Shirkers

"Henceforth, audience's curiosity is sizably whetted, and Tan's ensuing quest of "who is Georges Cardona" spirits us away to Cardona's hometown, interviewing his acquaintances and ex-wife (whose image is gingerly pixelated and only referred as "the widow"), and discloses a vague picture what a man he was, Nosferatu is the ostensible consensus: a fabulist who is envious of the achievement of his protégés, which he is not above to undermine at his convenience. Georges makes for such a fascinating case of mental complexity, the first impression he makes on others: emitting congeniality that incongruent with the cold glint in his eyes, might be the best encapsulation, however, SHIRKERS seem to pull punches in burrowing deeper into the truth (a half measure in our post-truth paranoia), whether it is from Tan's own equivocal interrelation with Georges, or the widow's conspicuous "I don't know anything about it" disclaimer."

A director explores the myth of Singapore's independent cinema: Shirkers, a film made by her and her friends, with the help of a mysterious man.

The atmosphere of this documentary is very interesting, mixing drama with the mood of a serial killer tv show.

It's a well-structured portrait of a young woman dreams, the ambition to change the concept of cinema, in a country with strong censorship and restrictions, as was Singapore in the 90s, and how someone with a perverse and vicious mind can ruin a so beloved project, and traumatize everyone involved.

Some critics and general public think it's pretentious, I disagree with that opinion, it's not intended to increase the protagonist/director's (Sandi Tan) ego, but rather to show how a group of creative minds can be manipulated when they are not yet mature enough to realize how real life works.

I like the edit, the footages, the soundtrack, I feel the nostalgic the point of view and what the writer want to tell us, but I think it's misled. The most interesting part about the story is about George, what is his motives? What's he really do? Why he did it? We don't really have an answer for that. The documentary revolves around Sandi and her lost film, not George. I think George is a very interesting people and they didn't dig deeper, instead they tell you something that you less care about.

As a piece of film-making in its own right, this a hypnotic and visually captivating production. As far as the content goes, it is just too self-important and pretentious to bear its own weight. The mystery regarding Georges is comfortably the most compelling aspect of the film yet is not explored in anywhere near enough detail. That is the real story here, not the group of amateur film-makers who naively lost their footage and have overblown their memories of it.

Works on a lot of levels - as a glimpse into indie/counterculture in Singapore in 1992 with a distinctive young woman's voice, as an exploration into the psychological abuser who absconded with her film (what an asshole this guy was!), and as a study in reconnecting with friends decades later, taking them all back to a special time and place, and then viewing themselves from a distance. It's outrageous and maddening, but at the same time, touching and lovely. Very well done by Sandi Tan, and I would love to see a dubbed version of the original film.