http://www.playtime-magazine.com/2009/12/inviting-stare-in-the-city-of-sylvia/ an Arts and Culture Magazine Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:56:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 http://www.playtime-magazine.com/2009/12/inviting-stare-in-the-city-of-sylvia/comment-page-1/#comment-20091 Guido Pellegrini Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:27:42 +0000 http://www.playtime-magazine.com/?p=4739#comment-20091 Good review. I'm more sympathetic to "El." I see him as a rather earnest figure: he honestly wants to find beauty and inspiration and I believe his "awful pick-up line." I've more or less done exactly what he's done countless times, albeit without a sketchbook. I've watched people and seen them move and talk and live their lives. It's kind of fascinating. And, of course, I've done it in a cafe. And, of course, I've done the whole "flaneur" thing, strolling across the city streets with an almost floating disembodied and detached gaze. I've never followed anyone, though. Honest! Problem with "El" is that his search for beauty and inspiration is insensitive. He forgets about other people and how they might feel about his wandering, be it the wandering of his eyes or his actual act of wandering behind another. I like how the film constantly forces the intrusion of those who are left out from his imaginary, from his worldview: notice the poor people of the street, the homeless. The camera notices them, but "El" ignores them in his act of following. I think we notice more than "El." I don't know if the film breaks its reality or geographical continuity. I think it's more along the lines of: we begin with a very tight camera-character relationship, where the camera more or less shows what "El" sees. As the film progresses, this camera-character relationship begins to wither, until we are left with scenes like the "wrong window" debacle, where we see the prey, but he does not. Similarly, we see the homeless, but he does not. I think the end is almost epiphanic: the women in all their shapes, seemly and unseemly, the ideal no longer there, the ideal having rejected him, and he disappears into the city. Good review. I’m more sympathetic to “El.” I see him as a rather earnest figure: he honestly wants to find beauty and inspiration and I believe his “awful pick-up line.” I’ve more or less done exactly what he’s done countless times, albeit without a sketchbook. I’ve watched people and seen them move and talk and live their lives. It’s kind of fascinating. And, of course, I’ve done it in a cafe. And, of course, I’ve done the whole “flaneur” thing, strolling across the city streets with an almost floating disembodied and detached gaze. I’ve never followed anyone, though. Honest! Problem with “El” is that his search for beauty and inspiration is insensitive. He forgets about other people and how they might feel about his wandering, be it the wandering of his eyes or his actual act of wandering behind another. I like how the film constantly forces the intrusion of those who are left out from his imaginary, from his worldview: notice the poor people of the street, the homeless. The camera notices them, but “El” ignores them in his act of following. I think we notice more than “El.” I don’t know if the film breaks its reality or geographical continuity. I think it’s more along the lines of: we begin with a very tight camera-character relationship, where the camera more or less shows what “El” sees. As the film progresses, this camera-character relationship begins to wither, until we are left with scenes like the “wrong window” debacle, where we see the prey, but he does not. Similarly, we see the homeless, but he does not. I think the end is almost epiphanic: the women in all their shapes, seemly and unseemly, the ideal no longer there, the ideal having rejected him, and he disappears into the city.

]]>