Friday, May 16, 2008

by Ari

I think by now everyone is aware that Speed Racer has "crashed and burned" at the box-office and received mostly negative, crushing reviews from the critical establishment. Okay, it's not for everyone, I get that. Heavily stylized, experimental film usually divides audiences strongly, so I suppose the reaction was to be expected. But since there's so much vitriol out there, I recommend everyone - whether you love it, hate it or haven't seen it - to a very well-written, intelligent analysis that enthusiastically defends the film against the horde of negative opinion. It's a brilliant article, and I'd like to use the opportunity to further explain my own feelings about this movie.

I don't think my initial review makes it entirely clear how much I admire and enjoy what the Wachowski brothers have done here. Speed Racer is not your typical piece of escapist spectacle or summer entertainment, it's not merely a fun night at the movies or some crazy kids movie with trippy visuals. The creative energy and visual experimentation on display in Speed Racer is the work of ambitious filmmakers who dare to take extreme risks with their work. To quote Francis Coppola, "what is art without risk?". What is art without risk? It's the excess of mediocrity we face every year from filmmakers with no vision, integrity or ambition. There's a hypocrisy at work with these critics that frustrates me most about this film. These critics complain about the lack of originality in expensive Hollywood filmmaking, about the storm of pop entertainment with no heart, soul, spirit or ingenuity. And guess what happens when one of them comes along and does its own thing? They pounce on it with a herd mentality that obviously never gave the film a chance in the first place.

The buzz was negative because box-office tracking was poor, the trailers looked pretty crazy and indescribable, and because the reclusive Wachowski brothers are an easy target, especially after the disappointment of The Matrix sequels and the bullshit, offensive fascination people have with Larry Wachowski's personal life. It's depressing that these people have gone from complaining about the "big, clanking machine" of Hollywood (as Richard Schickel puts it), to becoming a part of the big, clanking machine. Can a critic or viewer reasonably criticize or dislike this movie? Of course they can. As I said, it's clearly not for everyone, and there's a sensibility here that will appeal to some viewers while pushing away others.

The Wachowski's have layered their story with a Capra-esque level of sentiment, while mixing-in '60s camp value that brings to mind Bava's Danger Diabolik (Racer X even looks like him a bit) and the early days of James Bond. There's childish humor aimed at kids, and yet an emotional sincerity for adults. It's a difficult balancing act, one that drags here and there in a film that could easily trim 15 - 30 minutes. But to completely dismiss a film that takes so many chances? Bullshit. Experimental film exists for the purpose of taking movies in new directions and reinventing the medium. Without it, cinema is dead. On a very basic level people should recognize or at least acknowledge the singularity in films like this or Youth Without Youth or Inland Empire or even The Fountain (which I still dislike even though I admire its ambition). It doesn't matter whether it's the most personal of arthouse films or the most radical of escapist entertainments, if singular filmmaking is reduced to the mediocre, then why even discuss film as art? Why care about film at all? I made that mistake once with Death Proof, and I quickly removed that review from the site to avoid further embarrassment. It's not that I like the film now - I don't. But to say it's not art and then dismiss the individual ambition and sensibility was ridiculous.

I bring up film as art because I firmly believe the Wachowski's have made one with this film. I think Speed Racer is way ahead of its time in every aspect of its technical brilliance. The vibrant CGI imagery pops for the digital age the way three-strip technicolor did for celluloid. The Wachowski's manipulate the concept of depth-of-field and focus in way that has NEVER been done before in fx-driven spectacle. And they do it wisely. It's either to fully convey the cartoon fantasy of the world they've created (the sense of spacing, for example), or to underline the emotion of the characters. They take old-fashioned techniques and give them a contemporary, digital spin. For example, the use of montage in Speed Racer is a thing of beauty. The way different images and sequences cross and cut throughout the story is breathtaking, especially at the Grand Prix as Speed races to the finish at what seems like the speed of light. The Wachowski's don't show the final lap beat for beat. They do something far more profound and emotionally invigorating, which, to me, is the finest piece of filmmaking I've seen from them. It is, as a friend put it, "pop art expressionism", a sequence that trades the typical set-piece for an exaggerated, glorious, visually explosive summation of the title character. It's the final audacious choice of a movie filled with them. This isn't something to bury with disdain, it's something to celebrate.