best movie i've ever seen.

Admirable film.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

...and a war. after 66 years late, it remains surprising, fresh and fascinating. not only for the mix of stop-motion and live-actin but for a sort of magic who escape from explanations. it is the film who reminds the feelings at the circus show from childhood. and that does it more than amusing. but a trip in time, discovering a real usefull lesson about friendship and the meanings of war. so, a flowe. and two men.

In January 2007 I went to London expressly to attend part of a two-month long Luis Bunuel retrospective held at the National Film Theatre where I caught up with all but one of the remainder of his films. During that same period, a concurrent season of movies featuring Humphrey Bogart (on the 50th anniversary of his death) and Lauren Bacall and another one dedicated to Canadian animator Norman McLaren were also held. Although I am a fan of Animation in general, I was a bit wary of McLaren's work falling in the abstract branch of it but had always been interested in checking it out regardless since the late British film critic Leslie Halliwell deemed his best-known piece BEGONE DULL CARE (1949) worthy of his full **** rating. While the latter was indeed one of several shorts I managed to catch during that one particular evening, I cannot say I was sufficiently impressed to follow it up on my own time, as it were. Still, learning that 3 more films of his were nominated for the Best Short Subject Academy Award, I decided it was high time to reacquaint myself with McLaren's oeuvre given my ongoing Oscar marathon.The 8-minute short under review is the only one of the three to emerge victorious and deservedly so; bafflingly, this won in the Best Documentary Short category while also being nominated for Best Short Subject. The simple plot deals with two neighbors who spend a lazy afternoon basking in the sun and reclining on a chair reading newspapers in front of their respective house but, tellingly, the headlines of one newspaper is completely belied by the other's. Suddenly a flower spurts out from a seed sown right beneath their feet and, after their initial mutual admiration for it, each one lets greed get the better of him and both start claiming it as their own private property. This sets off a battle of wills that soon turns increasingly physical, irrationally violent and ultimately fatal for all three parties; the scene where one erects a barricade between the two houses enclosing the flower on his side of the fence while the other relocates the latter to his advantage or having the flower use its petals to, as it were, take cover from its battling masters adds a nice touch of Surrealism.However, the film's real coup comes at the end when, having trampled on the flower during their struggle, both men are overtaken by a feverish bloodlust that sees them enter each other's home and murder the occupants (a wife and a baby in both cases) through vicious kicking or throwing about! By this time, the violent men have adopted Indian warpaint on their faces and, when they eventually expire, the once-important white fence is transformed into crosses on each respective grave that have been dug where the houses used to stand. With time, more flowers bloom both on the graves themselves and on the earth surrounding them. The end titles, then, is an animated collage of the phrase "Love Thy Neighbor" in various languages. Although the film was originally issued sporting a monotone electronic score by McLaren himself (also available on "You Tube"), I elected to watch it accompanied by a score (recorded in 2010) by an obscure outfit named Versa that very effectively counterpoints the on screen action.

Two neighbours sit opposite one another reading the same paper, smoking the same pipes and enjoying their property and lives. Things get even better when a beautiful flower grows in the middle of the joint garden that both men love for its appearance and aroma. However when they both try to appreciate the flower at the same time a minor squabble starts up regarding ownership of the flower and soon the conflict spirals out of control.I watched this short film after having it mentioned in discussions on classic short films I should see as part of trying to see more films than just the blockbusters that Hollywood kicks out month after month. Watching it more than fifty years after it was made I was surprised by how fresh it did feel. Of course it is still relevant, which is not really down to Maclaren but more down to the nature of man I think but the plot does still work. Modern viewers might feel that it runs a little longer than it should and it is pretty obvious in what it is saying and this was a quibble for me but not a deal breaker. What carried this simple morality tale was the animation, which is stop-motion but still feels fun and creative now.Using live things to do stop motion must be pretty difficult – it is a time consuming and painstaking process with clay and things (that can be kept still when you need them to be) but with humans that can lose position it is more challenging. Credit to Maclaren that it looks great and flows really well throughout. A classic short then even if it is not perfect. The simple message is laid on pretty thick and is not as smart as some would say but it is still smart enough to hold it together while the animation feels fresh and inventive.

This short, which combines live-action with stop-motion animation, was nominated for two Oscars and won for Best Documentary Short. The events depicted become more ironic as they unfold and to describe any of the details to any great degree would be unfair to the short and to future viewers. Totally recommended.