19th century mathematician and professor Edwin Abbot's magnum opus is a very ancient work of mathematical fiction known as 'Flatland.' It describes a beautiful world where there are only two known dimensions: length, and width. Now, the story is told from the perspective of the main protagonist, A. Square, and his journey into the mysterious worlds of the previously unknown 1st, present second, and mythical yet beautiful 3rd dimensions. As well, with it's very impacting animation and symbolization, this movie adaption of the 1800s classic piece of modern mathematical theory also provides the subtlety of a minor religious allegory, giving it a fresh perspective and a whole new identity of meaning.
'Flatland' is a two-dimensional world. Thus, the majority of the movie is shot in two dimensions, which is very different from almost anything else that the cinematic world is used to. Even in the realm of the modern movie, there are very few movies that take other approach from 3 dimensions. Even cartoon movies in the modern cinematic scene are shot within the realms of the 3rd dimension. As a result, this new approach to giving the audience a piece of visual candy is a breath of fresh air, and makes the movie unique in trying something new to define a standard.
As well, the complexity of the story-line is beautiful, if not sound. What's so deliciously satisfying about 'Flatland' is how smart the movie really is. Even to an audience, such as myself, who is not necessarily into the mathematical world, the concept of metaphorical and physical dimensional representation is not only spectacular, but also sophisticated and the movie most of the time does a very elegant job in defining the mathematical complexities of visiting different dimensions, and makes the story much more engaging to a more sophisticated audience.
The other very well-done part of this film is the editing and filmography of Flatland itself. In this two-dimensional world, the polygonal citizens are intricately detailed, and the surrounding environment, while bland at times, can be very enriching and offer a deeper perspective into a world that isn't necessarily deep. As a result, the movie can be very aesthetically pleasing to watch, and while the movie is obviously unknown and most likely underfunded, it nevertheless provides a solid sight for sore eyes, with respect to the presentation of the world of Flatland.
However, there are parts of this movie that, at times, make it almost unbearable to watch.
The 3D animation of Spaceland is absolutely horrible. Granted, the producers and editors are trying to establish the constant theme of polygonal symmetry, and as a result are trying to make Spaceland as simple as they can possibly be. However, the result literally looks like real garbage. Take, for example, the image on the right. This is literally one of the most important characters not only in the book, but also in the movie. The Sphere is the only true connection to the outside world, and symbolizes divine perfection. However, because of the terrible editing and animation, this 'divine perfection' ends up being about as divine as Satan himself. It's almost pathetic how little it seems the animators cared about how fluid the 3-dimensional world should look.Secondly, some of the voice acting is horrible. Granted, I'll cut this movie some slack because of how little of a budget it had, and some of the voice acting is actually quite good. However, with respect to some of the bratty, chatty, crappy screeches made by some of the female characters, as well as some of the completely overdone English and American fake-outs in Spaceland, the result becomes more badgering to listen to than it does to enjoy, and because of the complex nature of Flatland's story, it becomes very difficult to bear.
Thus, a movie difficult not only to watch but also to listen to is not a good combination at all.
However, the most beautiful thing about 'Flatland' as a movie is it's ability to turn the book 180 degrees on its head. The metaphorical representation in the movie is something that very few movies, if any movies at all, are able to accomplish because they really cannot merge their complex meanings with purposeful, meaningful exigence. 'Flatland,' however, does this beautifully, taking the relativism of chromatic rebellion and mathematical differences and slowly weaving them into a religious allegory parodying the heinous actions taken by monarch across the history of Europe. This parallel in-turn allows Abbot's complex ideals of multidimensional theory to come front and center, and are easily understood by the common viewer in the way that 'Flatland' as a novel is not necessarily understood. And it's this intelligence that this little movie contains that makes it so memorable, despite its numerous shortcomings.
Overall, 'Flatland' is a very, very smart movie. In terms of its editing, its cinematography, its voice-acting, it remains a little sub-par. Trying to balance solid acting with horribly-intertwined dialogue, as well as the frightening 3-dimensional models that turn Spaceland into a child's horrible nightmare, the movie is very smart. It's very refreshing to see a movie that really understands the complex nature of its source material, and it does stay very true to the book, touching upon some of 'Flatland's' most important scenes (the First Arrival of the Sphere, the Lineland Dream, the Hubris of the and Pointlander, the Excursion of B. Square), while maintaining the story and ethos that creates the logical flow of the movie's somewhat-laughable editing.
So, while this isn't the best 'movie,' I was impressed, because this was a movie that really just wanted to make you think. And that's exactly what it did.
I give 'Flatland' a 7/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment