Bardo in Tibetan Buddhism, is a state of existence between death and rebirth, varying in length according to a person's conduct in life and manner of, or age at, death. One could clearly interpret this middle state as what Gonzalez feels after many years living in Hollywood. He's neither American, nor Mexican anymore. He's in the limbo of countries, his memories playing trick on him.
And that's what he reflects in his character of Silverio (not by chance referred to as 'El Prieto' (the dark one), when Iñarritu himself was well known in Mexico as El Negro, from his early radio days in the 80's.
Iñarritu, embodied in Silverio, reflects on the journey of a lifetime, from the get go you know this might be one of those films where everything might be dream, or is it?
Trapped in a state between life and dead (wonder what that might be in the real world, a coma, maybe?) the lead character relives (remembers) a distorted life.
This distortion is evident throughout the film by the ever-present distorted cinematography, looks like a lot of the movie was shot with a fish-eye or similar lens. Most of the camera angles are tilted up, a very unusual angle.
Is all that happens in the movie true, or just the recollections of a dying man? Bardo excels at cinematographic language, symbolism and interpretation, but...
Where this movie fails is in the plot. Mexican filmmakers do very well in the US but when they come back they suffer from the Mexican cinema trope. Simplistic stories, one dimensional characters, flat acting, recurring themes (migrants, missing persons, bad government, violence, etc.) If you are making a dream-like movie, why not keep it in that realm.
Somebody here said that this is the movie of the year, sorry but no, if you like this genre, "Everything Everywhere all at Once" is the much better surrealistic film.
I think that if Iñarritu had made this movie in the US, or had distanced himself form the cliché topics of Mexican Movies a much better piece of art would've been created.
Cinematography wise, this is indeed auteur filmmaking at it's best. Impeccable photography, set and art design, symbolic and deep, but with a weak story.
And that's what he reflects in his character of Silverio (not by chance referred to as 'El Prieto' (the dark one), when Iñarritu himself was well known in Mexico as El Negro, from his early radio days in the 80's.
Iñarritu, embodied in Silverio, reflects on the journey of a lifetime, from the get go you know this might be one of those films where everything might be dream, or is it?
Trapped in a state between life and dead (wonder what that might be in the real world, a coma, maybe?) the lead character relives (remembers) a distorted life.
This distortion is evident throughout the film by the ever-present distorted cinematography, looks like a lot of the movie was shot with a fish-eye or similar lens. Most of the camera angles are tilted up, a very unusual angle.
Is all that happens in the movie true, or just the recollections of a dying man? Bardo excels at cinematographic language, symbolism and interpretation, but...
Where this movie fails is in the plot. Mexican filmmakers do very well in the US but when they come back they suffer from the Mexican cinema trope. Simplistic stories, one dimensional characters, flat acting, recurring themes (migrants, missing persons, bad government, violence, etc.) If you are making a dream-like movie, why not keep it in that realm.
Somebody here said that this is the movie of the year, sorry but no, if you like this genre, "Everything Everywhere all at Once" is the much better surrealistic film.
I think that if Iñarritu had made this movie in the US, or had distanced himself form the cliché topics of Mexican Movies a much better piece of art would've been created.
Cinematography wise, this is indeed auteur filmmaking at it's best. Impeccable photography, set and art design, symbolic and deep, but with a weak story.