ThiefHott Too much of everything

Majorthebys Charming and brutal

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

TonyKissCastillo ......................................................from Pasto,Colombia...Via: L.A. CA...and ORLANDO, FL After my first viewing: Total shock! Upon some reflection, I didn't feel I was ready to write a review, so I watched the Special Features segment on William Greaves (At 1 hour, almost as long as the film) and then watched SYMBIO again. Here's the comment I was going to use after viewing once: "Is it an extremely original concept in film-making? Yes, undoubtedly! Is it enjoyable and watchable? For me, at least, the answer to that is 'Not so much' 7*" Just how stupid am I, anyway? (Rhetorical question, that!)Here I am, nearly 66 years old, yet it wasn't till yesterday that I became aware of William Greaves! Can't remember the last time I could look anyone and everyone in the eye and say the words, with soulful and unabashed conviction: "GENIUS! Pure, Unadulterated GENIUS!" Sitting here at my computer, focusing on authoring this review, the SYMBIO-experience has inspired me to an extent unparalleled by any other film in recent years. My job now: Articulate this in a way that, in turn, will inspire you to watch and perhaps produce a review of your own. Here, perhaps the most challenging aspect of review-writing is to avoid anything resembling a spoiler. Don't read the Blurbs. One definitely contains a spoiler, which could easily deprive you of the joy of "Getting It" all on your own! The two things which stand out most in retrospect? First, the sheer simplicity of the applied concept itself is truly inspirational, in and of itself. Second, that it took a 1/4 of a century, after the fact, for Mr. Greaves to get a decent screening and begin to get some of the recognition he so sorely deserved for this cinematic milestone.Couldn't help but notice that SYMBIO-was shot in August 1968, just a few months after the release of Stanley Kubrick's 2001. What do both films have in common? Well, thematically, not much, really. But it's hard to imagine someone like Greaves not having seen it soon after its release, so...Who knows? We could always ask him!10*.....ENJOY/DISFRUTELA! Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en Español, are most welcome!

st-shot From its overtly innocuous title to its jabbering cast and crew this "artistic happening" bleeds sophomoric pretense by the gallons in a film filming a film with another cameraman filming both. It is a disturbing waste of film stock to witness as cast and crew go around in circles breathing life into a moribund idea where little if anything outside of annoyance and frustration are achieved. While the concept is intriguing the realization is a sloppy mess of lack of communication as director William Greaves looks ill prepared from the get go as he turns his film students loose in Central Park. It's all avant lard as Greaves directs a pair of actors in a torpid fiction scene followed by discussion while a cop and homeless man try to give the doc guerrilla theatre credentials with lack luster intrusion. Meanwhile the camera runs eating up footage on the mundane as Greaves hazily pontificates and his crew attempts to make sense of what is going on, venturing ideas on the purpose and point of the exercise in a staff meeting with Greaves excluded. Some see it as genius, some see it as a waste of time. I am solidly with the latter. In the era of video and re-usable tape this monstrosity might be longer and even worse but at least it would not be committing the sin of wasting all that film stock on superfluous chatter and the hope something might be worth lensing on a mound or foot bridge in Central Park. Instead we have a clueless director and his acolytes bumping into each other with little to say or add to a film ( or films) in disarray which seems to be its purpose when it is more than evident this screen testing is for a film that will never get made but needed to get this faux cinema verite off the ground. A documentary whose lynch pin is based on a fiction is a bad place to start and it it makes Symbiowhatever little more than a pretentious self mockery.

Michael_Elliott Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One (1968) *** (out of 4) Incredibly fascinating little gem from director William Greaves works as a feature film but also a documentary. Basically what we have here is Greaves shooting an actual feature dealing with a husband and wife fighting about their life while walking through Central Park. That's the "feature" side of things. While they're shooting this they also have two separate cameras picking up all the drama and action going on in real life. So, the film is one where we get to see the actual feature being shot but also a documentary covering the making of the actual movie. I can't say I had ever heard of this movie before it popped up on Turner Classic Movies but part of what makes being an open-minded film buff so great is that you often come across gems that you might not have had you simply didn't expand in your viewing habits. It's really hard to explain this feature or why it works so well but I found it to be rather fascinating because there are moments where we get a third aspect of the "film" which is when the production crew are gathered in a room where they discuss where the film should go and their opinions on whether or not Greaves is doing a good job directing. These three aspects of a "film" are so interesting that you have to wonder why someone didn't try doing a picture like this a lot earlier and while there are certainly some creaky moments, overall this is a rather genius thing to try and pull off and you really can't help but applaud the director. There are some very funny moments in the behind-the-scenes section including a bit where they're filming and a group of people gather to watch and the director has to explain to them what they're doing and why they need to be quiet so that they don't ruin the scene. There are other moments where the crew fight about how much film is left, there's a sequence with a cop wanting to see some permits and then of course there's the actual film being shot, which contains a couple actors who are very good in their parts. It's also interesting to see the actors playing their parts and coming up with ideas to run past the director. I think what I really pulled away from this movie, unlike any other documentary, is how everyone working on a film thinks they're the most important part. The actors are focused on their job. The director has his job. The crew have their job and everyone is so focused on what they're doing that it's hard to really see what the other person's job is and why it might be just as important. This movie certainly isn't for everyone but those who enjoy movies about making movies should find themselves entertained.

C Meagher I agree with the previous reviewer: it is extremely difficult to peg this film to a numerical rating. It depends on what you are looking for: if you are looking for a thought-provoking film about the performance of self, look elsewhere. Better yet, read some Erving Goffman. If, however, you want to laugh at people's ridiculous behavior before cameras, and reality television is too subtle for you, this is the perfect film.The film begins with the instantly unlikeable director, William Greaves, holding court in Central Park. He instructs the several cameramen to film each other and himself in an affected-European-accent-of-unknown-provenance (it approximates British most closely, though I am certain Greaves is a domestic product); further, that the theme of the film is "sexxxxxuality," he purrs, when he is distracted by a woman on a horse trotting them-ward. "Oh, get her! The woman with the TITS!" Awkwardly gratuitous and downright silly.This sets the tone for the rest of the film, during which two profoundly untalented actors chew their way through Greaves' painful script about the couple's married life. No cheap shock is spared, as it is revealed that she has had abortion after abortion: "one after another you've killed my babies!"; and he is a closeted homosexual: "I saw you looking at him, that fag-got that everyone knows about!" NOTE: "Take 2 1/2" (2003) includes the dramatic reunion of two other actors, also ostensibly from the desk of Greaves. The wife's character, we are informed, has been to Europe (natch.) where she has had a successful recording career. (This actress clearly went to dialog class with Greaves.) The husband has an "adopted" daughter in the music industry, who is getting mixed up in drugs. It's just like the smarmy, unctuous crew member says in the "candid" (see below): it is truly the story of every-couple USA.The best (or rather the worst) parts are the "candid" marijuana-fueled "behind-the-scenes" conversation among the crew members, who AGONIZE over the director's (quite transparent) intentions; the "meaning" of the film; the "authenticity" of the experience, etc. Many complain about the abysmal writing. Greaves later confronts the mutineers on the set, where his initial defensiveness gives way to self-satisfaction: apparently this was the whole idea! It's SUPPOSED to be bad! The really remarkable thing, as far as I'm concerned, is that the director, actors and crew apparently saw the film and released it anyway. Not only is it awful beyond awful, it makes them all look like pretentious, self-indulgent and woefully inept art-school weasels. Every line made me laugh through gritted teeth.