Small, low budget films hold a special place in many film goer's hearts. We embrace them as our own special offspring. It's an irrational attachment we have for them, like kidnapping our neighbor's child. But cinema, apparently, is some sort of expression of our collective desire to be acknowledged, to be contributing to the public conversation. That's a bizarre, absurd role to demand of independent films, of any film, but that's the weird world we've been born into, isn't it? The ignored, unnoticed independent film is often the container and conveyor of our most salient, real desires. Frustration and anxiety are palpable, ever present qualities of modern life, and low budget films should not be exempt. Tom DiCillo has incorporated these discomforting, disturbing qualities into his poignantly absurd film. The production of the film within the film is at the mercy of unpredictable, arbitrary forces, like malfunctioning smoke machines, incompetent crew members, emotionally distracted actors, and just plain bad luck. Nothing is as effortless and perfect as it is in the "real" movies. This revelation elevates this film into the realm of essential; essential for anyone who is considering making their own independent low budget film, and essential for any fan of quality non Studio, non mega budget films.That it can be so impossible just getting a single scene "into the can" — the expression for capturing on film a worthwhile moment — is a potent metaphor for all our own endeavors. We are continually assaulted with the infinite demands of our mundane lives but are so wiling to sacrifice so much of our precious time to the act of getting it just right, whatever "it" may be. We need to be succeeding at something, anything, in order to feel worthy. And maniacal persistence is the indispensable means to success. However, it's usually a non productive hobby, past time or diversion that occupies us so insistently.Living in Oblivion is a rare opportunity to examine this impulse of ours to perfect relatively minor, inconsequential things. The conceit of the film is that we, the audience, like to believe that we are above and beyond such tedious, temporal concerns, yet we are equally, undeniably fascinated by the intricacies of the "inner" film's creation. "How would I do it?" is a question that frames every scene. But our involvement is irrelevant. That's the paradox at this film's core. That's the ultimate message here, that we, the audience, are inconsequential. That might sound bleak and morose to some, but I found it deeply satisfying. I am not responsible, in the end, for this film's success. I am only watching.Tom DiCillo has earned a reputation as an iconoclast, as a rebel, as an anti establishment defender of the individual. I'm not sure just how justified is this reputation - he has lately directed arguably crappy TV such as Law and Order - but still, he proves himself a potent source of genuinely profound insights in this film. You will learn what it feels like to be an ambitious, hopeful, idealistic artist working in a crass, indifferent, commercial world. That's a rare treat.The fact that Steve Buschemi, Katherine Keener, and Dermot Mulroney are so wonderfully natural is proof that Dicillo has golden instincts. We are granted access to these artist's most transcendent talents. I've seen them all in many different, fantastic roles, but here they are at their absolute best, their most real. That's a quality that nearly all films aspire too, but so very few achieve. Enjoy this film for this commendable fact along with the knowledge that it's nearly impossible to make a film like this today or ever again. (David Lynch did it in 2006 with his Inland Empire which has been ignored by the general film going public. It's a monumentally original, powerful, revolutionary film experience. Charlie Kaufman also accomplished a tremendous feat of originality with his phenomenal Synecdoche, NY from 2008. Both films are subtle expressions of artistic desire in the face of a coldly indifferent, if not outright maliciously violent culture.)

I stood this for 41:33---root canal is more bearable than this gruesomely predictable time- waster from the indie psycho ward. All the by-the-numbers indie elements are here: zero budget, non-existent production value, flaccid pace,"edgy" characters (=weirdos), cut-&-paste "script" (no more than a collection of notions about what a film *really* is)---in other words, the same old indie riff.*Yawn* They crank these things out, like sausages, for the tax break that these born-to-lose duds provide- --their only reason for being. These indie dogs have a liturgical quality---lovable losers struggling through life, make you laugh/make you cry, blase blase. Absolutely nothing new here. The inevitable Steve Buscemi--- hideously loathsome in the stomach-turning "Ghost World" (2001), is here doing his indie thing (=pre-psychotic nut-job) for the ten thousandth time. Next case. This is pure indie, to the bone: ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad absurdum. There will always be a small hard-core audience for junk like this, just like the market for '70s TV sit-coms, banjo music, political "documentaries", etc. "Bad & The Beautiful" (1951) and "Le Mepris/Contempt" (1963) are the real-deal films about movie-making, made by pros who knew what they were doing---but for grown-up adults only. Indie-stoner characters will salivate over this, for sure---they're an easy sell. It's worth noting this pimple got SEVEN "awards". From whom, and for what ? "Citizen Kane" (1941) only got three.

When this came out it was marketed as a slacker or Indie comedy, so I was especially careful to avoid it. Big mistake. I just saw this now out of a misguided sense of completism, and it's a great movie. Tom DiCillo is like one of the guys who tells your favourite joke, the one you have told hundreds of times, but in a way that people actually laugh at it. It actually IS an indie comedy about the making of a low-budget movie, but don't let that throw you off.This movie also proves the great comedic value of repetition. When that dwar-- ... erm, vertically disadvantaged person walks around Catherine Keener with his apple for the twentieth time, this otherwise trivial scene just cracks you up. In a way I'd advise you to NOT watch this movie after you have inhaled, the same way I'd advise you against mixing acid with zombie movies.It's all in the magic mixture of an excellent script, excellent actors (the smaller roles (no pun intended, but Tito is also great) as well as Keener and Buscemi) and excellent direction. Hollywood please take note, more is not needed for an intelligent and entertaining movie.I'd give 8 points but as this movie really surprised me and needs to be seen by more people I'll gerrymander it up to a gleaming 9.

We should all know by now that Steve Buscemi is the unofficial king of indie flicks, and "Living in Oblivion" is possibly the best example. He plays the director of a very small movie - something right up his alley - who has to put up with the various problems on the set. We've seen this sort of story before, you say? Well, remember that Buscemi barely has to do anything to make the movie good; his pop-eyed gaze pretty much acts all on its own.If absolutely nothing else, this movie is a good look into the work that people have to put into making movies. Of course, I think that we need to consider it for much more than that. This movie has something for everyone, in my opinion. Also starring Catherine Keener, Dermot Mulroney, James LeGros, Peter Dinklage and Kevin Corrigan.