Review of The Science of Sleep (2006) by Jhon E — 09 Oct 2012

The Science of Sleep, well I can confidently say this is the second most confusing/weirdest movie I have seen (which is right behind Eraserhead). This Is my second viewing, for the first viewing gave me a massive headache, and I could last throughout the movie. Does that make it a bad movie? No, in fact it was a very good movie, with a clever interesting idea.

The film follows Stephane Miroux, who has, as far as I know a fictional disease that makes it difficult for him to determine dreams from reality. Stephane moves into a new apartment, which his mother owns, as well as the building. Gets a job she recommended, and meets his neighbour, and his neighbour's attractive friend (both females). This leads to a series of job gags, and developments with the neighbour, as it becomes a love interest for him.

This may seem like a very basic film, but I assure you it is not. The second time around it made a lot more sense, perhaps a third time would finish it off. The film goes through a labyrinth of dreams, and reality. This film seems to have three different, oh what would you call it. Let us just say dimensions. There is reality, where he is unhappy, but it does not really stress that aspect, so do not think it is a dark comedy. There is his dreams, which vary greatly, there are times where it is a lot like reality, but things like fantasies take-place and some stop-animation background, to all the way into a world just only stop-animation, where he swims in the sky. The other is perhaps a dream, but I thought of it as his head. It seems as if he is in a room (Stephane) and he has two small windows, representing his eyes. Here he often contemplates and discusses it with other people he is presumably imagining.

This film gets confusing. Sometimes you think it is a dream, but it is not. Like the time he asks a girl to marry him, obviously hardly knowing each other he was rejected. The film has solid acting, including one of my favourite international actors, Charlotte Gainsbourg. The main problems with this film, is mainly the main character. A lot of him is shown, but he does not seem to have the depth you would hope for a film, like Donnie Darko or Lester Burnham. If he had depth like those two, we would have an excellent (well better then excellent) film. This film is far from bad though, its pure creativity should be enough for interest. It is an absolute visual delight, the second time. I cannot stress that enough, this may just be me, but the first time I watched it, the visuals were so good I got a headache. So whether anybody else will bash their head against the wall I'm not sure, all I can say is watch again a mother or two later.

Overall, this film may leave you bashing your head in the wall, but it cannot be surpassed as a good (messy) film, and significantly better the second time around. I would recommend this to only film fans, for it is a challenging piece of semi-experimental filming.