Tales from the Gimli Hospital (1988)

the audience applauded

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

On a second viewing, my appreciation for this 80's oddity has grown significantly. I have not really "understood" it more per se (I'm not sure if I will ever truly be able to entirely "understand" this film and I do not think that I'm supposed to), but I certainly have found more moments to cherish, tiny details that add to the overall absurdity that this work of art so gloriously embodies.Bending and twisting genres and genre conventions, "Tales from the Gimli Hospital" is the greatest (and probably the only) black tragicomedy-horror-melodrama-avant garde- slapstick-thriller-love story I have ever seen, one that bathes in its gloriously Gothic and often sad atmosphere. Melancholy soaks the movie's rather scary surface, but this melancholy is also accompanied with a sharp sense of humor largely encompassed by witty and surreal visual gags, moments so absurd you cannot help but laugh. Despite its massive and bizarre combo of varying genres, "Tales from the Gimli Hospital" never feels jumbled because its style always has the same bite. The music and performances do not change, and the overall mood doesn't either, the only thing that changes is the audience's reaction, which I feel is the best way to mix and combine genres. Guy Maddin uses his signature, silent-film-mimicing style to great effect, capturing the charm of oldie horror films and classic slapstick with a totally weird and somewhat manic twist!

Guy Maddin's "Tales from Gimli Hospital" is a surreal locomotive of a film that never for a second pretends to make a lick of sense. Characters and events lack logic and motivation, leaving the proceedings within an oddball world of duck feathers, Indian burials, and mute men (some in blackface). The result is intriguing yet pretentious and too deliberately ambiguous (while "Eraserhead" made less narrative sense, its 'clues' were more meticulously assembled), but shows promise from writer-director Guy Maddin, who successfully invokes the classic styles of German Expressionism and even "Hour of the Wolf"-era Ingmar Bergman.

I picked up this movie since I live in Gimli, and have heard interesting things about Guy Maddin. Though certainly a strange and surrealist film, it is also a monument and critique of Icelandic culture, and Gimli, where he had a summer cottage. If you know the history of Gimli, and are familiar with Icelandic culture, certain parts of the film do not seem strange at all. I would be interested in knowing how people not knowing these things interpreted things like the marriage across the river, or the food served at the hospital. I am in love with the aesthetics of it. He has been able to capture the exact look of early films, right down to actors and costuming, yet this doesn't seem to take over the film. Though I am personally a bigger fan of Maddin's short films, I enjoyed trying to work my way through this.

In the modern town of Gimli, two young children watch their mother dying in hospital. To distract them they are told a story of old Gimli by their grandmother. In the story it is Gimli years ago when live was disrupted by an outbreak of smallpox. With poor medical facilities available to him, Einar finds himself in a nightmarish half-waking state of "care" with other sufferers, including his friend Gunnar, who are somewhere between life and death. The two friends grow close but shared secrets threaten to tear them apart as the world around them changes quickly.As someone who actually likes Guy Maddin I still have to be honest and say that, while my favourite films of his have narratives I like, usually his work is not where you want to come for stories that grip you and make a lot of sense. And so it is with his first feature film, a story that is being told to two children who, for some reason, are in the room where their mother is dying; it sounds strange and indeed it is. The narrative is interesting enough but if that's all there was here of value then you'd have given up quite quickly; happily there is enough of interest going on to engage the audience despite the narrative being rather incoherent at times. This is not to say that it will appeal to all viewers because of course it will not, but for those that "get" his other films, the story will not be a problem.The reason for this is that his unique style is fully on display here (albeit with a lower budget) and this makes it interesting if not totally engrossing. At times the style overwhelmed the lesser substance to such an extent that it did feel rather hollow but this was a rare feeling for me. Normally I have that problem with his shorts but, with a low running time, it usually doesn't matter so much. With his features it can be a problem but he mastered it with the wonderful Cowards Bend At The Knee and he does enough to cover it here. It did feel a bit sparse at times although that is probably more to do with me being used to his bigger budget films (bigger being a comparative term) rather than the film being weak visually. The cast don't really give much in the way of performances so much as be carried along with the direction but this isn't that much of a problem since the film was never about them.Overall this film is an acquired taste that will not appeal to those who dislike other Maddin films. Compared to his later films, this feels a lot less flashy and sparse but it still works and will please fans of Maddin. Narrative-wise it has some problems that viewers may find difficult to get past but the many strange and imaginative touches to the overall delivery of the film more than cover for these issues and, while not an equal to some of his recent work, this is still worth a watch.