3.5 stars of out 5
If one were so inclined, I imagine that firing up the big screen at home, turning off the lights, and enjoying some delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-enhanced product might be the ideal way to watch Leviathan. I saw it in a theater. And I didn’t really have any background information, or THC. The three people who walked out midway probably were also lacking background info.
And this wasn’t some random multiplex. It was the freakin’ IFC Center. You know IFC, they have that channel that used to only show awesome indie movies, but now only seems to air the Lethal Weapon series. At New York’s IFC Center, though, they are still committed to independent cinema. Oh boy are they.
For Leviathan, I knew I was seeing a documentary about commercial fishing. So, OK, The Perfect Storm without actors, maybe without a storm, or maybe like one of those reality shows I don’t watch but that I saw a spoof of on South Park.
The trailers ended, and the screen went blank. And… stayed blank. Now, if I was at ANY other movie theater in the continental United States, somebody would’ve yelled out, “Projector!” And then somebody would’ve grumbled and headed to the exit to complain. But not at the IFC Center. We just sat there in silence, in the dark, like idiots. Maybe this was the artsy beginning to the movie. Actually, people who had background information probably did think that was the case.
It wasn’t. After a few minutes, the system reset itself and the movie began.
Remember the first episode of Mad Men this season? When after a few minutes you realized Don Draper hadn’t said anything? And you wondered how long it was going to go on? Well, at Leviathan, I was waiting for some narration to kick in. And it never did.
Instead, what you get is some super cool visuals and ambient sound. (The movie doesn’t begin on a particularly interesting image, and it stays there for a long, long time, so after the fact I have to question that decision.) No music, no real talking. Well, a little talking, but it sounds like adults from Charlie Brown. We’re on a boat, it’s night, we’re in the water. There are chains and nets and machines making noises. A lot of wet wood. Fish dumped on the deck. Squirming, squirming fish. Men who look like ex-cons doing mind-numbingly repetitive tasks. Men smoking. Briefly daytime. Night again. Fish heads, roly-poly fish heads. Birds. Crabs. Waves, splashing water, spraying water. Bloody water streaming out of the boat and back into the ocean. A man slicing the wings off a million stingrays, left side, right side. More birds. More fish. More water. More noise.
The cameras are really, really close-up. It’s cool. Where is the cameraman?
Also, where are we? Are we on one boat? Are we on several boats? Over what span of time is this occurring? Where did the boat come from? I like to learn things and it was frustrating that I wasn’t learning handy facts that I could work into conservation over the weekend. But still, it was cool to be immersed in the world. A real you-are-there experience. The movie is only about 90 minutes long but it feels much, much longer. I’m not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing or both.
In the most “relatable” segment, one of these exhausted-looking ex-con types sits in a dingy little room. We watch him falling asleep as he watches an unseen TV. The set provides the only dialogue we can process. He’s watching Deadliest Catch or some similar show. You are thinking about these types of shows as you’re watching the movie, and maybe the real thing is a lot more drudgery. It is funny and sad that he is watching the show while living the life, and also, falling asleep. So it’s a very representative moment but at the same time maybe the filmmakers should’ve left it out. Like, maybe it’s too obvious, maybe they’re hitting us over the head with it. I don’t know.
Afterwards my friend told me it is cutting-edge documentary filmmaking, maybe there are these little cameras stuck all over the place, and no camera crew. (She had background information.) I thought, maybe during the end credits, they’ll show some “behind the scenes” stuff. I’d really like to see that, and yet I’m feeling I’ll be too lazy to Google it. We’ll see. But the credits came—just to be pricks they use this difficult to read, heavy-metal font. The guy behind us was incredibly glad it was over. And then for the little Ferris Bueller moment at the end, they just run some more not-very-interesting footage. So, not really a documentary. An art film, an experimental film. Really cool a whole lot of the time, pretty boring for big chunks of time. A few laughs, a couple of gross things. I’m happy I saw it but not sure I can really recommend it. Does that make any sense?
I’ve noticed that with these somewhat lengthy things you write, I read only a few random words, sentences here and there. Then come back the next day, and do the same thing, not even reading, but more looking at words and such. It ends up giving me a headache, and I think an appropriate punishment for visiting your site.
Jeez Gary you really know how to pour a crystallized mineral into an open injury. I think you might like this movie, actually.
That crystallized bit is too nice. Well put. I was going to respond at one point how I might like this movie. The fragmented camera stuff sounds like indeed it’d float my boat. Then I got to thinking, my wife probably would not like it as much. When we see movies where she enjoys it more than I do, the overall vibe of our time together and separate is much nicer. It also plays into my aesthetic that I dig appreciating stuff I don’t necessarily like.