Firstly I should say that with anything we create, there are two ways of releasing it. The first is by saying nothing at all, and allowing anyone interested to interpret it as they will. This is of course, ideal, however in my experience practically impossible. I have found that by saying nothing one leaves open the door to wild speculation and misguided (or simply naive) conclusions about the work, which tend to spread in the absence of sensible opinion. Frustrating. The second way is then to say something, to be precise about it. The immediate drawback of this is that one must be very clear and unedited, or else it risks coming out as complete nonsense (and practically every interview I have had comes out this way). So I will use this platform to give a cursory introduction to what I have done in this film, without anecdotes, summary or over complication.

Let me be clear about the following; The film has no story. The film has no meaningful dialogue or any exposition, it lacks any expressive animation or bold colours. There is nothing extraordinary about the design. There is nothing ‘imaginative’ about it, for that word now describes very specific criteria. In short; it is the anti-animation. I wanted to achieve a complete asceticism, guided as much as possible by emotion, a feeling of internal coherence rather than narrative logic. Above all, to borrow the words of Chris Ware, to create a feeling of what it’s like to be alive. The only rules observed in it are a standard 3 act structure and thematic consistency, all else was brought into question.

The common reaction to this type of film is that it’s boring, too slow, testing and often self-centered. I can sympathize with this, I have fallen asleep during some of my favorite films, it took me months of quite intense unlearning before I could absorb them properly for what they are. The fact is that we are so used to being treated like idiots by directors that we tend have an initial bewilderment with real works of cinema. Our normal response is to politely say that they are beautiful but secretly feel a bit lost. Bullshit. We ought to start knowing what we hate and what we love and not being afraid of saying so. The animation industry is in particular need of polemical discussion.

Beauty, or let’s say, aesthetic originality, is the minimum requirement for animation, so personally I can’t take any such complement seriously, I have no intention of making eye-candy. I should then explain something of the content of the film, without drawing any exact conclusions about it. It’s specifically inspired by landlords I have lived with in London during 2005/6. It seems to me one of society’s most peculiar creations are small-time landlords; their living is made almost automatically, sometimes accidentally, and because of this they seem to lose the spirit which keeps us all going. Life without some kind of daily struggle seems utterly terrifying to me, much more terrifying than fire breathing dragons or the tragedy of a rat not being able to cook, but that’s me. Above all it’s goal was to create a character’s inner world, an attempt to express their personal feelings visually (this is why I employed the use of entoptic phenomenon, arguably the most private images we can see). The self imposed restraint here was to do so without seeing the main characters face, to remove that great shortcut to emotion, and to see if it still worked.

At the same time Serial Entopics is just a whisper. A collection of vignettes, each of which is of personal significance, which I hope will be of some significance to others. As I have constantly stated about it, I can only speak of it’s intentions, I haven’t a clue if it will actually resonate with anyone. If not I hope I haven’t wasted your time.

David OReilly
Berlin 2007