(Untitled) (2009) User Reviews

The movie with no name

[Buddy-51 · 6/10 · 3 February 2012]

The movie titled "(Untitled)" is a small-scale non-commercial art film that makes fun of small, non-commercial art works – or, more precisely, those who produce, purchase or admire such works.

The story focuses on two brothers with widely differing views on art. Adrian (Adam Goldberg) is a composer whose idea of "music" is to bang away on an array of regular household items (a steel bucket being the predominant instrument in his "orchestra") resulting in an ear-splitting, atonal cacophony. Josh (Eion Bailey) is an abstract painter who's "sold out" by actually selling his works to corporate buyers, though he would now like to earn some respectability as an artist by having his own show. Madeleine (Marely Shelton) is a dealer who sells Josh's works to fund her own gallery of minimalist and conceptual art but who won't display his paintings there.

Written and directed by Jonathan Parker, "(Untitled)" offers some droll moments of offbeat humor, as it gently skewers the absurdity and self-congratulatory pretentiousness of the abstract-art world and the minions who inhabit it - though, if truth be told, there are times when the movie itself, with its minimalistic drama and lackluster storytelling, comes dangerously close to becoming the very thing it's satirizing. However, the art works themselves are cleverly and appropriately awful, and the movie has just enough knowing wryness to overcome its undernourished storytelling.

An hilarious, critical and yet respectful view of modern art

[napierslogs · 6/10 · 29 November 2010]

An hilarious, critical and yet respectful view of modern art, "(Untitled)" is an indie film that takes on the contemporary music and visual art scene of New York.

Adam Goldberg is perfectly cast as Adrian, a slightly neurotic but completely out-there "musician". First to his detriment, but then more to his success, his brother Josh (Eion Bailey) introduces him to Madeleine (Marley Shelton), an art gallery owner who is against the commercial stream but can find the next big thing. Josh is the only remotely down-to-Earth character, but even his art looks like blobs of colour on a canvas--to the untrained eye like mine. The "music" that takes over the film is what people like me would call noise, but people like Adrian would call a true artistic expression of the human condition.

It is less accessible than "Art School Confidential" (2006), but just as funny and more focused on the indie art scene. Like one of the artists in the film, I think the film is trying to say nothing and everything at the same time, and just like modern art can be, "(Untitled)" is just plain weird.

Absurd and amusing.

[lewiskendell · 7/10 · 1 January 2011]

"How do you deal with such idiotic criticism?"

(Untitled) is an absurd, entertaining mixture of a comedy, a romantic comedy, a drama, and a satire of the New York art scene (and some modern art in general, I suppose). It caught my eye because of the presence of Marley Shelton and Lucy Punch, two underrated and really hot actresses that I make a habit of checking out in every movie I can, but it turned out to be a worthwhile movie, beyond their presence.

The two main characters are Adrian (Adam Goldberg), a bohemian experimental musician (think kicking buckets and ripping paper), and Madeline (Marley Shelton), a gallery owner who sells the commercial work of Adrian's brother to keep her gallery open, while only allowing more avant-garde pieces to be shown there. Madeline finds herself drawn to Adrian's unconventional sensibilities, but conflict eventually arises between the two when Madeline's eccentric clients don't meet Adrian's ideas of what art should be. 

(Untitled) is funniest when showcasing the "artwork" of its supporting characters, including Ray Park as an artist who uses taxidermy in a unique way, and Zak Orth in a small but absolutely scene-stealing role. 

I think you probably have to be familiar with, or at least aware of, the modern art scene to see the appeal of (Untitled). It's not a hard film to get your head around, or anything like that, but it does get its humor from situations and jokes that may not have appeal for everyone. I thought it was quite amusing, though, and I recommend that anyone who finds the idea interesting, gives it a try.

Great movie for all art lovers

[Gastel · 7/10 · 9 October 2014]

First of all this movie is not a comedy. Yes, there's a lot of irony and some funny scenes but don't expect a "light" movie because it's not. The subject is not about art per se but rather on the creation, exploitation and fruition of art. I think that the way this movie handles the subject is very refreshing and it hasn't been done before. In my opinion the last part leaves a bit to be desired in terms of character and story development but nothing that ruins the movie. There's also a lot of great music if you are into avant-garde and contemporary music, especially in the second part of the movie. Highly recommended to anyone but in particular to people who are involved in some sort of creative process.

"What is really art currently?"

[vintkd · 26 May 2012]

This is a very funny film, in my opinion, very strange at the first glance and really independent in all senses. I have always been liked such humor, which lies not on the surface, and in order that to understand its, you should have certain creative imagination and pure soul, not damaging modern teenage comedies. Though my soul is not clean exactly, I enthralled this movie.In this movie there is a very important question "What is really art currently?" We so often pronounce the words "genius", "masterpiece", but many people absolutely not understand true value and sense these words. Very nice and surprisingly for me had been to see amazing performance by always brutal Vinnie Jones in absolutely not typical role for him.

Got the satire but missed the story

[rleegray-569-58158 · 7/10 · 18 August 2017]

I felt the film dealt well with its point of satire of what is and isn't art. But I think the film missed out on the plot or the story. In trying to or seeming to try to poke fun at the art world, it missed out on a great opportunity to reveal more about its characters and especially in playing up the rivalry between the brothers. The film wasn't bad and it was saved by very competent actors, but could have been so much more.

fine satire but experimental music annoying

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 11 July 2016]

Adrian Jacobs (Adam Goldberg) leads a struggling experimental musical group with The Clarinet (Lucy Punch). His brother Josh Jacobs (Eion Bailey) is successful making corporate art to hang in hotels and offices. Josh brings gallery owner Madeleine Gray (Marley Shelton) to Adrian's concert. The brothers don't get along. Madeleine hires Adrian to play at the opening for new artist Ray Barko (Vinnie Jones).

All the weird New York artsy satire is direct. Goldberg's bitterness is fully displayed. I would like more big laughs. It's a lot of stabs at the silly artsy fartsy crowd. I can definitely do without the experimental music. It is something to fast forward. The music is not actually comedic as much as it's annoying. Lucy Punch is capable of something funnier although jokes may not be the filmmaker's primary motivation.

What a shame

[hhfarm-1 · 5/10 · 18 May 2011]

I gave this a 5 because a couple of scenes in the beginning were brilliant. Had they sustained, what a great movie this would have been. Overall it's more of a 3 though.

But after they make the initial points, they just make them over and over and over. Not in different ways. In the same way, each and every time.

The plot and sub-plot(s) are tiresome and contrived. And irrelevant.

Goldberg produced and it's almost a sure thing that when a lead actor produces it's to get across a point that no one's really interested in. And there's a reason for that.

I watched the 1st 20 mins of this; had to pause overnight; told several friends in the interim how great it was. Next night I started at 0 again; enjoyed the 1st few scenes just as much; then watched Goldberg chuff and stare his way through the rest. He's really a one-note actor, a more serious (and more irritating) Woody Allen.

A perfect film school short. But <<<<< a movie.

What is Art? What is Music? This film looks at those questions insightfully.

[rzusman · 8/10 · 13 January 2009]

We saw this at the 2009 Palm Springs International Film Festival. Adam Goldberg plays a composer whose music is as far from commercial or accessible as possible. His brother is a very commercially successful artist who longs for recognition by the art community. They are both attracted to Madeleine, the beautiful and smart owner of an art gallery, who understands the difference between the artistic and commercial worlds in both art and music. The two brothers use Madeleine as the pivot of their balance, as each tries to achieve what they desire - commercial success for one and artistic appreciation for the other. Set in the heart of the art scene in New York, this film has the ring of truth - from the artist with Asperger' who labors over where to hang his work (a single pushpin placed on a blank wall), to the rich, clueless art collector who buys work he doesn't understand and doesn't enjoy - merely because his spreadsheet says it's underpriced. The characters are portrayed with compassion - the director has thankfully resisted the temptation to turn them into easy caricatures. Highly recommended, especially if the viewer has an interest in the modern art or music scene.

Art for art's sake?

[bk753 · 7/10 · 4 April 2023]

I hate starting a review by saying "this was a great concept, and I wished they'd done more with it," but I can't get away from thinking that. At times, it's a scathing and almost brilliant satire of modern art (and the patrons that drive it), but at some point it loses its way a bit, and potentially becomes a film that could be the subject of a satire about film satire.

I did love the contrast of Adrian-Josh... brothers who each long for recognition while being as polar opposite as two people can be... and appreciated the connection of both to Madeleine. But her attraction to Adrian was hard to fathom, and it's killer important to the story. (Perhaps toning down Adrian's arrogant sullenness, and the cringe-worthiness of his music a bit would have made his story and relationship with Madeleine more watchable?). And I admittedly loved the "art collector" who neither loves nor understands art, but sees it only as an investment and a write-off. Probably brutally on point (as was the pompous industrial artist ultimately done in by his own work).

In short... a visceral slap at the modern art scene... released in 2009 and now a timely watch in a year that gave us "The Menu" and "Triangle of Sadness," two new films that similarly skewer those with wealth and... ugh, "taste."

Could not get into this movie...

[jimrin · 4/10 · 12 June 2011]

I just could not get into this movie. I think to get into a movie, you have to care about the characters, and I can't say that I was able to get into the whiny artist type. I could empathize with how hard it may be for a struggling artist, but someone who says he'll kill themselves in 3 years if he doesn't make it doesn't bring about a lot of empathy. Obviously, he doesn't have to be a role model, but wouldn't it have been a better movie to have a struggling artist who still has some redeeming values instead one who takes a childish view on life? As he is, I don't see this as someone who'd be an interesting subject for a movie. So while there's presumably some revelation/redemption in the movie but not enough to overcome the lack of interest in the main character.

Jonathan Parker Flips the Pretentious New York Art Scene on its Back

[hansfeuer · 8/10 · 26 May 2009]

With a hip young cast and original music by Pulitzer Prize-winning composer David Lang, this movie feels like a tried-and-true festival darling. Unfortunately, the picture wasn't given the chance to shine at Sundance. But fret not; (UNTITLED) (yes, there are parenthesis around the title, which is actually the word, "untitled") will see theatrical distribution in fall of 2009. The film enjoys a fast and lively pace, delivered by director Jonathan Parker (Bartelby), and the ensemble piece puts New York's contemporary art world under a high-intensity microscope. First, we've got Adrian, played by Adam Goldberg, who is a struggling experimental musician. He is the leader of a strange troupe of percussionists who produce a wild, cacophonous sound that I guarantee you've never heard before. Adrian's brother Josh is a commercial painter, played by Eion Bailey, whose pieces are sold to corporate clients. The shrewd and sexy gallerist Madeleine (portrayed perfectly by Marley Shelton) keeps Josh's paintings hidden in a seedy back room, selling them after-hours to fund the "real pieces" displayed on the showroom floor. These more "important" works of art, all custom-made for the production, are created by more forward-thinking creatives such as the taxidermist/artiste Ray Barko, who is played by the always-intense Vinnie Jones. Then there's the meticulous auteur Monroe, who was my favorite character in the film, played with frightening authenticity by Ptolemy Slocum. I'll just say this: I must have one of Monroe's pieces! As this entertaining little story unfolds, a light-hearted love triangle develops between Madeleine and the two brothers, and eventually everybody's using one another to get ahead in the cut-throat art world. In the end, commercial success, loyalty and artistic appreciation are all called into question. Throughout the movie, New York's artistic elite pepper the scenes, highlighted by snooty critics, sassy gallery owners and hip-yet-fickle patrons. Good acting all around, eye-catching costumes by Deirdre Wegner and great music by Lang add to the production value. (UNTITLED) is an entertaining and thought-provoking comedy for those who appreciate fine (and not so fine) art. SUGGESTION: Recommend

Absurd, Yes; Hilarious, No

[jb-307 · 1/10 · 10 January 2011]

Anyone who tries to tell you that you should spend your precious time, let alone your precious money on this piece of trash - well, you need to ignore everything that person ever says to you.

There is no value, no redemption for this so called-film. Worthless is one word which does come to mind. With every scene it insults your intelligence, shoves noise at you in the guise of "music" and just generally does its best to really anger you.

This garbage is all done in the name of critiquing the New York art scene. Well, if NY is even one tenth as bad as this movie portrays, then it would have fallen long before now.

Summary: don't waste your time. If you want to categorize this movie, put it into the same category as "Titus" as one of the worst movies ever.

Art Is As Art Does (with thumb poised at nose,with four fingers extended upwards)

[druid333-2 · 8/10 · 24 January 2010]

For those with a knowledge of 20th century modern,and post modern art, this film is for you (and even if you know little about the above mentioned subject matter,this film is also for you---if you have an open mind to give it a chance). (Untitled)is a wry,sly,droll,tongue in cheek comedy about the art world & how art is/can be conceived. Adam Goldberg is Adrian Jacob,a composer who is a little too tightly wound for his own good (he almost always seems to be a walking bundle of seething rage that is threatening to explode at any moment). His music is generally atonal,harsh noise that most folk either walk out on (as evidence in the film's opening,which takes place at a sparsely attended concert of his work at a performance space in New York City,where the story takes place),or outright laugh at. His brother,Josh (played by Eion Bailey)is a successful artist. Both are attracted to Madeleine Gray (played by Marley Shelton),the owner of an uptown,posh art gallery that specializes in modern & post modern (conceptual)art that most folk regard as b.s. Jonathan Parker directs this breezy little comedy from a screenplay written by Parker & Catherine DiNapoli. Perhaps not a perfect film,but worth seeking out for those with interests that include new music (read that as experimental/noise/Avant Garde),Dadaist art (it makes sly,albeit submerged nods to the Fluxus art movement of the late 1950's/early 1960's),and gleefully thumbs it's nose at other denizens of the uptown & downtown art scenes in New York. Anybody who is/was a fan of either of the bands Luna or Galaxie 500,keep your eyes open for a cameo by Dean Wareham,who has a brief role as an art critic at one of Adrian's performances. My personal click to pick was a plum role by Lucy Punch,who is just credited as 'The Clarinet'(a fellow musician who played bass clarinet in Adrian's ensemble),but deserved far better. Rated 'R' by the MPAA for a rude word or two,some brief nudity,some rather tame sexual content & the view of a piece of art that can be regarded by some as pornographic.

A movie in 3D where you don't need the glasses, or do you?

[MetaControl · 10/10 · 17 September 2010]

This is very good work.

While the core of the story; what art, entertainment, noise - not only in the audible sense - or meaning itself is, is entirely up to your own interpretation. And that is a very good thing indeed.

Does it take contemporary art seriously? It sure does, but it also reflect, very self-ironically, on the ridicule just as much.

One of art's basic elements is that it not necessarily can be defined rationally, which makes it on one hand free, and on the other, especially with experimental art, hard to draw the line between utter nonsense, simple expression and real craftsmanship. For me it was the later that was always a mayor prerequisite to define something as art. If there is no knowledge, no skill, no work involved, I do not consider it art. I might still consider it beautiful, or moving, or aesthetic. But it is the intend to create, to realize the urge, vision or thought. At least that is my own personal opinion.

This movie shows excellent craftsmanship. Especially because the movie becomes a holistic look at art by mimicking much of the plot in its own form of expression. Sadly, so it seems, the dramaturgy of the movie was a little confined. According to the more experimental, or even eccentric nature of the portrayed art, one would have suspected more experimental lighting, camera and a more (forgive me) "artsy" movie as a whole; just a tad more experimental. Put aside the plot and this movie could just as well pass as commercial. But this may also be part of the reflection on the actual plot and of art itself.

It reminded me of something Picasso once said - I am paraphrasing: "There are two kind of people interested in art, those who think they understand it and may even be willing to buy a drawing on a napkin and those who just appreciate it. We eat because of the first and we work because of the later."

The sound design was incredibly well done and the conceptual compositions of David Lang adds another well placed layer onto this funny, multidimensional and artistic look at art. Very well done!

An approach to understanding art

[piverba · 10/10 · 27 September 2010]

I will spare you from a detail narration of this film, you can read this elsewhere, and simply address what I found useful in it.

As a paying job, Adrian, an aspiring composer, who we saw creating music (or noise) with buckets, paper and other quotidian materials, plays at the restaurant a beautiful Chopin's piece while the restaurant patrons talk on the phone and completely ignore the music. His execution is virtuosic and lends credibility to his skill as a musician. Suddenly, he start playing cacophonous and violent piece, beating on piano. Without a specific frame of reference it is impossible to tell whether this is a noise or a music. People start paying attention and most of them (if not all) are turning angry. Adrian succeeded to annoy everyone which is more than what he could do with Chopin. Previously when asked what is noise and what is music Adrian explains that even Beethoven may be a noise in certain circumstances. From this perspective, art is what moves us - gives us energy, motivates us and calls to action. Art must be new. If we like what we see or hear - this is probably not art. If it pleases us, it is most certainly already became familiar and no longer new.

Now, I do not praise Adrian's music, for this I have very little information to make an informed judgment, but I do trust Madeleine's taste and believe she is right to recognize him as an original. I also see him participating in the performance of Schoenberg's Pierrot lunaire and hear him speaking about atonal music, etc. He also prepared a la John Cage silent piece, executed at the end, as a joke. All this tells me that he is a credible musician searching for his unique and authentic way in art. Musical arts gets more serious treatment in the film because of David Lang's expert contribution.

Another selected 'artist', a conceptual artist, Monroe, does not have the credibility and appears to be rather autistic and emotionally disturbed. Madeleine seams to believe in him, but may be mistaken. Perhaps her attitude toward art as being solely anti-commercial activity, is incorrect. Art defies formulas and needs to be reevaluated every time anew.

DiNapoli and Parker showed their attitude toward what they consider to be art and what is a heck job. There are many interesting subplots that I found stimulating. Who called this film a comedy? - this is serious film about serious matters. I enjoyed it very much. Although the film's subject matter is not particularly new, it nevertheless is important and rarely receive any cinematographic treatment.

In the film finale, when a man approaches Adrian and says: "Your art changed my life," this is an ultimate justification of artist's social persona. But for all of us, in our intimate internal being, there are things we do because we simply have to, without any hope nor desire for external approval, we do them as a form of spiritual survival.

Very good contemporary art scene flick

[smokeonit1 · 10/10 · 19 November 2009]

Saw untitled @ the Heidelberg-Mannheim Film Festival, where it won the Juror Award.

having watched "Die Millionenblase(German)", "The Bubble" (2008, 90min) by Lewis Ben only two words come to my mind: Damien Hirst...

Great movie, great cast, great script & loved the editing.

Adam Goldberg shines in his role portraying a musician torn between art & commerce...

Loved the very special sense of humor as well as the topic that today is even more current than a few years back.

Would have liked a character showing/portraying the infamous art dealer scene...

Avant-Garde Artistes on Parade Neat and Nutty Satire

[LeonLouisRicci · 8/10 · 12 January 2015]

A Smart Movie that is Insightful and Entertaining as it Satirises the Avant-Garde Art World. Not a Fresh Idea to be sure but an always Welcome Debate about "Yes, but is it Art?". That Conundrum seems to be Forever with Us and it never really has an Easy Answer and it shouldn't because it is Purely Rhetorical.

Trying to Answer that Question is like trying to Answer "Why are we here?" or "What is the Meaning of life?" It is a Labyrinth of a Quest to attempt such Profound Inquiries.

Director Jonathan Parker is Articulate and Funny as He Dumbs Down the Dumb Work of these Creators and Their Creations and is Empathetic and enjoys Poking Fun at what He Loves. His Own Film Straddles the Line between Commercially Viable and Free Expression. A sort of a Combination of the Two on-screen Brothers.

Adam Goldberg as a Sound Artist that says "Harmony was a Capitalist plot to sell pianos.", and His Brother Aaron Bailey as a Painter who has Not Really Sold Out but His Paintings Do, to Corporations and Hotels.

The Film includes many Arty Characters that give this thing Pizazz. Marley Shelton as the Gallery Owner that is very Comfortable in Her own Fake Skin of a Noise inducing Wardrobe of Vinyl and Ruffles. Her Audible Attire attracts the Noise Conscious Sound Artist for a Romantic Interlude, but that is hardly the Story here.

There Hardly is a Story here but what is here is a parade of Amusing and Egotistical Artists that are Lively and Loving every minute of Their Expressionism. Just like the Creators of this Engaging Entry Into a very Weird World. The Movie is Not for All Tastes but that is the Point.