Glass by Scott Hicks

3 responses to “Glass by Scott Hicks”

1. Barry Sultanoff | October 13, 2010 at 2:38 am | Reply

   I was totally immersed in this film, from beginning to end. I found it to be an engagingly sublime work of art, as flawless as any film documentary can be. From the opening rollercoaster ride, we were invited into the up-and-down-and-all-over-the-Universe consciousness of Philip Glass, whose apparent ADHD might have driven him (and others around him) mad, were it not for his capacity always to know his own unique talent–unshakably and without question–and to focus his attention (albeit obsessively) into the process of his masterful creating, throughout his life. The film reveals that he knew–and trusted completely in–his own brilliance, from the get-go. Sure, he could do conventional music (graduate Julliard, no problem)–but that only served to legitimize (for some) the launch of the unique music that was, and is, his gift to the world. This man (“crazy man,” to some) is one of the great composers of the 20th, now into the early 21st, Century. When we send a time capsule into space, his work belongs in it. To “get” this film–energetically, emotionally–one must be willing to let go, suspend disbelief, and jump into the ocean of sound that Glass creates. As he instructs us more than once in the film, this is not something to be analyzed: his music “means” nothing. It is “just” music (sound, mantra) that creates a portal through which one can touch the ineffable. But here’s the caveat: as a viewer, you gotta want to go. Otherwise, sit back and analyze all you want… and sadly, you’ll miss out on this generously-given “Ticket to Ride” into mystical realms that are entirely beyond words and conventional thinking.

2. Ray Mayron | October 12, 2010 at 6:22 pm | Reply

   I like the music of Philip Glass, and came away from the film with a deep admiration of the man. However, I felt that as documentaries go, this film fell short. The narrative arc meandered more than a back road in Haiku. Many of the interviews with family and friends bordered on the amateurish. At times I felt like I was watching a home video. Over 30 minutes of the film could have easily been cut out. Seeing Errol Morris was sadly ironic. It reminded me of just how compelling a well constructed documentary can be. The last third of the film picked up steam. Finally, I got to delight in some of his work. But by then my patience (admittedly, after a long day) had been worn thin. My advice is, skip the movie, and just enjoy the works of Philip Glass.

   • j.j. | October 13, 2010 at 7:24 pm | Reply

     in total agreement with you Ray !
     yes, i also felt that it was sadly ironic seeing Errol Morris in it and wishing he had done this documentary with his specific, intelligent Point of View……and i also agree with you Fernando about;
     “It’s the soap opera around his wife that become noisy and add nothing to the story, specially considering that I don’t remember seeing a passage where Glass expresses any concern about it. This is a documentary about him, not her, and she keeps claiming protagonism on the story”

     Thank you guys for expressing it so well…