Innocence Details

Puzzling...

This is one of those films that most people will hate & don't see the point of, a few will love it, but everyone will be befuddled at some point (if not downright baffled all the way through). The description of the DVD doesn't give much away, but then again, it's hard to describe a movie like this!

The story revolves around an eerily calm, sinister girls' school - where new pupils arrive in coffins & the girls wear different colours of ribbons in their hair to denote their ages (from 7 to 12). Lots of shots that could be construed as verging on paedophilic, if it were not for the director's neutral, almost sterile take on the material.

The big questions, though, are - what are the girls doing in the school? Why is it guarded from the outside world (by dint of a high brick wall running around the grounds)? What secrets do the adults (2 schoolteachers, & one cook/cleaner of sorts) have?

Worth a watch overall, if only because it will keep you thinking afterwards. Very difficult material, but a fine directorial debut.

[Highly rated reviewer]

IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT

From; SILVER HARP ... Edinburgh

INNOCENT (Lucile Hadzihalilovic 2004 Fr.)

I don’t normally subscribe to the tradition of shouting; helpful as it is when addressing Johnny Foreigner or to reinforce the notion of deafness as the only possible explanation for people disagreeing with me. However I’ll give it a go.

THIS FILM HAS NO SEXUAL CONTENT AND IN NO WAY PROMOTES SEX IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Got that? Well on the off-beat chance that you’re not prepared to rely on my infallibility may I strongly recommend that you put this film on your rental list and examine the evidence for yourself.

If on the other hand seeing a naked, or in this case near-naked, child immediately connects you to thoughts of a sexual nature (obviously not yours, no way, not possible!) then you’ll find ample ‘evidence’ to support a view opposite to the one I shouted earlier.

However you’re still stuck with a disturbing question; Is it truly the film’s fault that you associate naked, or near-naked, bodies with sex? And if you shift your defence to “context” then you’re out of luck there as well. Not one male appears in this film. The only male ‘present’ is you.

Psychological projections and bizarrely clad-on interpretations aside, this is a very well made film. The cinematography is excellent, exposing, as intended, the connections between nature, childhood and progression. As the director points out in the Extras section, women will connect far more easily than men but the latter will hopefully be enlightened by the experience.

The core issue, as already mentioned, is easy to grasp: it’s the interpretation of props and devices that can be a little more challenging, if not available to a variety of interpretations within the overall context. And some props (eg. coffin) have such well bedded-in associations in real-life that their normal connect-ability can be hard to let go of. An open minded approach (is a wall for enclosing or keeping out?) and a good dream interpretation reference would prove useful.

Addendum

I have an idea for a brilliant comedy/tragedy. It concerns a bunch of people whose only source of information and interpretation are profit-chasing sensationalist newspapers and crazy bible-bashers. You’ll fall about laughing/crying as they insist everyone at the local swimming baths wear boiler-suits, all art galleries are shut-down, ballet is banned, semi-clad Jesus on the cross or in his crib is banned, school uniforms are out, babies born without clothes are condemned. Finally children are banned and God is branded a pervert for creating them in the first place. It’s out next year. The Taliban are already showing a strong interest with an insistence on “no kites”, there’s usually a kid on the end.