Starring the color red, we see a chap in a blue shirt & blue baseball cap walking down a pink street (thanks to camera filters). Discarding the shirt he takes a nap in the sun, but soon sits up & introduces himself as Red. His missing blue shirt reappears & he goes for a walk looking at stop signs, because they're red, & walks past walls painted red, arriving home to look out the window with binoculars, presumedly at something red.
Similar titles
Reviews
What is Dr. Kenneth Anger trying to tell us here. His perception of the color red and is there a deeper meaning to it. It probably only makes sense to the man himself watching this film in relation to certain memories and aspects that only he can link to particular events with some kind of significance. I just a see a muscular man, who calls himself Red, walking down the street, lying in the sun for a moment and walking on. The symbolisms aren't particularly enthralling either. Red traffic-lights, stop-signs, walls and basecaps cross our path.Anger was in his mid-70s when this was made. Has he lost his touch? Or are we just not ready to see the genius in here? I, for once, would probably have preferred watching Red Auerbach holding a team speech in these 4 minutes.
Not much to say about this one. Most sources state that it was simply a digital video test and never meant to be seen. Although apparently it was Dr. Anger's idea to show it publicly at the Museum of Modern Art. In any case, trying to judge this is like trying to judge "The Godfather" based on five minutes of early screen tests. If you're interested in Dr. Anger's work, give it a try (at least it's very very short). I have not seen his other recent films (such as "Mouse Heaven") so I'm not sure where or how this might fit in. Someone on a forum wanted to discuss the Magickal elements of this, but I just don't think they exist. Worth one viewing, anyway.
This movie is essentially nothing. Nothing happens, except for a guy walking around. There is no music. There is no genius. There is no Anger. All there is, is a movie that looks like it was filmed by a bored teenager lacking the imagination to do anything. This does not look like the art of a seasoned filmmaker, rather it looks like the first time a child picked up a camera.Seeing it is rather painless, but I would not suggest that you do anyway. The movie is itself only 4 minutes long. It is surprising that it is even that long because the idea, if there even was one, lacks the substance to fill a Lumiere brothers short. Maybe there is something here that I don't get. Maybe Kenneth Anger grew to be so subtle that there is in fact a whole lot of substance in this pile of waste, but frankly I doubt that. This just looks like the work of a burnout, who has no new ideas left and forgot to rehash his old ones.