Tag Archives: Absurdism

CAPSULE: BY DESIGN (2025)

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

By Design is available to rent or purchase on-demand.

Recommended

DIRECTED BY:

FEATURING: , , Samantha Matis

PLOT: A woman swaps bodies with… a chair.

Still from By Design (2025)

COMMENTS: Body-swapping has a long tradition in cinema. From mainstream comedies (Penny Marshal’s Big) to horror/sci-fi flicks (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), it has established itself as a subgenre in our collective consciousness. More personal approaches can be found, too, using the premise to build an eccentric mood piece or a multilayered allegory with underlying social commentary (e.g.  Under the Skin). The last category is where By Design belongs.

The plot follows Camille, a single woman with a life that seems unfulfilling to her, even if she tries to hide it. She is lonely; she has female friends, but jealousy often emerges between them. Her philosophical musings, expressed in a distinctly hypnotic voice, give a sense of her unique worldview and portray a character longing for something beyond her mundane life, something that will gain her attention and maybe even love.

She finds what she’s looking for in the most unexpected place, a shop selling designer chairs. From that moment on, everything plays out like a magical realist parable. She falls in love with a specific chair she cannot have, and through the power of her desire—there isn’t explicit lore here explaining the process—she swaps bodies with it so that they never have to part. And thus her odyssey begins.

After this transformation, the narrative splits, sometimes following chair-Camille and her encounters with a charming man named Olivier, at other times focusing on her now-vacant human body. The latter scenes recall the Theater of the Absurd, since most people don’t seem to realize something is off—not even her own mother. This suggests an underlying commentary on the way people prefer her as an object and an empty vessel rather than a person.

Kramer further develops her commentary on the objectification of bodies—both female and male—through Camille’s adventures as a chair. She is literally an object now, at the disposal of her new owner Olivier, a man who has himself been a victim of objectification and can understand her. Their weirdly erotic relationship suggests a deep understanding between them. All is not as it seems, however.

Kramer tells her story with theatricality from start till finish, culminating in short pieces of choreography. Most scenes take place in interior spaces. The furniture is of minimalist and modernist design. The acting could be described as melodramatic or over-expressive. This is clearly an expressionist artistic movie, not interested in submitting to naturalism. There are even POV shots from the perspective of a chair.

By Design will appeal to a variety of audiences: those seeking art-house curiosities with unique concepts will find it enjoyable, and its themes and the way it portrays human bodies —objectified, sensual, yet soulful—will intrigue those interested in the female gaze in cinema and feminist narratives.

APOCRYPHA CANDIDATE: PASSAGES FROM JAMES JOYCE’S FINNEGAN’S WAKE (1966)

AKA Finnegan’s Wake

Recommended

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

DIRECTED BY: Mary Ellen Bute

FEATURING: Martin J. Kelley, Jane Reilly, Peter Haskell, Page Johnson

PLOT: In a series of disconnected scenes, memories, and dreams, the passing of Finnegan, AKA Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker, AKA HCE (and there may be many other names not yet known) is the occasion of a wake, an event which the deceased keeps attempting to attend despite his survivors’ reluctance for him to participate—or perhaps none of that happens.

WHY IT MIGHT MAKE THE APOCRYPHA: The next time you hear someone complain that their favorite book was adapted for the cinema and the filmmakers weren’t “faithful to the original text,” just plop them down and make them watch this ridiculously successful effort to burnish the original medium through adaptation into a new one. Passages never claims to be a literalization of Joyce’s book, instead recognizing that its greatest advantage is the power of its twisted language and putting that front and center.

Still from Passages from James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake (1966)

COMMENTS: “When is a pun not a pun?” the jolly bartender asks. It’s an unexpectedly galling question, considering that he’s inside a story that consists almost entirely of plays-on-words, that exists solely to celebrate the flexibility and incomprehensibility of language. The nerve of this guy.

James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake, the novel he spent 15 of the last 17 years of his life composing, is enshrined in history as, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “arguably one of the most complex works of 20th-century English-language fiction.” It makes pretensions to having a narrative, but if it is about anything, it’s about words, words, words, and their notorious malleability. Joyce gives nearly every sentence at least two meanings, exploiting meter and importing similar words from other languages and playing with time to such a degree that the last words of the book form a complete sentence with the first words of the book. It’s a 628-page fairground ride of a novel, and it regularly tops lists like “The 10 Most Difficult Books to Read” and features in stories like “This book club finally finished ‘Finnegans Wake.’ It only took them 28 years.” It’s a monument to inaccessibility. I haven’t read the whole thing. Have you?

So there is enormous praise to be extended to Mary Ellen Bute’s ambitiously foolhardy decision to actually try and visualize Joyce’s wandering scenarios, because it makes the effort of reading the book seem both achievable and desirable. Her film uses an adaptation created by Mary Manning in 1955 staged by the Poets’ Theatre in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but while all the language comes directly from Joyce’s text, she makes two key innovations that neither book nor stage could offer. The first is the use of tools of cinema; framing, closeups, and editing keep the language moving and prevent the focus from wandering away, while visuals can create a level of surrealism commensurate with the text. A film that looks like it will be stuck in the hall of the titular funeral party can transform unexpectedly into a burlesque show, while what has been a stagebound production through the halfway point suddenly steps out into nature.

Bute’s second contribution may be even more important: most of the film is subtitled with Joyce’s text, giving the viewer a unique opportunity to both hear and read the language and appreciate the multiple meanings and sneaky substitutions that Joyce has peppered throughout the book. (Here, “throughout” should be taken to mean “in every damn sentence.”) You know who would agree? Joyce’s countryman Samuel Beckett, who said of the original book, “You complain that this stuff is not written in English. It is not written at all. It is not to be read—or rather it is not only to be read. It is to be looked at and listened to. His writing is not about something; it is that something itself.” The film version honors this fact, dramatizing Joyce’s maddening doggerel and giving sound and shape to the words so that you cannot miss his fantastical leaps of rhyme and oronym.

It’s nice of Beckett to show up, because in reviewing a pair of films based on the works of this fellow son of the Emerald Isle, I twice made the observation that there was nothing weird about the films that wasn’t already weird in the original plays. One might expect the same to be true of these excerpts from Joyce’s novel, given that scenes have been adapted as faithfully as possible. However, the transition from prose to moving image puts the absurdism into a wholly new context. Film doesn’t just repeat the weirdness of the original; it highlights it. By the end, as HCE marches off into the sun to the strains of composer Elliot Kaplan’s oddly emotion-drenched score, I don’t have any more of an idea of what’s going on than I did at the start, but the urge to explore the puzzle further is invigorating.

WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:

“The movie creates literal visuals to go with the flowing imagery of the book that rapidly moves and shifts between scenes as in a dream… probably best taken in smaller doses. .” – Zev Toledano, The Worldwide Celluloid Massacre

(This movie was nominated for review, in a small bit of wordplay, by “Finnegans Cake”. Suggest a weird movie of your own here.)   

THEY CAME FROM THE READER-SUGGESTED QUEUE: CALAMARI UNION (1985) / THE CALAMARI WRESTLER (2004)

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

The odds that, out of the near-500 films still in our reader queue, two of them would utilize the very same chewy appetizer in their titles seem awfully remote. Yet here we are, cinematically celebrating this savory treat from Helsinki to Tokyo. So let’s see just what calamari means to these filmmakers, and whether they’d have been better off invoking jalapeño poppers.

CALAMARI UNION (1985)

DIRECTED BY: Aki Kaurismäki

FEATURING: Timo Eränkö, Kari Heiskanen, Asmo Hurula, Sakke Järvenpää, Markku Toikka

PLOT: A collection of petty criminals band together to escape the Kallio district for the greener pastures of Eira; their journey to a new neighborhood, however, will be perilous and filled with obstacles.

COMMENTS: The classic World War II caper The Great Escape is about the daring breakout of more than 80 prisoners from a Nazi prison camp. The plan requires extraordinary levels of cleverness, craftiness, and chutzpah. Even then, the odds are against them, and (spoiler alert for 80-year-old history) only three men eventually get away.

Calamari Union is The Great Escape for idiots. A collection of 14 low-level criminals all named Frank (plus an additional traveler who speaks exclusively in English that he seems to have picked up from watching movies) join forces to escape certain doom in a bad Helsinki neighborhood. Are the cops closing in? Is some crime boss about to bring the hammer down on them? No, they just don’t fit in. Too many hills, with kids and dogs running around willy-nilly. No good can come of all that. They all agree: “A sick branch must seek a healthier tree.” They must escape to the paradise of Eira.

Trouble is, they’re all comically bad at looking out for their own best interests. Upon hijacking a subway to take them to the city center, the train driver shoots one of the Franks, an event met with only casual interest from the rest of the troupe. They all independently gravitate to the same café, despite having been warned that it’s every man for himself. They chase girls, make mildly extravagant purchases, pick fights, anything to delay actually reaching their destination. Getting to the promised land would seem to be the most urgent goal, but no one is in any particular hurry to get anywhere. Even when blessed with useful skills, such as convincing a driver to hand over their vehicle with no debate, they don’t put their talents to any particular use. That, of course, is Calamari Union’s particular breed of surrealism: no one does anything logical. It’s amusing, but as aimless as the petty crooks themselves.

Many of the actors are Finnish rock musicians, which might explain the moment when the Franks all show up for a musical interlude in Continue reading THEY CAME FROM THE READER-SUGGESTED QUEUE: CALAMARI UNION (1985) / THE CALAMARI WRESTLER (2004)