The light, staggered percussion reminds me of rain drops, and what sounds like organic sounds (animals) and non-organic (pots, pans, and drum sounds) work together to make the image come alive in what I can best describe as a kind of "Rain Dance". It just seemed like the film had some earthy, or natural feel to it. This feeling probably came mostly from the music. Sometimes the image matches the rhythm of the sound and sometimes it plays off the expectations of the viewer by not coordinating sound and image. Although the image and audio are not perpetually synced, we know that they are connected. The film could not be what it is without either one of them. The film is mostly pure visceral stimulation. Most of the joy you get isn't from trying to decipher the images you are seeing, but just enjoying the textures, shapes and rhythm of the art. The film is given its feeling from the mood, tone and speed of the haphazard music. Thus making the music just as important of a component as the image. Seems to roughly follow the normal archetype of starting slow, building in the middle, dropping back down a little bit, then finishing big for the finale. The film does not exactly fit this model, however, as I could feel it build into a flourish only to slow down again for the end. Even if it may seem completely random, I seem to grow more accustomed to the audio/visual strain as the film progresses. As I seemed to get into the rhythm of the film, I could seem to feel when the film was going to end, even though I had no knowledge of how long the film was. It may not have been a premonition as much as it was probably just feeling right for it to end where it did. I believe that the main purpose is to simply enjoy the director's abstract artwork as it seems to dance with the film's soundtrack. If the viewer works too hard to understand, then they miss the meaning completely. It is meant to stimulate our senses in a pleasant, yet very different way than we are used to.
