It took me a while to get into the rhythm of this movie; long languorous takes with little happening, actors obviously improvising, a sense that this is a film that doesn't know what it's concerned with, but.....
Once I got into the groove of director Jon Jost was selling (once the film had taught me how to watch it), and once I got a handle on the narrative, I began to enjoy it. By the time the camera was gliding among the pillars of the Metropolitan Museum, instead of asking "what is happening?", I simply sat back and enjoyed the film's revelry in the NY art world. By then, the focus of the film has come into view; big money and its impact on things that are pure in life; love and art - and how it's bad news for all concerned.
Sounds good even to me when I describe it like that, but the film never fully works. The dispassionate nature of the framing keeps the audience at a remove, which could work but Stephen Lack as Mark is too stiff, too unreadable to ever engage the audience. I don't believe a character has to be likeable for us to engage, but we have to have a level of understanding of why they are who they are, or they need to be charismatic enough to make us want to get that understanding, but Lack can't deliver, and all of the worst scenes involve him. (And there's a random scene where the lead female characters complain to their flatmate about her singing too loud so there's competition.)
The ambition, the confidence and the technique get this film a long way, but some poor casting and the problems inherent in improvising a movie hold this back from the finish line.
