Mood Indigo

Saw Mood Indigo (thanks, Nina!) It was a film by Michel Gondry, a man who usually creates very childish, whimsical films. This one is no different, opening on a factory where typewriters move across rows of people who switch off typing on them. They are writing the whimsical and disjointed story of the film we are about to see. Gondry employs his usual delightful visuals of low-fi special effects, eschewing CGI where haywire tape-and-string contraptions or chunky stop-motion and rear projection will suffice. It is true that Gondry prizes experiment over refinement, and that his films are often more raw and childish than clever or insightful. Sometimes this childishness bubbles over into preciousness or treacly sentiment, as I feel it does sometimes in Be Kind Rewind. In this film however he keeps his tendency for the twee largely in check, matching a sufficiently broad story of love and loss with his overwhelming visuals. The plot, of course, is not really the point of this film.

The film follows the romance of Colin and Chloe. He is friends with Chick, who is addicted to the writings of the philosopher Jean Sol-Partre (addicted to the point of huffing and injecting his books.) Colin's house-mate, Nicholas is a cook/lawyer who worships a TV-cook who responds to his questions on TV and points out what spices he should use next. It's all very fun and silly, but then money problems rear their head and soon Colin is growing gun-barrels at the proton-gun factory, Chloe is sick with water-lilies, Chick's addiction costs him his job, and Nicholas becomes an old man. I'm fond of saying that David Lynch directs nightmares. Michel Gondry directs sweet dreams. This dream is deeply tragic in a few parts, but the tragedy is as absurd and mirror-logical as the rest of the film. That the dream makes no sense in the harsh light of day does not make the dream any less beautiful however, or any less tragic.

You have to be willing to play along with this film. I am willing to make that effort, but I understand that not everyone is. It bewilders me that people who will readily defend a goofy action film by pointing out that it's "only" fluffy entertainment will often condemn an equally silly film only because it wears its silliness on its sleeve. Don't worry, you grumps! This film is also meaningless. It certainly means no harm and primarily aims to entertain. It approaches the world with childish dream-logic and so long as you are willing to surrender your cerebrum and do the same, the film will reward you. This is a kind fantasy, one in which I would not mind living.