In viewing this "film," my wife and I, found ourselves in the curious position of knowing quite a bit about psychoanalysis, film-making, deconstructionism, architecture and modernism. As a "narrative" the "film" was a reminder that experimentalism is no substitute for talent. De-constructing something is no excuse for bad lighting, unprofessionally executed two-shots, lying to the participants and the audience, or treating your "talent" (analysts and auditioning actresses alike) with contempt. Whether we look at the narrowly chosen, baiting questions asked of the analysts, the inaccurate and pointless pseudo-parallels between modernism and psychoanalysis, or her clumsy misuse of deconstructionism as a bludgeon in an apparent personal grudge, she seems a dilettante. It is telling that she is outclassed by the analysts who seem to want to take her seriously and try their best to be genuine. Perhaps her recipe for success will be found in more therapy rather than in more film-making. Should she choose the latter, she would be well advised to consider that technical and intellectual laziness is ill-concealed by splashy experimentalism.
