I suspect that Giuliani is attempting to comment on the state of creativity and how frustrating and how prominent the feeling of self-doubt can be even for the most seemingly successful of artists. He succeeds, I suppose, in relaying this thesis. However, regardless of the trippy scenario of his film, his message is clear in the story’s outcome. If Will and Mr. Drummond had simply continued their conversation over a few non-laced glasses of cognac, the resolution would have been the same. In other words, the movie is weird for weird’s sake.
Still, Cherry is a gorgeous looking film. The Gatsby-ish setting in the English countryside, coupled with the era-appropriate costumes and the easygoing Jazz Age musical accompaniment, is nicely evocative of the 1930’s backdrop. The direction is simple yet efficient and just stylish enough not to be cookie-cutter.
“…weird for weird’s sake.”
Buckingham makes a pitch-perfect English gentleman; alas, he’s about forty years too late because he would’ve been ideal for a movie like Chariots of Fire. Ambegaonkar’s character comes off as a functioning illiterate (did I mention that he’s supposed to be a prodigious writer?), but that’s probably more the fault of the director guiding the performance.
Cherry purports to be a defense of the tribulations of the creative mind. Yet much like its main character, the movie might benefit from the inspiration of a magical muse to help it truly take flight.
"…a strange experiment of the absurd, a conjuring of the muses by way of an acid trip."
