El Cuerpo (2012)
A twisty, clever, Spanish production that is edgy and sharp in its filming and conception. There is a corpse, and then there isn't—so who is doing what to whom in a kind of purposely convoluted whodunnit (and who didn't)? It works on a surface level and will suck you in and drag you along. For me, time after time, I was wishing it wasn't just a twist of some plot-writer's handbook at work.
The best parts of the film are really good—a solid cast, murky scenes (many of them in a morgue), hints of what happened that lead you astray, and even the "unreliable narrator" trick, which means you trust the lead character until you gradually realize you shouldn't have.
The constant shifting in the plot will thrill a lot of viewers. It's endlessly putting you on edge. But this ended up also undermining how to watch the film. It seemed that you were pushed outside of it and had to wait for the next turn of perspective. When that happens, it makes sense, basically, but it undermines what happened before. If the film was told truly from one person's perspective, the way (for example) James Stewart drives the narrative in the twisty "Vertigo," you'd excuse all the misunderstandings. But in this one the narration is omniscient, and playing games.
The other key thing that brought it down was a choice by the director to tell us everything instead of have it happen and let the audience experience it. You'll pick this up in the beginning when the main older doctor is led through the crime scene, and one clue after another is announced by some person coming in the room or wandering by. So we get the information, but in a form that is doesn't involve you as viscerally.
You'll see. It's all effective and contrived at the same time.
A twisty, clever, Spanish production that is edgy and sharp in its filming and conception. There is a corpse, and then there isn't—so who is doing what to whom in a kind of purposely convoluted whodunnit (and who didn't)? It works on a surface level and will suck you in and drag you along. For me, time after time, I was wishing it wasn't just a twist of some plot-writer's handbook at work.
The best parts of the film are really good—a solid cast, murky scenes (many of them in a morgue), hints of what happened that lead you astray, and even the "unreliable narrator" trick, which means you trust the lead character until you gradually realize you shouldn't have.
The constant shifting in the plot will thrill a lot of viewers. It's endlessly putting you on edge. But this ended up also undermining how to watch the film. It seemed that you were pushed outside of it and had to wait for the next turn of perspective. When that happens, it makes sense, basically, but it undermines what happened before. If the film was told truly from one person's perspective, the way (for example) James Stewart drives the narrative in the twisty "Vertigo," you'd excuse all the misunderstandings. But in this one the narration is omniscient, and playing games.
The other key thing that brought it down was a choice by the director to tell us everything instead of have it happen and let the audience experience it. You'll pick this up in the beginning when the main older doctor is led through the crime scene, and one clue after another is announced by some person coming in the room or wandering by. So we get the information, but in a form that is doesn't involve you as viscerally.
You'll see. It's all effective and contrived at the same time.