Hmmmmm... I suppose this one qualifies as "wierd". It has some interesting characteristics.

Plot summary: Carol, a housewife, suffers from an unexplainable sickness. Seemingly without reason, at random times, she falls victim to coughing spasms, headaches, vomiting, and severe skin irritation. None of the doctors can find anything physically wrong with her. She tries seeing a psychiatrist, which doesn't really get anywhere. Her husband, distraught at her condition (and perhaps suspecting that it is really all in her head), tries sending her to every type of specialist, only to confirm that nothing is wrong.

She becomes convinced that her ailments are caused by chemical toxins and pollutants in the air, and that she is hypersensitive to environmental abnormalities. She becomes enamored with the idea of non-traditional holistic medicine as a cure, and joins a camp of people in the wilderness who seek solace from the impurity of modern life. It ends up fitting every cliché in the "New Age" classification handbook.

From the beginning, it takes some serious mental adjustment in order to even watch and follow this film. Either the director is completely in love with wide angle shots, or he didn't have the budget to film enough takes to do multiple closeup angles, especially during the first hour. Most films begin a typical scene with an establishing shot, and then cut in to where they want the viewer's attention to focus. This one just gives you a wide, faraway view of everything that is happening, and leaves it there for the entire scene. Much of the time, you can't even clearly see the face of the character who is speaking. Initially, I thought it was most likely a budget thing, but as the film went on, I became more convinced that it was a stylistic choice.

Another anti-convention: Throughout most of the film, the main character's role is almost exclusively passive. She seldom says much of anything, and when answering others' questions, she gives brief, yes/no type answers with very little conviction. Julianne Moore plays it like she is on downers. This, coupled with the aforementioned wideshots, which often put her in the periphery or background of a scene, make it nearly impossible for the viewer to intuitively discern who the film is really about until after the fact. I was finding myself a bit lost for the first 20 minutes, until I finally realized that there was no way I was going to make through this thing by trying to rely on traditional cinematic cues; normally an automatic subconscious process. Again, after seeing it to the end, I think this effect was intentional.

The pacing is colosally lackadaisical, which strangly matches the mood (or lack thereof?) of the main character. The cinematography is artistically irritating. Good writing style would dictate that I elaborate on that sentence by explaining what I mean when I say "artistically irritating", preferably giving examples along the way, but I think in this case, I'll be like the movie, and leave it there without making further comment.

The question this film provokes the viewer to contemplate is the same one explicitly asked by multiple people over the course of the film: What the hell is wrong with this pathetic little woman? Is it really possible that she could be so extremely allergic to that many common substances? If so, why do the medical tests show nothing? Does she (and the community with whom she eventually congregates) have some sort of bizarre mental pathology which causes her to shrivel up into a bag of sickness at the smallest provocation? Does the holistic leader speak the truth when he says that the modern lifestyle has wraught so many assaults on the health of human beings that the more sensitive among us are unable to cope with the damage?

Natually, like any stereotypically postmodern art film (Moe: "That means wierd for the sake of being wierd"), this one does not try to give the viewer a specific or definite answer. It puts the image up on the screen, and leaves each viewer to derive from it what he/she will.