Skip to main content

The Aspiration and Hollow Vibrancy of O’Dessa

It’s weird enough that there are two streaming-exclusive post-apocalypse movies starring cast-members from Stranger Things in 2025 without them dropping just a week apart. Watching O’Dessa felt like a touch of deja vu to me from just a week ago, only the experience wasn’t quite so obnoxious. Maybe next week there will be one with Finn Wolfhard for Amazon Prime that will be good.
In fairness, O’Dessa comes very close to it at times. A bizarre movie from writer-director Geremy Jasper that adopts an intentionally archetypal structure that in some ways recalls George Miller’s recent Mad Max movies in their mythologically empowered apocalypses. It’s a fascinating context that feels boldly out of step with the kind of conventions of modern movie storytelling, that could use such a shake-up every now and again. Unfortunately, though O’Dessa doesn’t exactly lose the thread of that, it does get lost in spite of its flourishes.
One of those flourishes is the fact that it is a musical, in the vein of a balladeer epic or rock opera if not in the particular substance. Music is a big part of this decaying world, ruled by a demagogue played by Murray Bartlett who chooses his enemies’ fates through a grand musical talent show. The central character is O’Dessa Galloway, played by Sadie Sink, who leaves her home in the wilderness after her mother’s death to be a rambler -a kind of wandering minstrel- until her guitar is stolen and she is led to a city in pursuit of it, all part of an apparent destiny in store for her to save the world.
The vision that Jasper has with this movie really hooks you in its early goings, where it leans very heavily into its kind of surreal structural designs. We don’t get a clear picture of what exactly happened to the world but it doesn’t really matter. The ambiguity of context in the atmosphere, makes it feel more out of time -and the imagery reflects that, especially as O’Dessa is singing. There are some very effective, very hypnotic visual digressions, illustrations of mood or feeling, reflecting an honestly anarchic tone. And if the movie had continued on this path consistently, if it had remained something of a meandering pilgrimage to get O’Dessa back to her guitar, the movie would have been far more interesting overall. But her rambling stalls in the city and in the immediate infatuation that arises between her and another state-employed musician Euri (Kelvin Harrison Jr.).
Sink and Harrison’s chemistry isn’t terribly strong, but that’s not so much the issue with the movie’s subsistence on their romance. Rather it’s the emptiness that comes to be emphasized in the movie as a result of their relationship. It is meant to be a gender-swapped translation of Orpheus and Eurydice (it’s there in the names) and the particular high echelons of soulful romance associated with that story; but this does not translate well in Jasper’s execution of that notion. He surrounds their love with a lot of vibrant colour and imagery, but doesn’t say much with it, lacks the tools to convey its depth. And of course it’s illustrated through several songs that are tonally appropriate, lyrically a bit obtuse, and not much of an ounce memorable, though Sink commits heavily to their performance.
The sensation is that the movie just mellows out, even the high stakes lose much of their lustre as things drift along by lofty sentiments and designs until the climax. And while it is still pretty and visually creative (and choices like giving Euri green hair are very vivid), it’s not so absorbing or interesting in any non-visual way. Imagery clearly dictates Jasper’s vision above anything else, and this movie is a good example of how that approach is not always sufficient. In fact it delineates your investment in the characters, already fairly staid and conventional by design. None of the performances rise to the challenge much either. Sink puts in a noble effort in spite of an accent that at times hampers her, but she can't really carry the movie as much as she needs to. Meanwhile Bartlett's broad performance -though eye-catching- feels unfocused, while Harrison is just completely directionless. And the movie puts so much stock into this limited consortium and their somewhat hyperbolic movements.
There is so much passion and grandiosity referred to in this movie but never felt, the songs by Jasper himself and Jason Binnick are audacious and enthusiastic, but don't resonate as very meaningful. You don't buy the sense of vastness of scale or strength of feeling. And it comes to a head in the final act, which sees O'Dessa journey to the gaudy realm of Plutonovich -as Orpheus descends into the underworld- primarily to save an abducted Euri. The production design is flatter here than elsewhere in the movie, delivering less of that saving visual stimulus. An empty stage with little of the flamboyance that this villain otherwise is molded from. And the classical drama doesn't carry things either -in fact it feels rather rote; the big musical climax quite showy but insubstantial, the way it plays out its Orphic odyssey underwhelming in sentiment. But there is at least some striking personal style to O'Dessa herself through the sequence. Sink looks very good in her punk country-western classicist persona. It's a disappointment the movie's quality cannot rise to that aesthetic.
Determined to be a vibes movie, there isn't a lot O'Dessa offers beyond that, interesting though those vibes may be. It is a unique movie, and I admire Jasper's vision and ambition, his compelling impression of a post-apocalypse milked from the formalism of ancient myth. He really does shoot for the stars. And with some stronger elements in the romance and music, greater stakes and tension and perhaps some measure of characterization, it could have landed and been more than a dreary execution of a promising concept with pretty imagery. Nevertheless, from the oversight of Disney it is a refreshing thing to see such an unusual concept and style. I hope O'Dessa isn't the last such experiment, I hope better ones are to come.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
1 comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
14 comments
Read more