Film: Mother Dao the Turtlelike (Vincent Monnikendam, 1995), 86 min.

"Fascination of the abomination" is how this was described to us today. However, as fascinating as parts of it may have been, and however fascinated with that which is abominable we may be, this film is, well, terrible.  
Explosions: we don't know the cause of; A desolate landscape: we don't know where; Spacey music, a narration of a subtitled poem…What's going on? 
Mother (Earth) is being destroyed. A love affair which began with a Virgin twin birth quickly descends into a depressing view of colonial Dutch, as they pillage the indigenous landscape and the souls of the indigenous peoples of the Dutch West Indies. 
The message: Evil western colonialists want what's under the ground, and will do anything to justify taking it, and in the process destroy what indigenous life, and lifestyle may stand in the way.  As a parallel, the recent movie Avatar has the exact same message, and is certainly much more entertaining.  

Constructed of what seems like home video footage, and propaganda films made from that time, the film has a loose narrative structure which breaks apart, looses us, and ultimately disappoints when it doesn't end once, twice, three times, etc.  It's too long and has made it's point in about 25 minutes, leaving us to suffer the remaining 61 minutes.  
The use of Sound, which is the only thing that holds the film together, is interesting, but hardly novel in it's use. It knocks on our eardrums with trippey, distorted sounds over incongruous images of suffering lepers, the senseless (seemingly) slaughter of beasts, rituals, work and play.  The poems are beautiful, and seeing as the filmmaker made the film in 1995 it would be nice if we could read the subtitles! 
A few images stand out such as a "leader" colonist standing elevated on a platform as he instructs the natives in god-knows-what lesson, he looks like a Christ figure, draped in white and crucified as he waves his arms about and is vertically bisected by a huge wooden pole.  We assume he's buying their destruction. 
A baby takes turns suckling on his mother's milk and puffing from a cigarette!  This is an early visual clue to the destruction of the culture.  But how are we supposed to read this?  Where did he get that cigarette? Is it his mom who is just stupid?  If she's stupid then does that make the vile destruction and forced labor of the "natives" acceptable?  Or, should we be sympathetic towards the unknowing child and mother, since it's the work of the colonists who brought them cigarettes?  Who knows? Is this the face of indoctrination?

I guess it's an attempt at a different direction in film making, but doesn't play up it's strengths and looses itself to the attempt at something different.  However, it's not different at all, and must certainly be influenced by far better films such as Baraka, and the various a;sdjf;asdjf;sdj series.  The scene of James Nachtwey in War Photographer photographing inside a sulfur mine is far more evocative, telling, and daring! 
The lack of story, narrative (voice over), and context throughout the film makes the film feel like a propaganda film itself, and I wish the filmmakers would have cut it down, provided context, and used the sounds as more than just something there which helps us stomach the film. 
Evocative use of sound and imagery and good story telling are better off viewed in a film like Lucien Taylor's Sweetgrass.