Cinematic Water

Rating: Null/10 (16 August 2002)

Spoilers herein.
I was blown away by this little gem, because of how purely cinematic it is.
All the good parts are framed by a weak story that started out at least competently formulaic but has been so sliced and diced by the producers that none of it makes sense. No matter. Really, no matter because the water scenes make the time more than worth the effort. But it must be noted that while the story (and acting and dialog) is all disposable, it respects the sexuality of the girls. They are in bathing suits, and look nice but not even once is there a prurient shot. Not once is there an attempt to slip into a coy, seductive wiggle. And that's remarkable indeed.
But it is not the thing that makes this trip worthwhile.

Not all of life does well in translating to cinema. Some things are inherently more cinematic than others, and the stuff that is (and is easy to do) comes pouring over the hapless moviewatcher: explosions, car chases, macho strutting and the related violence. And of course a specific type of sexual, cool open (usually submissive) femininity. In fact, because that sexual presence is so cinematically effective, it has defined societal types and expectations. That's another story, one we will avoid here except to already have noted that this film made a deliberate effort to steer away from sex in order to only have one cinematic center.
And that's the architectural water. Structured, moving water is the most cinematic thing in existence. It is also an incredible challenge to film, but the few times it has been explored, the results have sometimes been striking. Even in the otherwise horrible `Hard Rain,' even in the deeply flawed `In Dreams,' even in the melodramatic `Titanic,' the movement of camera with water comes close to a visually spiritual experience.
I live in a surfing town, and in 1967 saw `Endless Summer.' But in that and all subsequent surf movies, what you get are moving portraits, not cinema. Here, we move to a whole nother level. The camera is above us, it is under us, it is _us_, it chases us, it anticipates us. I have made a minor study of how different projects move the camera within dancing (and in Ang Lee's case, within fights). The same techniques are used here as we participate in the dance between this athletic girl and these immense hydraulic beings.
I do not know for sure who did what, but I confidently surmise that this achievement is the result of a true story of girl power in Hollywood. The editor in this case is Emma Hickox. Aside from what we see on the screen, we know she is a remarkable cinematic mind if only because of her parents. Her mother is the still working (at 85!) editor who changed the world of visual imagination with `Laurence of Arabia.' Her father is the fellow that made one of the most intelligent films about films ever (`Theater of Blood'), but sadly unrecognized as such.
Watch what Ms Hickox does with the compositions of the eye as we envelop the enveloping water. Watch how cleverly she establishes our place with our ear at the beginning of these sequences and keeps us aurally, mentally stabilized while the eye dances. Amazing, simply amazing.
My only criticism is probably something beyond her control. We only needed to see the flashback sequence of the younger Anne getting her head bumped once. It must appear eight or ten times, every moment we have to be bludgeoned into recalling that she is frightened.
See this film. It advances your visual imagination far beyond what `Perfect Storm' ever could.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.