By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 3.8 cats
Director: Ari Folman
Starring: Danny Huston | Harvey Keitel | Kodi Smit-McPhee | Michael Stahl-David | Robin Wright | Sami Gayle
Country: france, spain, united_states
Year: 2014
Running time: 120
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641/combined
TC says: “Loosely adapted from the Stanislaw Lem novel (who would probably say ‘VERY loosely’), this film is almost impossible to review, because as a film writer and fan, the thought of the stuff going on in this film is terribly depressing and its portrayal of a slightly further future is utterly terrifying.
“The first half of the film shows aging actress Robin Wright (playing a fictionalized version of herself) trying to deal with the fact that her extremely picky nature when it comes to her career has nearly ruined it, and now she faces a choice; never act again and be forgotten, or be digitized, let the studio use the digital file, and become forever young…and oh yeah, still never act again. She is appalled by the idea, but gives in because her son Aaron’s battle with a rare disorder will eventually leave him deaf and blind, and she wants to ensure that he always has the best care, and with what MiraMount Studios is going to pay her, she can do just that. But unlike most performers, she won’t do a lifetime deal; her agent Al and her new young lawyer Steve work
out a deal where it will come up for renewal in 20 years time.
“20 years later, she is summoned to appear at a gathering called the Futurist Congress, happening at the Miramount Abrahama animated resort, where nearly everyone now is, having used chemicals (never referred to as ‘drugs’ throughout the film) to join the animated society. Once there, she embarks on a new adventure that will leave her running from her past decisions and terrified of facing the future ones, and in the process, spending a lot more time in the animated world than she plans.
“The bleak nature of this film – a world where actors have been supplanted by photo realistic animated bytes, and later, where
‘chemicals’ control the entertainment experience – might turn a lot of people off. It’s very dark and some might say depressing, but it IS a journey worth taking, if only to force people to experience this dystopian future so that it never happens in real life.
“The live action half of the film is excellent, with Kodi Smit-McPhee really shining in his role as Aaron, the actress’ stricken son. The animated half of the film is ever changing to suit the whims of the animators, and a mix of animated styles are visible throughout the film, and most of them are visually stunning, with the opening sequence where flesh and blood Robin transforms into animated Robin a particularly dazzling sequence with ever-shifting colors, sea creatures of all manners crossing her cart-turned-boat’s path, and the up and down motion of monster waves unbelievably brilliant in scope and shape.
”The film’s biggest flaw is that it doesn’t seem to know quite what to do or where to go with several of the animated sequences. Just when you think they’re finally reaching a point of some sort, things do a complete 180-degree shift and the film heads off in a different direction, sometimes in doing such making absolutely no sense. It’s also a tad long – they could have easily compressed much of the animated stuff down by about 15-20 minutes and had a much more cohesive, more enjoyable film, if a film that is this bleak and depressing can be called ‘enjoyable’.
“Overall though, I thought the film was inventive, creative, the live action part well shot, visually interesting, and very well acted, and the animation portion lush and vibrant, and I will be interested in seeing it again when Drafthouse Films releases it to theaters. It’s also slated for VOD at the same time, but I would definitely try to see it in the theater, because the animation deserves it. 4.5 cats (but be aware – this is going to be a very individual experience, so YMMV…)
”Screened @ The Brattle Theatre as part of the 16th annual Boston Underground Film Festival.”
Jason says: “THE CONGRESS divides fairly naturally into three or four parts, and the Futurological Congress which gives the film is name (and was presumably much more central to Stanislas Lem’s original novel) is probably the least interesting despite having the most going on. One almost wonders why filmmaker Ari Folman didn’t just make a movie with everything else and cite Lem as an inspiration, because that still leaves a heck of a smart, unusual science fiction film.
“Actress Robin Wright was certainly not the protagonist of Lem’s book, after all, though she fills that role here, not getting many parts twenty-five years after THE PRINCESS BRIDE but still kind of horrified when her agent (Harvey Keitel) delivers Hollywood’s latest (and last) offer: They want to digitize her, making everything from her physical features to acting style their intellectual property, leaving any future performance she ever gives copyright infringement. Well, at least for twenty years, when she returns to Miramount Studios to negotiate a new deal and speak at the Futurological Congress.
“Things go down at the Congress that are meant to be confusing – where the first and last parts of the movie are about Robin negotiating a strange new world, the middle has her spending much of her time as a witness to events that make the world even stranger. I’m not sure how chaotic Folman actually wanted it to be, because in a way it doesn’t fit (it’s the only time that Robin is far enough ahead of the audience that she doesn’t need to discover things with us). Or perhaps this is the point, as Folman is covering humanity’s anxieties toward the rapidly digitizing world: That computers might replace the job of even creative people and that electronic interaction will replace direct ‘real’ human contact are easy to list and depict, but the Singularity where the rate of discovery and societal evolution excesses the human ability to process it is difficult to present by definition.
“Things get crazy visually there, too; the Miramount hotel in Las Vegas is a ‘restricted cartoon zone’, where mandatory pharmaceuticals enable everybody to see each other’s animated avatars and environments, and it’s a trip. Although it might make more sense to have detailed 3D CGI characters and creatures, Folman takes ‘cartoon’ to heart and goes with a style mostly influenced by Fleischer, Betty Boop, and Bosko cartoons of the 1930s, albeit with modern coloring. It’s a ton of fun, with scenes filled with a fanciful riot of characters with there always being something nifty to pick out of the background. It’s not just a visual gimmick for its own sake, though; it lets Folman contrast Robin’s avatar that doesn’t hide her age with the Hollywood
grotesqueries that surround her. It also gives the characters to do some crazy emoting, and even if some of the motivations for what’s going on in the middle aren’t clear, the action itself is often stunning.
“The live-action segments are not bad either – Folman chooses and creates memorable places there too, and makes sure that even when the real world is strange in its own way, it has an extra immediacy to it. He also gets some great work from the real-life Robin Wright – it may seem as though this would be the easiest possible part for her to play, especially since Folman doesn’t ask her to play some weird funhouse-mirror version of herself, but Robin is in unusual enough situations that Ms. Wright is discovering interesting takes on them. It is, admittedly, a bit odd to see her playing Robin Wright while Harvey Keitel and Paul Giamatti are playing folks who are not Harvey Keitel and Paul Giamatti (although they’re both pretty good). The voice acting isn’t bad, although Jon Hamm, who has the biggest voice-only role as the animator who has been working on ‘Robin Wright’ for years, doesn’t seem particularly suited to this sort of work, as his voice isn’t particularly distinctive or emotive.
“Wright’s performance helps ground the movie, which isn’t necessarily always a good thing; it sometimes keeps the film from achieving the broad but pointed satire that Lem’s novels are known for, while spending so much time on Wright worrying about her son pulls the focus away from the bigger sci-fi ideas. It’s no bad thing to make your science fiction story something that people can identify with, but you don’t need digital thespians, cryonic suspension, and crazy animated illusions to tell that story.
“Fortunately, THE CONGRESS does have the crazy visuals and nifty ideas to go with its story. I might like to have seen Folman go all-in on the science fiction and satire, but he and his colleagues do a whole lot well here, certainly making the sort of movie you don’t see every day and making it pretty well. 4 cats
“Seen 30 March 2014 in the Brattle Theatre (BUFF 16, digital)”
Michael says: “I loved this bizarre and innovative film that Ari Folman adapted from a science fiction film by Stanislaw Lem. The original story focuses on a future world where people live in a hallucinogenic life where they can be anything they want to be while those who don’t survive in a dystopian world where poverty is rampant. Folman adds an intriguing layer where Robin Wright plays herself, an actress who is convinced to enter a contract with Hollywood megastudio, Miramount where she gives up acting, but is scanned, so that the studio can continue to produce movies that her computer generated character stars in. The film follows Robin’s journey trying to balance her creative freedom with the huge health needs of her son who suffers from a debilitating disorder. When the film jumps 20 years into the future and Robin must enter an animated zone where the film suddenly takes on a retro-animated style to continue Robin’s story, it is almost as shocking as when it reverts bak to live action toward the film’s finale. Wright’s performance is bold and nomination-worthy, as is the screenplay and direction. 4.5 cats”
Diane says: “Which is worse–or better? Illusion or reality? Actress Robin Wright, whose reality has been bought out by Miramount execs, can’t decide. I didn’t like the script–I would have been satisfied with just five minutes of each of the three acts–but I did appreciate the Terrry Gilliam-style zaniness. 2 cats”
Toni says: “Diane, I am sad that this film didn’t work for you since I agreed on your past receent reviews but alas I disagree here :(.
“I found a deep message here and loved the use of production design, animation, and bizarre yet eerily connected to current take on western medicine and use of technology in film out of control as themes to be very powerful. 5 plus cats for
me on this one.”
Julie says: “I have to agree with Diane on not liking this so much but the parts I didn’t like were the animation of Robin Wright’s character in particular and Dylan I think it was ? He seemed too goofy or something and the animation of Robin seemed too formal for her. Also parts did seem too long.
“I did like the driving scene though with Robin near the start. maybe 3 cats?”