Disturbing
Images is a fictional documentary of Helmut K (Norm
Macera); a controversial - and even offensive – artist
whose dark imagery of death, suicide, and homo-erotica merged
with religious imagery (a movement he calls “perversionism”)
has caused more than its share of protests, critics, and
media coverage. Helmut’s work has particularly enraged
Byron Llyod (Gary Gustin), a local minister and leader of
the Christ Spilled His Blood For Me Foundation. He has organized
group protests of Helmut’s exhibits, and even goes
to visit the artist in order to try to talk some sense into
him. But when Helmut seduces one of Lloyd’s congregation,
young Ken Albright (Tim Scarpato), Llloyd decides to take
matters into his own hands and rescue this young man from
“Satan’s influence,” – no matter
what the cost.
"Perversionist"
artist Helmut K does nothing but create controversial
art...
...Charged
with sexuality,
hedonism, and religious imagery.
Content
I
really enjoyed the fake documentary aspect of this movie.
It’s a very clever way to get across a lot of history
in a short period of time, plus, if done well, it adds a
lot of character to a film. It has some down sides, however,
because some of the “drama” of a movie doesn’t
fit the matter-of-fact aspect of a documentary, but in the
case of Disturbing Images, it was definitely a good
choice. Chronicling an artist’s career would be lengthy
and boring if done in the conventional “movie”
way. Especially considering that this particular artist’s
life screams controversy, it’s a huge asset to include
interviews from experts and critics such as an art historian
and a psychologist. The somewhat sympathetic art historian
includes the perspective of the “anything goes”
art world and almost seems amused by Helmut’s behavior;
while the psychologist is obviously disgusted by the fact
that Helmut receives so much attention, and seems to share
the opinion that the man should be locked up in the nuthouse
– if not prison.
However,
the film was a little difficult to understand. It seemed
as though the documentary was not very structured, and meandered
from one topic to another. There were several scenes that
appeared very out of place for a documentary, and given
some brief transitional shots that included rapid images
and video static, my guess was that these scenes were meant
to be a part of the “real world,” rather than
in the documentary. The video also switched between black
and white and color, which I think must have been a convention
used to switch back and forth between the “real world”
and the documentary, but this convention isn’t placed
very well, as it’s still difficult to tell what scenes
were meant to be a part of the documentary and which ones
weren’t. Plus the cutting back and forth between the
documentary and the “real world” really seems
to almost give away the ending in some way; as though the
documentary was compiled after these events took place.
In my
opinion, there probably needs to be some serious re-editing
of this film. The idea of compiling a documentary with real
world action is a good one, but the audience needs to be
very well-informed as to when each of these switches is
made. Though I really liked the quick cut transitions, they
could easily be construed as a part of the documentary.
A more conventional transition is the plain old white flash.
Yes, it’s rather overdone and somewhat hokey, but
it’s a transition that your audience will recognize.
It may also be a good idea to use the black and white vs.
color theme in addition to a simple transition. If it is
the case that the documentary was compiled (or at least
finished) after all these events took place, then the documentary
should probably be shown in color and the “real world”
in black and white, to give it the appearance of a flashback.
Finally, there probably should be a lot more narration in
the documentary segments, in order to make even further
distinctions.
