Throughout the history of film, there have always been those that wish to experiment with the medium. They strive to create new and fantastical experiences, utilizing fine artists and craftsmen to bring their wild concepts to life. These sorts of attempts are very commendable, as radical new visions can rejuvenate art-forms and expand their possibilities. However, there is a danger with these sorts of projects: if one puts too much focus on crafting the style and/or world of a film, it can be easy to neglect the story/writing and leave the film with something to be desired. Sadly, I feel that our next film, Taxandria, falls squarely into that creative trap.
The film starts off with a young prince named Jan who has been taken to a seaside hotel to study. However, he takes more of an interest in the old lighthouse on the beach, one which he has been forbidden to go into. There, he meets the lighthouse keeper who introduces him to the world of Taxandria, a far-off land that you can only see if you stare into the lighthouse’s light. Taxandria lives under the oppressive rule of two conjoined princes who have outlawed any sort of progress, including time itself. However, they reside behind a large curtain, so the head of the police (who seems to be the lighthouse keeper’s evil parallel) relays their decrees, effectively acting as the ruler of Taxandria. The police head’s son, Aime, doesn’t go along with these rules and draws schematics of flying machines, which are promptly confiscated. Driven both by his inner desire to go against or escape the oppression of the princes, and by a princess who also hates how things are (women are confined in a large structure called the Garden of Mirth, away from the rest of society), Aime sets out to uncover the secrets of Taxandria, as well as find a way to leave it behind. Where does the story of Taxandria go and how does it tie in with Jan’s story? Well, I’ll let you watch the film yourself to see, but I do wish to discuss the film’s ultimately delivery and effectiveness, so semi-spoilers ahead.
First off, I want to note the film’s striking visual style. Taxandria is rendered with what look to be drawn or painted backgrounds with the actors seemingly blue/green screened in front of them. It creates an interesting feel, very much like you’ve been transported into a living painting. It definitely gives mattes a run for their money. However, given the nature of green screening (especially during this time-frame) and the deliberately off-kilter visual choice, the ultimate composition isn’t always convincing. At times, the perspective and scale look a bit off, such as when you see people standing in front of buildings in the distance. It can be awkward to judge how close or far away the buildings are, so it messes with your eye a bit. Admittedly, the general nature of the live action/painted mixture might be unconvincing to some, but I think those that are looking for more artistic and different executions of film-making will find the concept fascinating. Unfortunately, however, an inventive visual style can’t overcome a lacking story, and this film’s story leaves something to be desired. Most of the plot elements aren’t particularly new (a kid goes to a place he’s been warned not to go and meets a misunderstood individual who expands his perspective, an imaginative rebellious youth going against a totalitarian country and wanting to both uncover its secrets and escape it, a girl/princess that also wants to rebel and inspires the guy in his quest, etc), but to be fair, that is true of many stories. The problem seems to come in with the execution: the characters don’t have much to them beyond their initial concepts, the tone and pacing feel off in such a way that you never really feel drawn in to the situation, and the Taxandria story doesn’t seem to really tie-in much with the prince’s story other than perhaps a general message about the importance of progress and ambition (though we never get the sense that the prince really changes or learns something he didn’t already know from Taxandria). I hate to say it, but this ultimately feels like another case of style over substance, of a film becoming so lost in its visual artistry that it neglects its writing. It’s always sad to see that happen, especially when the film is trying so hard to give you a new experience, but when you’re trying to have a story in addition to the art, you can’t neglect one in favor of the other. Perhaps if this had been more of an abstract art-house film, the experience could have just stood on its own, but it isn’t, so we’re left with an artistically creative yet thinly written film.
Ultimately, if you’re interested in the design of the film from how I’ve described it, then give it a look, but don’t go in expecting it to impart a lasting tale upon you. Granted, you might see more in the story than I did, but I’m just here to give you my impression. Honestly, I genuinely wanted to like this film, as from the way it was described and looked in screenshots, it looked really appealing. But in the end, it comes down to the old lesson: you can build the most radiant house, but if there’s not a good enough foundation, the house will inevitably fall apart.