You really have to watch this whole movie before you form an opinion on it,and if you miss the last shocking 30 seconds then you’ll probably have a lowopinion of this movie. This one really need to be re-released on DVD (orat least video besides at the National Archives!) so it can get an audience.

• The title is the literal translation of the greek word “autopsia”, i.e. autopsy (from ‘auto’=self and ‘opsis’=sight).
• Third part of “The Pittsburgh Trilogy”.
• In order to obtain entry to the morgue, Stan Brakhage had to agree that he would not show any of the faces of the deceased. Also, the film had to be approved by all the medical examiners who were captured on film.

(I watched this film as part of the DVD short film collection of StanBrakhage entitled, BY BRAKHAGE: AN ANTHOLOGY.)

2) Shot by Mr. B in a busy metropoliton morgue. The recently deceased areprepared for embalming by technicians we barely see. Hands wearing rubbergloves open torsos with scalpels. Heads are opened and brains are removed.Real people are pulled apart and thrown away. Who were they? Who are we?Grainy 16mm color stock. Available light. Moderately long lenses. Nosound. No music. Silence.

3) This 30 minute documentary on three human autopsies is one of the mostdisturbing yet intruiging things that I have ever seen on film. If youcanimagine it, they show it. Everything but the corpses faces are shown.ButI am willing to bet that if Brakhage was allowed to show the faces hewouldhave.This movie delves into the idea of human curiosity and vision likeneverdone before.A thinker.

4) This film was quite perturbing to me at first, yet at the same time I wassomewhat fascinated, I was tempted to stop watching it, but I stuck it out. It shows in detail the full internals of the human body, and (here’s aspoiler) seeing a corpse without any internal organs after an autopsy reallyshed new light for me on how the human body is designed.

Mr. Brakhage (God rest his soul) has done a gritty, stark, as well aspoignant and sad portrait of how human life is so temporary, for want of abetter term. It made me wonder how the people on the table in this filmdied, how they came to be in the Pittsburgh morgue where this was filmed. This film was also a reminder to myself that I should enjoy my life while Ican.

5) Personally, I didn't really gain a whole lot from THE ACT OF SEEINGWITH ONE'S OWN EYES. I've noticed a lot of really highly rated reviewson here for the film, and I'm kinda surprised. Maybe I missed somethingthat other reviewers felt "moved" by but I found the film prettytedious and basically pointless.

The "action" of the film is a bunch of autopsy footage that is filmedin an "art-house" style – lots of extreme close-ups, weird editing,etc…and with no sound or dialogue.

I guess THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES could be considered astudy of human anatomy, or maybe (if you really wanna dig a little)some sort of comment on the fragility of humanity or whatever – but Ipersonally found it to be a bunch of semi-interesting but ultimatelydull autopsy footage. If that's your thing, then this will be a winnerfor you. As for me – I've seen more interesting ER footage. Not a "bad"film, as it isn't really a "film" in any traditional sense – I justfound nothing really notable about it – 4/10.

6) I’ve seen a few films like that. For example "Aftermath" from spain etc.Butthis one – it’s finally after 32 years the best one. You hear no sound,nonoise, nothing. Your imagination does it for you. The pictures we see areboth: beautiful and awful. If you had the chance to see it – takeit!!

7) A beautifully shot film. Suddenly you realise that you are looking atbitsof people, an empty skull. A doctor speaking calmly in a microphone, withabloodstain. The fact that there is no sound makes it even moreimpressive.Disturbing but fascinating.

Though many may find this film repulsive, I find it utterly beautifulbecause of the certain sadness it evokes. The anonymity of the people wesee being cut up make us more aware of how fragile human life can be. Thelack of sound only adds to the poignancy of the film.

9) This film is a truly artistic mastery of the form. Brakhage hassucceeded in taking images, that at times can be gruesome, and combinedthem into a dance of sorts. His mastery of camera movement and editinghave created a work that despite it’s grotesque imagery, is exciting tolook at. The vivid colors, and smooth motion he achieved have asoothing feeling to the viewer, rather than shocking. Through hiselegance behind the camera, Brakhage manages to captivate the viewer,not with the images that he shows, rather with the pacing and and styleof his work. The choice of no soundtrack either, adds to thistrance-like effect experienced from this film. Overall a 10 rating anda masterpiece of Avant-Garde Cinema.

10) When I started watching that film i almost had to puke… consideryourself as a tough guy, after watching the first ten minutes askyourself again. You will see how bodies are devoured(wrong word but itfits!)completely and all organs are removed by people who seem to cannot be shocked by anything. After I saw the first brain being pulledout I had to puke, really!!! The Movie is complete silenced but itslogical when you refer to the title. The Viewer shall concentrate onwhat he is seeing, not being disturb by Audios(by the way you wouldn’twant to hear anything ). Wheather he finds it offensive or not hehas to deal with it, everybody in his own way.

Why making such a movie? Very difficult questions i think, because onone hand such offensive movies are art (art can be shocking tooremember this;) ) on the other side such movies have a destructivecharacter and dangerous character for soft minded Viewers(its nothingbad u just save your sweet dreams;) )

But the fact that u see this strong pictures makes u remember thatevery second of live is most important and can not be replaced.

I didn’t see other Films from Stan Brakhage, so I don’t know if he onlydid such strong movies, nevertheless I would recommend this movie topeople that haven’t seen enough offensive things in their lives andwould warn everybody who cant fit such pictures with their ethicalbeliefs.

Their are sure more entertaining movies out there, but there aren’tenough movies so experimental and powerful in breaking "reality tunnels" (Robert Anton Wilson) like this one.

For all German readers i recommend the book "Film as subversive Kunst"for a complete review and for many other shocking(?) movies

2) Gary Busey is no actor-He is dynamite.Firing through this movie like aman long used to bottling lightening and still loving it; even the mostcasual observer will be incapable of indifference. His turn here as TedAndrews,(a Vietnam vet with a heart of gold that however tolerates nononsense)is as nonsensical as it is enthralling.But by goodness is itenthralling. The plot, it has to be said, is somewhat unfeasible: ‘Mantalks his ex-wife into accepting that their children ought to accompanyhim on an unnecessary and dangerous Journey to Australia to sell hisluxury Yaught. On route said Yaught is attacked by a bunch of evil blahblah blah blah ad nauseum’ – However, in this wonderful world of GaryBusey, such things as plot and feasibility seem quite peripheral andsimply nothing to worry about. In fact, i challenge anyone to considerin a cool manner such rational things whilst faced with thecaptivating, rich and insane flicker sitting just behind Gary Busey’seyes. Absolutely brilliant!

3) This film was so bad and naff I had to fast forward some of the scenesto get through the predictable & cringy parts. It’s obviously theepitome of an 80’s B movie, with mostly B actors and B acting. Buseyfails abysmally in his attempt at playing the good, heroic, family guybut ends up competing (for an Oscar nomination?) with Laura Warner in aseries of hilarious over-the-top dual performances. Everything from thestunts, production, sound, (tacky) soundtrack, picture etc. cheap andit’s weird because it looks like the children’s voices were dubbed withadult ones which makes their performance even worse than it is already.There is absolutely nothing memorable from neither of the characters orlines apart from perhaps the gun tooting blonde bimbo who gets chuckedout of the Hotel balcony but only for obvious reasons LOL. Ray Shark istotally unbelievable as the head of the terrorist gang and just ends upmaking you laugh pitifully at him and his character’s style. I wasbaffled to find out that Arnold Vosloo (perhaps I shouldn’t be givenhis B-movie portfolio) was in this rubbish as well, looking like somegangly Euro boy in full 80’s B-movie gear & hairdo. It makes othersecond-rate films with him in like "Con express" look like Hollywoodmasterpieces. My advice to anyone, is stay away from this horriblefilm! Sorry but I’m really shocked at some of the comments I’ve readhere, is there something I missed?? John Cardos is lucky to have suchloyal fans…

4) I sat through it, turned it off, ejected it, rewound it, and went on aboutmy day as if nothing had happened. A few hours later I’m sitting down towrite this review and I can think of absolutely nothing to write. I know Iwatched it, and stayed awake for the whole thing, but I was so entirelyunaffected by this that here, only a few hours later, I’ve alreadyforgotteneverything. Stay away from this for no other reason than it’s terrible.Nota single part is remotely interesting. Rating: 5/40

Her parents demand answers. What they get is injustice. Forced to fight fortheir daughter’s rights they seek the highest Court in the land. This istheir story.

Uniformly good acting, most especially from little Lauren Hewett (seen inSTRICTLY BALLROOM, KIDEO, OCEAN GIRL and this year’s CUBBYHOUSE) who wasonly nine when she made this. She puts across real pathos as the afflictedSamantha. Pamela William’s script is up to speed and Nigel Westlake chipsinwith a good music score. Like most court-room dramas, this well and trulyholds the attention of the viewer.

Recommended viewing here.

2) This is like the forgotten good film in Fredric March's career. Peopletalk about ANTHONY ADVERSE, DR. JECKYLL AND MR. HYDE, THE BEST YEARS OFOUR LIVES, INHERIT THE WIND, or THE ADVENTURES OF MARK TWAIN, but ANACT OF MURDER is rarely recalled because of it's odd story. At a timewhen American film audiences wanted to forget World War II and thedeath and destruction it entailed, March and his wife Florence Eldrichappeared in the only film where their roles were equally importantwhere the subject was euthanasia. It was well told, with March as JudgeCooke, a fiercely strict jurist who rarely showed a drop of mercytowards a convicted defendant. He finds his beloved wife is dying of anincurable, and slowly debilitating disease. While she slowly declines(and very visibly shows her own suffering) the Judge grimly determinesto kill her by a convenient car accident. But after the accident theJudge confesses, and faces conviction in his own courthouse. Only atthe last moment is he saved from the unforgiving penal code he isalways upholding.

It is well acted (Edmond O'Brien giving good support as aliberal-minded attorney who is romancing March and Eldrich's daughter).But the best part is watching the chemistry between March and Eldrich.Only their joint appearances in ANOTHER PART OF THE FOREST and INHERITTHE WIND come close to this, but Eldrich's parts in those films is notas essential as her role in this one. And the subject matter is rarelytackled (certainly not in the 1930s or 1940s). If the end is a bit of acop-out (the trial reveals that March is not guilty) it still is abrave subject to have tackled at all.

2) I do not want to comment on other people's comments, but the thin linebetween documentary and fictional filmmaker has always been tenuous,and today everyone knows that even Flaherty staged and arranged manyfilmed events in his legendary "Nanook of the North" (1922). And whyshould a filmmaker with an artistic sensibility not transform any realevents into "faction", as we saw lately with Ari Folmans excellentanimated documentation "Waltz with Bashir" (2008)? This film is -against common belief – NOT a documentary. It is one of many earlyGreenaway films, where he played with the documentary form. There areother films like "Vertical Features Remake" (1978), "Dear Phone" (1977)and long "The Falls" (1980). In these films the content is so absurd(like the "Violent Unknown Event" in "The Falls"), that the recipientwill get the joke pretty soon. This is different with this film, sincethere are no hints if the people interviewed really experiencedlightning strokes or are just acting. So the question of dealing withpeople (cutting in mid-sentence etc.) is just part of the processGreenaway wants to get you in: This is simply not to inform, but todis-inform to show the limitations and possibilities of manipulationthat lie within the documentary form. And – as you can see with manyuser comments – he is quite successful with this film, since peoplealways infer from the form to the content (even if they have seen "ManBites Dog", 1992)! So this film is probably among the most successfulmockumentaries since there is no context to dissolve the mystery (onlynow, if you read my comment, but probably you have seen this rarelyshown film then already). The techniques of playing with form andfurther blurring the line between fiction and fact can be studied in avery detailed and playful way with "Act of God". Since I made a seminaron mockumentaries, I showed this film first and asked the students towrite a comment on it. The outcome was – even with the title of theseminar in the back of their heads – quite astonishing. So get hang ofthe title and make your own opinion of one of mockumentaries best.

3) Documentary makers are NOT artists. The worst kind of documentary maker isthe kind who thinks he’s an artist, and I suspect that the worst kind of"artistic" documentary maker is the kind who began as a painter (or somesuch). In painting, aesthetic considerations really are paramount as theyare almost nowhere else. Painting is an art form with no social influencewhatever, and a painter’s ONLY professional obligation is to createbeautiful pictures. A documentary maker, unlike a painter, has severalpotentially conflicting professional obligations; chief among them (listencarefully, Greenaway) IS TO INFORM.

A couple of times Greenaway’s film threatens to be informative – as Irecall, there’s a brief discussion of what happens when a body is struck bylightning, and an even briefer synopsis of the physics. But Greenawayundercuts both moments by letting us know he’s an artist. Running acrossthe bottom of the screen, to make it as easy as possible for us to avoidactually learning anything, is something like the following: "Lightningeffects are called for in Macbeth, Peer Gynt, The Tempest, King Lear…" Idon’t want to be given a list of stage works involving lightning; if Iwanted such a list, I would compile it myself, which would be fun. On theother hand, how lightning is conducted through a human body is exactly thekind of thing I do want to be told – and which images would help meunderstand. My eyes drifted to that damned pointless list for a moment,andI missed it.

Greenaway’s works of fiction may well be brilliant. Michael Powell,possibly the finest director Britain has ever produced, wasn’t any good atdocumentaries, either. He only made one, at the end of his career, when hecouldn’t find anything else to do. Watching it you sense exactly the samething as you sense while watching "Act of God": an artist – whether good orbad, it’s impossible to tell – utterly ill at ease, doing what artists werenever meant to do, and not knowing how to go about it.

And what’s with Greenaway’s technique with his interview subjects? He cutsaway from them in mid anecdote, sometimes mid SENTENCE, for no reasonexceptto make them look foolish. If they came to him in good faith, he had noright.

2) This is a documentary about a couple of tax resisters, Randy Kehler andBetsy Corner, who lose their house to the IRS. They both seem to be sincerepeople of the highest principles: whether or not you agree with theirpolitics, you can’t help but admire their courage. Even the IRS agentsseemed to admire them, albeit grudgingly. The narration (read by MartinSheen) reminds us that tax protest is as American as apple pie, going allthe way back to the Revolution and earlier. This is a lesson that needs tobe retaught every few years. There is something fundamental and verybeautiful about the ideals and actions of Kehler and Corner at the start ofthis movie.

Unfortunately, they let themselves be exploited and their principlescheapened by as nasty a collection of opportunists as you will ever see allin one place. These loathsome exploiters have the gall to accuse the youngblue-collar family that move into the house of stealing the house from theoriginal owners. "How can you raise your son here, knowing that you stolethis house?" asks one of these creeps. Meanwhile, the fact that the newowners are the only honest-to-God born and bred proletarians in the movie,surrounded by leisured bourgeois meddlers, is embarrassinglyobvious.

Pete Seeger and Daniel Berrigan show up. The media descend on the premises. The exploiters hold hands in a circle for the camera, and chant slogans andsing "We will not be moved." A few idiots play retarded white-boy rhythmson the bongos while the others smile and nod appreciatively (like they can’twait to buy the CD). Thoreau would’ve tossed his beans.

I happen to agree with Kehler’s and Corner’s principles. The courage theyshowed in actually living their lives in accordance with these principlesmore than makes up for the rest of it. I just wish they’d had the courageto tell all the coat-tailers to get lost.

3) Although many people like myself don't mind paying taxes, we hate theidea that a significant percentage of our tax dollars go to defensecontractors and the war effort. It's painful to be working for anti-warefforts knowing that you are also in a sense supporting themfinancially. Therefore, there are groups of people who refuse to paytheir taxes. They figure out how much they owe the government everyyear, and give that money directly to charities that help witheducation, health care, housing, the environment etc. I'd like to beone of those people but what stops me personally from doing that isthat I am aware of the anarchy of what would happen if everybody justsupported what they morally saw as correct. Millions of fundamentalistsfor example would be supporting Christian schools and housing, leavingpeople who need secular public schools and housing out of the loop.

Still, I support the intentions of the family depicted in thisdocumentary. The government has auctioned their house away, and aworking class family has bought it – for a fraction of what the houseis actually worth. What the tax protesters fail to accept though, isthat they've lost their house, not their home. They try to talk the newfamily into understanding their predicament, and at first the newfamily is sympathetic, but the family also knows that they will neverbe able to afford a house like this again. There is stubbornness onboth sides. The tax protesters attract a lot of support and attention,and those who find the tax protesters 'un-American', side with the newowners of the house. What ensues is a three-ring-circus that is aperfect microcosm of America as it stands today; divided and profuselyinflexible. The tax protesters try to bend over backward to help thenew family by building them a new house, but the new family refuses tomove – which I can't blame them for after the way they have beenpainted as evil by some of those in the tax protesters' circle. Thesolution to me would have been to build the house for the family of taxprotesters who were kicked out of their house (which is inevitablyconsidered). One has to accept that one must make sacrifices for whatthey believe in, and to attach oneself to a piece of land and thematerial things on it is antithetical to the ideals they espouse. Thisis an interesting documentary, but it spends too much time on thesensationalist battle, instead of covering the wider picture of the taxprotester's movement.

4) The film documents a Colrain, MA. couple’s principled refusal to pay federalincome "war" tax, the support community that formed in response to theconfiscation of their home by the IRS, and the conflict with the youngcouple with newborn who bought the home at a government auction. In the endI was not convinced that withholding taxes was a sustainable form ofprotest, but it was wonderful to see a balanced story of real peoplepeacefully defending their convictions.

As was often the IRA modus operendi, a large bomb is detonated in centralLondon during mid Christmas shopping. The same night, Michael McGurk giveshimself up to British Police. In an attempt to protect both the family andthe identity of their informant, the Police place McGurk under awitness-protection program, and send him out to Australia for relocationandintegration.

The IRA however are understandably toey about this arrangement and hire atop US assassin to clean up their mess for them. Patrick Bergin is in fineform as McGurk and Elliot Gould has no reason to push himself to the limitas Callaghan, the assassin. This guy REALLY enjoys hiswork!

As I said at the outset, an eminently watchable caper, just a tadlong!

2) !!!!!! SPOILERS !!!!!! – And no I`m not making any of this up

My first and only viewing of ACT OF BETRAYAL was way back in 1988 and it`s asign of an extremely poor mini series that I can still remember all itsflaws 15 years on

The central plot alone is a major problem: IRA man Michael McGurk turnssupergrass after a bombing on London that leaves several civilians dead . Heand his family are given safe haven to Australia under witness protection tostart a new life and the IRA command in the Republic of Ireland hire anAmerican hitman called Callaghan to kill the McGurk family . There areseveral obvious problems with this scenario. Didn`t McGurk ever realise thatthe provisional IRA are a terrorist organisation ? I`m just kind of curiousas to why he was so angry about innocent civilians being killed when it hasbeen happening for 20 years ? Perhaps he thought he joined GreenPeace bymistake ? And his naming names wouldn`t have led to IRA men being jailed asseen here . Internment in Northern Ireland had been stopped in the mid 1970swhich meant for a conviction to be gained in terrorist trials in theprovince hard evidence such as forensics were needed to jail terrorists ,statements from a supergrass would never stand up in a Northern Irelandcourt . And why would the IRA employ an American hitman ? I was under theimpression they have their own execution squads . And there`s a factualerror in having the IRA command in the Republic Of Ireland , since the splitbetween the officials and provisionals in 1970 the provisionals IRA commandhas been based in the north not the republic .

As the plot goes on it gets more and more contrived , Michael starts anaffair with some Aussie blonde with republican sympathies while his wifestarts having strong feelings towards the special branch officer guardingthem ( I guess that`s why the word betrayal features in the title ? ) , theofficer goes home to Belfast where he is abducted and dies at the hands ofthe IRA who find a plane ticket from Australia and a cuddly toy Kangeroowhich makes realise the McGurks are in Oz and via Michael`s extra maritallover who unknowingly gives away too much information Callaghan manages totrack down the McGurks . Yes that`s right a massive country like Australiawith a population of over 20 million people and a hitman can still track youdown even though you`ve changed your identity and all because you fanciedsome extra marital sex with a blonde bimbo !

As far as I know ACT OF BETRAYAL was shown only once on British televisionand considering it makes PATRIOT GAMES and THE DEVIL`S OWN look likedocumentaries it was shown once too often

• Olaf was so taken with Rober that he decided to make a film about him without knowing why. Due to filmmaking good fortune, they got the whole cycle of a monk visiting the layman’s world, when Robert disrobed, married, divorced and became a monk again.
• Due to the long filming period the film was shot on many different video formats, standard Beta, SP Beta, DV and HDV. About 178 hours were filmed during the 10 years.
• A polish man was having doubt regarding becoming a monk, he contacted the director and was allowed seeing a preliminary cut of the film – after seeing the film his doubts were erased and he is now in Sri Lanka in a monastery.

What is more important: after having seen the trailer so many times Idid not know what to think of the main character. Was he honest or washe pulling our leg? After having seen the film I really like the man: Ifeel his uncertainty and I am convinced he's a 100 % pure and honest.That's the biggest achievement of this film for me… you managed tobring me into the soul of a fascinating person. I now understand hisfeelings and deeds. Not an easy thing to do, and the filmmakers didjust that. By the way… I love the reconstructions and the dream/hopesequences with the astronaut. Great cinema.

The only remark I would make is that I have the impression that thereare too many endings. However, by the end of the film I was under timepressure and maybe that's why I got this impression. This is nottraditional editing in the film, but it's contemporary editing thatfunctions very well.

A fascinating film.

2) i saw an early cut of this film and was very impressed. it spans manyyears, and thereby gives one a real sense of the evolution one man'srelationship to religion, life, women, etc. though not a Buddhist, ifound the issues raised and discussed of great interest. in this sensethe film appeals to universal interests – our struggle to understandourselves, our universe and our relationships. like most good films ithas some very funny and also poignant moments. the premise alone isexcellent: a British man moves to Iceland and becomes one of the fewBuddhist monks. when his faith falters, and he is tempted away by awoman, we have great cinema in the making. his return to the faith, ofcourse, gives the story a wonderful arc. given the growing interest inBuddhism in western cultures, i think this film will (and should) dovery well. see it!

3) The documentary Act Normal is not your usual cup of tea. It is truewhat the filmmakers say that it is about a monk who disrobes and getsmarried and that it is filmed for ten years. It is though clear thatthe filmmakers were not always around for these 10 years, but it doesnot compromise the story. Some dramatic license is taken whenrecreating the Monk's childhood, but it serves the film well.

The DVD copy I purchased was the "director's cut" so I'm not sure howdifferent the film is from it's original but this version is perhaps atad too long. It's about 82 minutes but not really slow paced. I don'tfeel we get deep enough into the character of the monk, but still,maybe it's just the person he really is. In the first half of the film,before marriage Robert (I think that's his real name) is naive and hislaughter almost freaked me out. But after marriage, and after hisdivorce he seems more at ease.

The filmmakers state that this is a "Monk looking for love" but I don'tfully agree – It seems that this man is looking for love, but doesn'trealize that he has already found it in himself. It might be up topersonal interpretation.

Anyway, I'd also like to mention two things about the film, accordingto it's credits, the music is done by "Bardi Johannsson" and that iswhat completes it. The music is simply amazing, also (which is kind afunny) we can see how the Cameraman of the film (Santos) develops fromOK to great in his filming maturity over the 10 years the film is shot.The film also suffers for it, but it kind helps it as well, as the Monkis maturing, the cameraman is maturing.

Overall, a fine documentary, what makes it is the story and thepersistence (or luck?) of the filmmakers of having the opportunity tofilm this "love" story.