Stijn Ank

If you would ask a critique to write about this film, he would follow certain standards or a certain structure in order to analyze it and perhaps to come to some conclusion. Of course, and above any structure, the critique's own personal experiences will become part of his approach. In this case it is an artist who has been asked, someone who is rather trying to move away from structures while staying attached to personal experience, with no way to escape.
I am not going to end up with any résumé, nor to start with a summary of things you may already know about this film. But if you like to share my personal experience, you may just continue reading. About half an hour into the film, these words are spoken: »It’s total chaos. And where does that lead us to?« This question (and while I was trying to come up with answers) kept following me during the whole projection.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons for watching it: to think and to find answers on your own. One possible answer I formulated is actually a further question, and it goes like this: »Isn’t this to be considered the basic situation of each newborn being on this planet, and isn’t this not to be considered a basic concept for anything you like to add in this world, may it be a child, a film, a book, a painting?« – by that leaving it up to those new creatures, as well as to your creations, to be  and to operate in that chaos. Therefore, we would have to accept that our world is chaos and not paradise, which of course does not mean there is no beauty in this world.
This film shows that chaos can lead us to the most rotten situation: namely fear, hate, violence ... And this is terrible, painful, stressful: a place where no one would like to be, I guess ... A place where no one would like to be, but a place where most likely each of us, one day, will end up, maybe for a few minutes, maybe longer. And considering this particular drive, we all have to become something like a free person, to be able to move away from those situations, though it is worthwhile keeping in mind those situations, trying to figure out how to accept the necessity of situations after all. If we cannot accept the concept of situation, if we cannot accept our world as a chaotic place, then we will not become free and our lives will instead become a complete drama where in the end the only thing we will be able to do is to ignore life and to sing for some god who, apparently, does live above any structure.
Can we not see that the terrible situation here, within this film, is produced by the most principle ignorance: not to accept the world as a chaotic place, but to keep on trying to make things perfect, to produce paradise – an absurdity? Do we still believe that this planet can be a perfect place, leading us to paradise; that we have to try and clean up the chaos? Isn’t it clear enough that this attitude leads us to a situation almost inescapable for human being? The real place, chaotic, leading to nothing: accepting this can lead to creativity.

For seven years, as it is told, Odysseus was living together with Calypso, with his world not being chaotic anymore. It was perfect paradise, himself being immortal, and it led to nothing, to non-creativity. He lived like the gods, bored all day long, jealous about the mortal and creative man. For the gods it doesn’t make any sense to be creative. And from my point of view I would say, this is a situation where the whole thing is very narrow, very dark – a situation without space.
When I connect this with the film (its images and sounds), it is clear that the right decisions have been made in order to put me into this particular atmosphere, together with actors who are made to behave in spaces as narrow, dark ... This is a kind of movie I usually try to avoid; I don’t want to bring this narrowness into my life, on top of all the chaos ... On the other hand, I can say that, as it puts me into a certain place where I don’t like to be, this film may also open doors to some wider spaces; but it’s tough. Another place to be may be the opposite of the dark, namely the white. In this film the dark is not just straight black; like the whole film, it takes place in the shadow – sometimes with shocking flashes.
Is there any leading-to other than the dark? Chaos, that is, emptiness, openness, the first god, and out of this, earth and sun ... Today chaos seems to be the opposite of void, but these opposites work back-to-back, though facing different parts of the world. I decided on one way: dropping, leaving things behind ... accepting chaos and, to some extent, affirming that this is what life is about, and assuming that this gives you more freedom than ignoring that concept of situation.
Sharing our experience about life – which is basically our sensitivity, way before we know anything  is something we all try to do. Everyone searches for his own language; it may be music, words, painting. In my case it became clear to me that the worst way of sharing my sensitivity (one word for something that includes intelligence and emotion) is to put it down in words. If we don’t pay good attention to this problem – another topic within the film –, we will find ourselves misled again, ending up in a very modern chaos, which is discourse without language.

Approaching this film, which is at least a piece of work, even an artist, like anybody, has to rely on his personal background. I certainly will not bother you with my biography, I just want you to keep in mind that my approach, put down in words, is one out of many possible. But, if you want to get reminded of how rotten the world can be or still is – especially when you are born on the dark side, ending up at the wrong place, at the wrong time – for sure, you have to go and see Detroit. Another reason may be of course (that is, the way some moralist would put it), to keep in mind the past, so that in the future those things will not happen again.