For reference, this is the “Thou shall not take the Lord’s name in vain” commandment.
This man really changed my life in film. Amongst his precious gifts bestowed upon us is his deliberate ambiguity in the dramatic. Souls are troubled, but without clear definition. Characters take action with ambiguous motives and live through unpenetrable outcomes. Nobody wins, nobody loses, people give their soul and get cut, but the cut is a gift, a blessing.
Starting from his Véronique, to Red, you really have the most consistently competent consecutive films that will reshape some part of your soul.
So when you come to this, you can find a man laying his weapons bare, sharpening them. This series are experiments, each one trying different measures of tone. The first one of the series, which I viewed four months ago, is still etched in my memory. It was precise, it made some of its participators watchers, and it anchored the watching with screens: computer screens, TV screens, projectors. It is the best so far.
This one is uneven. The story has many folds where we can enter it but they were not shown, or when they were, they were clumsily. Oh yes, there is broken glass, a burnin matchbox, a bee inside a glass of juice, a dying man, an aborted abortion, renewed life. But these were laid bare. Unsharpened.
So no, you don’t need to watch this. He has been more visually (and musically) inclined in earlier and later projects. It is saddening because the ideas were so rich. Ah well, at least you can turn it over in your mind and mold finer shapes in your imagination.