The Book Of Vision

Its spirituality can feel a bit cringeworthy or half baked. But I found myself giving into its mysteries.

Carlo S. Hintermann’sThe Book of Vision, produced by Terrence Malick, is a narratively plodding but visually engaging philosophical journey.

Its unhelpful Malick-style traits are vague philosophising and a lack of recognisable human behaviour, but it’s still a film that sticks in your mind.

It's been a while since seeing Charles Dance's name on a cast list has suggested anything compelling to follow, and here is just another story that allows him to don a wig, doublet and hoes and help us solve a time-shift mystery. "Eva" (Lotte Verbeek) is studying the history of medicine at a remote facility where "Dr. Anmuth" (Dance) is her supervisor. As she delves deeper into the mysteries of her science, she discovers that he was also an 18th century physician at the cutting edge (depending on your perspective) of clinical practise diverting from that hardly evolved since God was a boy and leeches were ten for a pound down the apothecary. Her research uncovers the eponymous piece of literature and that's when we all start to experience the parallel timelines of this story as her 21st century, pregnant, character shows startling similarities to that of an 18th century counterpart "Elizabeth" - a wealthy woman in the care of "Anmuth". Facing modern day pressures from colleagues and latter day pressures from family and friends entirely suspicious of any kind of new thinking, she must walk a perilous tightrope. Verbeek is not a very imposing actor, and here she is supported by the equally unimpressive Sverrir Gudnason ("Lindgren") and though, admittedly, Dance does bring a little gravitas to the proceedings, he too struggles to get what could have been quite an intriguing story…