I Origins

Tyekvicska Virág

Review of Robbie Collins’ review of 'I Origins'

The topic of the review is Mike Cahill’s second film and is written by the British Robbie Collin, the Daily Telegraph's professional film critic. It is from 2014, the same year of the debut, London. Collins’ main idea is vague, but it is clear that he likes to compare Cahill’s work to his first film and others as we are talking about a relatively young director and cast. This leads to no thesis but a pervasive critical approach that weaves around the whole review. Collins considers the film with the eye of an experienced professional, and what he sees is a young, maybe greenhorn staff behind it. It is not negative at all –he also states that this is all a compliment.

The main topics are describing the plot sometimes with a little bit of irony, sometimes in spiritual depths and the scientific idea that eyes are in connection with human soul and how it is represented in film history. Collins did a great job when researching about this metaphor as he can draw a great parallel. The eye-soul connection is also present in such legends as Psycho, Clockwork Orange or the westerns of Sergio Leone but in I Origins, as he accurately explains, it appears in a "strange and lyrical new trail". In the end, there is an unsupported argument that is a clear compliment to Cahill. Collins states that it is really rare and unique that such a young director is able to deal with spirituality without any irony or dogmatism. Although he gives no examples or reasons why, we all believe him after watching the movie.

The whole review provides us with the tone of frivolity - thus informality - but strangely in a rather positive way. As a father considers his son, as an experienced film critic sees a talented new generation director (he uses the word 'hipster') with "bright-eyed earnestness normally seen only in spaniels and MA students". Specific evidence is usually missing from the review, so it can only be understood after watching the movie.

All in all, Collins’ work is often vague, the paragraphing does not follow any logical order, the description of the plot is interrupted by the comparison with other films, for example. It does not fulfill the academic criteria, its structure is rather based on impressions. Even though, this makes it easily and quite pleasantly consumable, an appropriate review for a new generation movie.