Noise (2007)

I enjoy a movie where the narrative is not spelt out in big gestures, and I can be satisfied with a movie that does not explain itself. I enjoyed this movie very much, but my 'reading' of it seems quite different to the general opinion. Spoiler alert: Did anyone else wonder why the Constable was standing in a railway station looking dazed and confused in the opening scenes. Is his sudden onset of tinnitus a defence mechanism against some act that he himself may have perpetrated? Why do we see him at home, spinning the barrels of his revolver and sniffing to check if his gun has been fired recently. What is his rumination about the true nature of heaven and hell telling us about his sense of guilt and regret? Why does the character we are led to believe is the killer seek him out and goad him? Are we in fact witnessing a face to face between two killers- one self evident and aware, one with a total black out of memory, presenting as a nagging and inescapable somatic expression. Have another look at it with this perspective and see if it rings true.

This was one of those films that, at least initially, inspired me to reach for the eject button in frustration.The main reason for this was the obtuse characters :the Sergeant/boss, the detective, the girlfriend etc. The near victim and witness to a multiple homicide is treated in a manner that was just ridiculous - her rights ignored, no support or sensitivity exhibited by the police this was one of those stupid films that just frustrates from start to finish... it got better.The photography is expressive: particularly when capturing the flickering, decaying, night-lit scenes of Melbourne.The sound is interesting but I wasn't really sure that the protagonist was even someone whose experiences we were supposed to privilege when the soundscape became filled with his tinnitus' ringing... This was a film that could have had many interesting characters but I felt it failed on some human level to empathize with its' subjects. A lone cop (he acts more like a security guard) minding a community outreach "office" in a low rent suburb might have invited all manner of intersecting lives and interesting stories.... Unfortunately this wasn't THAT kind of film, emotionally stark and ending with a rather heavy- handed closure that was unfortunate.I'd rather it had ended ambiguously (and risked further frustration) than force a redemption or closure upon us. Leave it at that - and make your own mind up.

This film reminds me of classic early Hitchcock films like "Blackmail", "Strangers on a Train" or "Secret Agent". These are films that don't feature a lot of action but instead focus on mood, message, dialogue and the audience's imagination.I'll omit the customary rant about today's Hollywood action flicks with car chases, explosions, cgi & contrived romances with busty supermodels because you don't need to hear it. Suffice it to say that this film is the opposite of that stuff. Here, in Hitchcockian form, we get a quiet, slow-moving freight train of a film. It sparks your imagination as you work to piece together not just the story but the meaning & symbolism behind everything.The title of the film refers to an ear condition suffered by the main character. He is plagued by a high pitched whining in his head which could be indicative of a terminal condition or possibly nothing. Similarly, the film focuses around fear and how it plays with our minds... possibly justified or possibly paranoia, but powerful regardless.The story revolves around a crime, witness protection and an underdog police officer's attempts to deal with it in addition to his own failing life. There is a pervasive feeling of loneliness and disconnection that runs throughout the film, which for some reason reminds me of the Clint Eastwood classic "In the Line of Fire" (about a failed secret service agent trying to wrap his head around an assassination plot.It's slow paced but powerful. I'd say if you're a fan of Wim Wenders ("Wings of Desire", "Paris Texas", "Million Dollar Hotel") or Takeshi Kitano ("A Scene at the Sea", "Fireworks") or Rebecca Miller ("Angela") you'll probably like this film. It doesn't have a lot of flashy pyrotechnics to hold the attention of the average Hollywood-action-flick-junkie, but if you're looking for a powerful, poetic experience, look no further.

Somewhere in the rulebook it is alleged to say that in a mystery film things have to make sense. In another rulebook, near the top, is the imperative that films should matter. Fortunately I know which library this filmmaker visits, but YOU will not until you get to the end.Storywise, there are a number of murders and murder attempts. In parallel, we get introduced to a policeman, incidentally assigned to the area that matters so far as the murders. We see him get involvedMeanwhile, overlain on the procedural-mystery, we have a rather adventuresome experiment in untrusted narration. Senses and sense is occluded. It is experimental because it isn't carried the normal way alone. We do have the flashback from the witness as a lie, a visual device. We have other small liars as well, in the story itself. But the notion is carried by sound; what we and key characters hear and do not. Along the way we get some expertly sculpted sound design.It is pretty trilling.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.