High on Visuals, Low on Inspiration

Rating: 5/10 (23 June 2007)

When it comes to blending multiple stories and time lines into one great story, Aronofsky would do well to study the work of Alejandro Inarritu. I'm thinking of two films in particular where several stories are interwoven around one concept (the dogs) in Amores Perros and one object (the rifle) in Babel.
Inarritu creates balance, coherence and integration between his various stories. What inspires me most about Inarritu's work is that I find myself caring about his characters even when they are brutal, self-serving and pathetic (i.e. Octavio, Susana and Valeria in Amores Perros and Santiago and Yussef in Babel). Why? Because he's able to show them as multidimensional, as worthy of redemption as of devastation.
Aronofsky seems to be trying too hard in this story, and as a result I find Izzi's character far too precious, and Tommy's character gratingly obsessive. I cannot empathize with these characters, nor do they inspire me to think about immortality, redemption, love, beauty, romance, salvation or similar themes that could have been generated by a more spiritually mature director.
As for the fantasy aspect of his story, Aronofsky would do well to study the techniques of Guillermo del Toro. In The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth, del Toro expertly weaves the fantastic into the everyday, scene by scene, until they merge perfectly into one common universe. Not only does he construct the integration of fantasy and reality with skillful plot lines, he also applies brilliant technical skills such as camera work, color filter palettes and editing wipes to draw the viewer into the "visual poetry" (and I do agree that is the term best used for these types of movies).
Not only do Innaritu and del Toro beautifully portray the human condition, but their soundtracks are minimal and the music becomes yet another character. I found the constant undercurrent of music in this movie to be unnecessary and annoying. Unfortunately, I think that is a common flaw in most of the movies made by modern American directors.
Yet another aspect of Aronofsky's film that did not appeal to me was the portrayal of the animals as throwaways in the medical experiments. When Inarritu exposes the carnage of the dog fights, it's a reflection of the violent and brutal nature of the men who train and employ these animals. Also, the carnage in Amores Perros is always implied off-camera but never directly shown, and we are assured in the featurette that these animals are treated wonderfully throughout the filming and are never injured or mistreated in any way. It did not appear to me that there was nearly as much care taken with the animals in this film.
I did find the visual art of the movie appealing, and I hope that Aronofsky will continue working on his craft and evolving it. If his work inspired others, then that's great. But if it didn't inspire me, it's not because I didn't "get it" or I'm a "hater", it's because I'm more attracted to the brilliance of those whose work and vision outshines Aronofsky's the way that a diamond outshines a facsimile.