True the film is captivating on the aesthetic layer, with manufactured landscapes appearing as beautiful as the natural ones. Sounds like some viewers pull a positive (or neutral) message out of that equivalence.
I don't see it as positive or neutral, more like unintentionally nihilistic. I consider it a failed propaganda movie that is very successful as art for art's sake.
And maybe that was the artist's intent all along. From the title I doubt it but I read that originally the filmmaker wanted it released without any title.
And maybe that was the artist's intent all along. From the title I doubt it but I read that originally the filmmaker wanted it released without any title.