Trance (Film Review)

Vol. 1 Issue 26


I went to see a new film by Danny Boyle called Trance. This is the guy that made Slumdog and directed the London Olympics opening ceremonies. I thought Slumdog was okay, and since I don’t care for much for ceremonial BS, I think his best work came earlier in his career, specifically, in this order- Trainspotting, 28 days later, 127 hours. He’s like almost a famous respected director, but I don’t think he really gets true credit for being an “artist” from the critics in a way that say, Von Trier does. But I think he makes great, big budget, quasi- mainstream films. Trance is not one of these, but in a good way.

I am part of this type of film’s built in audience. Just by the fact that it is psychologically manipulative means I like it. The way that the film distorts time is excellent. The first half is straight forward, but the second half starts shifting all over the place. It’s almost completely non-linear. Because of the heavy emphasis on hypnosis we never know if what we are seeing is reality, dream, trance, past, present, future. It is a big, flashy, colorful film but it’s only out in limited release and it’s not very well advertised. After I saw it though I could perhaps see why it didn’t garner too much mainstream attention.

I heard the late Roger Ebert say what makes a great film is when it does what it sets out to do, with excellence.  It needs to be an example of greatness in the category of itself. What this to “do” is is very difficult to define. Is Trance a thriller? It has a heist, it has physiological manipulation, and it has an unorthodox love story, all elements that can make for great thriller, but as they occur on screen they seem too contrived, almost satirical. There are unrealistic, sometimes goofy flaws in the acting and in the characters, and it is not until after the film has laid all its cards on the table that all the little slips that have been happening are forgiven; they make sense in context, but this is a risky move. It requires the audience to recollect. It almost doesn’t work.

Trance is like a mix of the Inception and Eternal Sunshine, but Trance does not succeed in achieving excellence in the same way these films do; however, it does do something else. I don’t think that Inception or Eternal Sunshine take the chances that Trance does, and so neither of these films make any of the same mistakes or flubs, but this also makes Trance really entertaining, and laugh-out-loud funny at times. The problem is that only in retrospect does the film really make any sense. Trance requires a certain level of forgiveness from its audience, and a truly great thriller, I think, would never require such forgiveness.

The coolest thing about seeing this film on opening night was that Boyle himself did a Q & A afterwards. He took technical questions: Do you prefer film or digital? He likes both, but sees digital as the future. Political questions: Do you think gun violence in film perpetuates real gun violence? He does, but relies on tragic paradox- the fact that we derive satisfaction from tragedy- to justify that we need these stories to be told, and sometimes, they happen to involve guns. Controversial questions: Does the UK (he’s British) do music better than the US? Yes, but since the UK does very so few things well (his words), he has no problem admitting this as one of those few.

I wanted to ask him what he looked for in a script and if he had any advice for scriptwriters looking to get their scripts made, but he only took questions from the first few rows of the audience, and as usual, I was sitting way at the back.