The Girl from Monday (2005)

Too much of everything

A Disappointing Continuation

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Hal Hartley has always been an inconsistent filmmaker. He made the terrific Trust and a lot of good movies like Henry Fool and The Unbelievable Truth, but he has also made a frightening number of movies that are really, really, bad.After the excellent Henry Fool, Hartley reached a sort of consistency, pumping out consistently terrible movies one after the other like Fay Grimm, No Such Thing, Book of Life, and the abysmal Girl from Monday.Girl from Monday is a few different sorts of bad. It is a trite sci-fi story of the sort written by people who haven't read enough science fiction to know that their ideas are unoriginal. It is convoluted storytelling poorly held together by an inescapable voice-over in lieu of using action to tell story. It is filmed in a purposefully artsy style involving odd angles and breaks in action that does nothing to further the story and fails to create an interesting style.Hartley is always at his best exploring the lives of odd people who can't communicate. But this movie has little of that classic Hartley approach to conversation outside of a short chat early on between the two leads. Mainly it's either narration or two characters exchanging information in a straightforward but uninteresting way.Like No Such Thing and Fay Grimm, this is a genre movie from a director who is incapable of making genre movies. It is admirable that Hartley likes to try new things, but it's remarkable how bad he is when he gets out of his groove.By the way, some people have suggested this is Hartley being Goddard. I absolutely hate Goddard. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

I would like to suggest to those who comment on this film, of which there are many, that if one is to judge this movie as 'simplistic' or trite, then one has to answer a set of questions raised by the film - 1. What is the relation between embodiment and desire? Hartley raises this beautifully with the presentation of the girl, and intertwines it with the other themes (among many!) that I would like to point out. 2. What is the role of Christianity in this film? The word become flesh, the girl reading a study bible, the interviewer asking Jack if he is religious, and the idea of sacrifice and martyrdom all raise this issue in interesting and provocative ways. (this is especially interesting considering the film's conclusion and the question it raises about the possibility of a messiah in a capitalist context (i.e. where "value" only means monetary value))3. What is the relation between desire and the structures of society? Does desire resist that power structure, or is it rather created by that power structure? The film raises the question of whether or not the resistance that is possible is also "good for business," and suggests that desire is fully malleable by the power structure. BUT, it also opens the possibility for real resistance, without being overly optimistic about this. There are many many other interesting questions raised by this wonderful and thoughtful film, but these are just a few that immediately strike me as central, and which do not seem to play a role in the criticism of the film voiced by many of its detractors. It is important to develop the skill to enjoy many types of film - important insofar as it simply increases pleasure in watching film - and so it is best to be able to ignore problems with the low production value and bad acting and to enjoy it for its strengths, rather than focus on the negative and not enjoy one's time with the film. P.S. Anyone else wondering about the references to Homer's Odyssey in the film? So many questions . . .

Is this Hartley following Godard's footsteps and becoming "political"? Political commentary is never interesting, unless it is executed in an interesting way. Luckily, this is one of those cases.I'm amazed at the quality of the shots considering they used a DCR-VX2000 for this movie. How many cameras did they use? One I suspect.Hartley's World is that of an intelligent essayist, specially since he quit making movies like "Surviving Desire" and "Trust". "Theory of Achievement" was heavily influenced by "La Chinoise", as much as the form of a "short" could take it. Here we have the same intent, but turned into a fictional narrative. It works, but only if you understand the reasoning behind it.

It has a promising plot line, and some quite interesting performances and direction, but overall I felt the film lacked substance. Except for its unique idea of sex-for-points, it's filled with simple notions such as "advertising is bad" and "freedom is good." Both are valid beliefs, but neither are explored with much originality.It played out like a weak version of an excellent novel or short story. Great soundtrack, though.(BTW, I believe the opening credits read "A Science Fiction by Hal Hartley," not "A Science Fiction Film by Hal Hartley," as the first reviewer wrote. Not sure exactly what he means by that, but it is probably significant to Hartley.)