There's something nearly radical about Columbus in the indie film landscape, by way of its deploying shots that position m-e-s of architecture actually as architecture, not as semiotic-thematic eggs you have to hatch in order to discover their broader significance. The film invites a gaze, from the very beginning, that's truly akin to looking at human-built structures in the midst of the natural world. In this, I think it deviates from art cinema in a profound way. Canonically, art films…

As is now the custom, I watched this a few days ago and so things are a little fuzzy. But I recall the important thing, and that's that this was a breakthrough for me, triggering an epiphany that finally allowed me to "get" the whole giallo thing. There is, I'm quite confident, nothing remotely profound about this; I'm just an amateur. I'm probably oversimplifying the genre though a description that's surely of the most elementary sort. But it took me…

I came out of it thinking it was like watching part of a movie, lacking a beginning and an end. (Sheesh, even Godard might bristle at the prospect.) Now I think that's not quite right, like, it has a beginning and an end but they're underdeveloped...and so is the middle. Haven't been much of a horror guy, but lately am more interested in how tools like sound are used sooooo manipulatively (not saying this is a bad thing) to elicit…