Customer Reviews

Timecode aka. Time Code

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Timecode is a behind-the-scenes look at Hollywood life - the business, the politics, the jealously, and even the drugs, sex, and rock 'n' roll. Salma Hayek plays Rose, an aspiring actress who will do anything to get an audition - even if it means cheating on her jealous lover (Jeanne Tripplehorn) with a male film exec (Stellan Skarsgard).

But I said that Timecode is unique, right? Well, it is. It had no script - just a story, four digital videocams, and a bunch of actors who could improvise their way through 90 minutes of filming. The four cameras shot non-stop - no cuts, just one take. The entire film was shot 15 times - and the final one was released. No editing was required because viewers see the footage from all four cameras - simultaneously. The screen is divided into four quarters, and it's up to the viewer to decide which one to watch. Believe me - it's not exactly an easy task. Though you're often given audio hints (the sound of one quarter will dominate for a while), you'll still keep jumping from quarter to quarter, trying to figure out what's going on - and what you've missed. It's definitely not a movie to watch if you're not completely alert. It is, however, very interesting. And while I wouldn't say that this is one of my favorite movies, it's still an interesting experience. If you're looking for something out of the ordinary, it's worth checking out.

If you happen to pick up a copy of the DVD, you'll find all kinds of goodies. The special features include the entire Version 1 of the film (and yes, it really is different) and an audio option that allows you to choose which dialogue you want to listen to. Perhaps, then, if you watch the entire movie four times, you'll be able to make sense of it all...

Whatever. I mean, I appreciate the experimental nature of the film -- the screen split into four separate-but-interlocking screens, each shot in a continuously-running tracking shot, filmed on digital video. The "action" shifts from scene to improvised scene, and gradually we figure out how each of the characters know each other. Still... did the story really have to be set in (yawn) Hollywood? Can't modern filmmakers think of something else to make movies about? Couldn't the actors improv their way through somebody else's life, for once? Regardless, this is one of the better uses of DVD technology I've seen -- they kept the audio tracks intact on each camera's footage, so after you soak up the edited version of the film, you can go back and see (hear, actually...) what they had to work with... Rarely do we get such a clear-cut chance to get into the headspace of the director and editor, so that at least was kind of cool.

Timecode is quite simply a well-executed but failed experiment.
The concept is brilliant, but it is not supported at all by a good plot. What we have is basically mindless hipster dross; jet-set stereotypes stabbing each other in the back with their cell phones, and not much else. And yet, I was entertained by the film on a technical level. Certainly worth a look, but I would love to see this idea done again, even by Figgis, with a more engrossing story.

When I rented this, I was under the impression it was a good movie. Well, I was wrong. True, the four-screen idea is innovative and couldn't have been easy to do, so I'll give Mike Figgis credit for that. In addition, the movie was shot in continuous takes, so the actors involved have proved that they have the chops to pull off something like this. And in case you're wondering if you can follow four stories at once, the volume is usually muted for three of the screens, so it's obvious which one you're really supposed to focus on at any given time. On the minus side, any time actors are given the chance to improvise their dialogue, the viewer learns anew that we really do need screenwriters, and this movie is no exception. Most importantly, this movie doesn't have ANY interestng stories or characters. Movies need those things! So, if you're interested in the techniques Figgis used, by all means check this out. But don't expect to be entertained.

"Time Code" was directed by Mike Figgis, best known for "Leaving Las Vegas." I'm not a fan of his work, but was intrigued by the concept of this movie - it was filmed in one 90-minute take and is told via four cameras shown in different quadrants of the screen. The movie was filmed 15 different times over a period of a few weeks, with the 15th take being the theatrical release. The story (such as it is) concerns 20+ people in Los Angeles who are connected in one way or another to a small indie film studio. The soundtrack is emphasized in certain quadrants at any given time to show you where to direct your attention. I was concerned that the movie would be difficult to follow, especially on a TV, but it was actually fairly easy to watch it and understand what was transpiring.

The technique is innovative and daring, and one cannot help but admire its audacity. It was also interesting seeing how the different stories overlapped. However, there are simply too many weak points for the movie to ultimately succeed. First, the acting and script was largely improvised, and it shows. Selma Hayek has one of the largest roles, and she is simply not up to the challenge. Holly Hunter also comes off poorly with her tentative stuttering character. Second, the plot (which was loosely structured by Figgis) is not very interesting. If this same script was shot in a conventional manner, it would not be worth the price of admission. Third, the concept of the four quadrants is interesting, but most of the time little is happening in any given quadrant. For example, the upper left quadrant, features mostly Jeanne Tripplehorn and she spends a huge portion of the movie sitting in the backseat of a limo or pacing the sidewalk in front of the studio. It just isn't very entertaining.

The DVD includes several interesting features. For example, the full first take of the movie is included. Also, you can remix the soundtrack to hear what is going on in the other quadrants. Overall, I have mixed feelings about "Timecode." I'm glad I saw it and hope that other directors will be inspired by its unusual and daring techniques. However, it was ultimately boring and pretentious.

The best expression that I can utter about this film is Wow!

Four seemingly disparate storylines, filmed in real time merge into one compelling movie. This was a bold experiment in cinema, showing 4 films at once, drawing your attention to the frame the director wants you to focus on by audio alone. What results out of initial chaos and confusion is a stunning statement on the convergent reality of our lives.

The final release version of this film was the 15th 'mix' - the first of which is available for viewing on the DVD as a contrast.

This is an excellent example of thoughtful cinema - heart and mind put into film, as opposed to mindless Hollywood action.

So you know by now that this is a film, shot on digital video, presented with the screen divided into quadrants with the action and focus shifting and flowing from one section to the other. This seems like it would be a hard way to watch a film but I found that there was a definite rhythym to the action and that you could actually ignore parts of the screen and still follow the basic action of that scene and how it contributed to the whole.
That being said, I think the most interesting thing about this movie is that it was, I believe, shot in one day with four cameras and the actors improvising on top of a basic plotline and dialogue framework. I read a previous review that noted that the story and performances were weak and I don't really take issue with this assessment. I only would note that given the time and logistical constraints the production was under, or imposed on itself, it's amazing that the film was a success at all, which I think it was to some degree. Consider then the enormous effort that goes into your average Hollywood schlock-fest...the money that is spent, the endless self-indulgent takes, the trailers, the lighting set-ups etc. And then contrast that with what Figgis offers with a group of talented actors - a cheaply shot, quickly made film that holds it's own with a movie like Pearl Harbor - a film that took a thousand times the effort to make. Granted the two films are going for different things in the short run, but isn't the goal in the end to keep an audience entertained? Oh, if only the Figgis formula was the blueprint for the future.

In terms of the "Art" of cinema, Timecode is probably one of the most important films to be presented in over a decade. Unfortunately, it is also a terrible movie. The intertwined stories are "vapor thin" and the characters are practically non-existent.

There is a certain amount of pleasant confusion created when a phone rings on the soundtrack and people in two different quadrants pick up a receiver to begin seperate, unrelated conversations, or when you realize that the actor who moments before left quadrant two has just entered quadrant four, or when quadrant's one and three are filming the same action, but from different perspectives. Unfortunately, these charms are not capable of sustaining interest for the entire film.

I'm grateful for the existence of this movie, but I don't really want to sit through it again (though I guess I'll have to since I bought the DVD). Timecode is like a question mark, a challenge to contemporary narrative modes. But, I suspect it will take many many years for that question to be answered, and the narrative challenge it represents to be assimilated and used artfully. If you really want to get a glimpse of the immediate future of narrative film technique, watch Memento, or grab a copy of Tender Loving Care or Point of View (of the two, TLC is better than POV).

Although the concept behind Timecode is highly unusual and creative, the technique of showing four different scenes at one time by dividing the screen into four windows is distracting. Three windows will continue their action silently while the viewer is privy to the soundtrack to one of the four windows. And the soundtrack changes to different windows throughout the film, so you are never quite sure what is happening and where. Eventually you piece together the whole story and easily see the interconnectedness of the four screens, but it is, like I said, a distracting technique. However, I applaud whatever person attempted this concept because it is groundbreaking and different and strives to be something more than what we are used to. Interestingly, you would think that the character development would suffer immensely from this kind of format, but oddly, you can tell a lot about each of the characters by their actions with and without the soundtracks.

Time code opened my eyes & ears immediately when i heard it was going to be split into 4 separate screens. The way Mike Figgs came up with this idea is incredible! I have to admit that this film can get you confused with all the thing happening all at the same time. But that's the magic in this whole film. The Actors/Actresses in this film are excellent with improvising their acting capabilities; it really pushes them to the limit.