Boy am I trying real hard to get out of the habit of injecting personal anecdotes in my reviews, but alas, here we are. Does anyone out there in Monster Land remember a little film called Chronicle of Corpses? Probably not, so please allow me to refresh your memories. It was the 11th annual Philadelphia Film Festival and Michael and I were having the time of our lives (sad, ain't it?). So many great films in such little time. We had our schedule mapped out for the week, but still managed to sneak in a few last minute additions. One such last minute addition was Andrew Repasky McElhinney's critically applauded Chronicle of Corpses. Built up by festival programmers and art house critics alike, we were, needless to say, greatly disappointed by the end result. You can read Michael's review here and mine here if you so desire. So we had a little fun (at Andrew's expense) and maybe we went a bit overboard? We didn't mean any harm. Nonetheless, it would appear as if Mr. McElhinney does indeed have a sense of humor himself, because he recently contacted me in regards to his latest directorial effort, George Bataille's Story of the Eye. Always willing to right my possible wrongs, of course I was willing to give Andrew's latest film a fair shot. In the end though, I think the joke is probably on me.

I am not familiar with George Bataille's writings, nor do I aspire to learn more about them. I don't feel that one should be forced to familiarize themselves with one's writings in order to appreciate said writing's translation to film. However, I get the feeling that Andrew's latest film is more of an in joke, geared solely towards those familiar with Bataille's work, more so than anything else. That being said, let's take a look at Andrew's interpretation.

The film opens with grainy, 16mm footage of a woman giving birth while narration presents the viewer with info on Bataille. The visuals are pretty gratuitous to say the least. Shock simply for the sake of shock? You be the judge. We move forward and find that we've entered the glossed over world of shot on video, and the compositions look great. I said it in my review of Chronicle of Corpses and I'll say it again here. Andrew has a decent eye for the camera. The following scene is of a young Goth dude, sitting in what appears to be a theatre, watching two young ladies with oversized top hats with faces painted on their bare bodies (their breasts are the eyes) tap dancing to a crackling record playing in the background. The young man appears to be controlling them with a video game joystick. A quick pan down again, and we see that it's not a video game joystick at all, but actually his very own joystick. His penis, so it's his penis, OK? Just for the record, I made a very similar metaphor in film school way back when and was scolded for its simplicity, so there you have it.

What follows are essentially 3 extended, artfully shot scenes of hardcore pornography, interspersed with some uniquely lit visions intended to tie the whole thing together. Total running time, just under 75 minutes. Total running time of just hardcore pornography? Probably close to 50 minutes. And when I say hardcore I don't mean to say it lightly. The first scene is FULL guy on guy, featuring oral AND anal. The second is girl on girl featuring oral and gratuitous use of 'toys.' While the third scene features two very disinterested girls and a guy going at it with one another. There's also a sprinkle of masturbation and urination thrown in for good measure, as if all of this weren't enough. And no, I don't think I'm giving away too much.

I'm sure that this means SOMETHING to SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, but to me it really means absolutely nothing. I wish I knew that I had signed up for a hardcore romp from the get go. And I'm not knocking pornography here, nor am I putting down filming the act of lovemaking for the sake of art. I think it's great! And I wish more people would do it! I'm also not knocking Andrew as a filmmaker, I think he's got a very unique visual sense, and I applaud him for that. Still, in the end, it comes across here as nothing more than a waste when we've got what I perceive (as the viewer) as just plain filler. Artsitic filler? Maybe. But filler nonetheless. I'm not stupid, and I love a cinematic challenge, but I just didn't get it. I could not figure it out for the life of me. Although it would seem as if I may be in the minority here, quite a few critics seem to be swooning over this flick.. It begs the question, could the point have been made with a 5-minute sequence of hardcore shenanigans, rather than a solid 20 minutes each? Is there value here other than that of titillation? Is it art? Perhaps to someone, but not to me. I can hear the arguments already, "Many will be quick to dismiss this monumental artistic achievement as pornography!" And that's fine, if someone else finds value here, more power to him or her, unfortunately, I just wasn't in the mood for porn and little else.