brave enough to just let it be that way. I think he should have edited all those images and "conversations" that give into narrative statements, because they feel forced and out of place. If he had done that, maybe it would've reminded us more of Koyaanisqatsi, but I think it would have had a lot more strength.
I am that friend you are talking aboout lol… but I disagree I think it get closer to Dziga Vertov’s concept of “Cine-Eye” because in this case the camera does not interfere with reality and the movie is not trying to create a narrative… Just life as it is… about people who work on the field i think it just creates an anthropological portrait… Coffee next week to discuss it..
ResponderEliminar