Last weekend I popped back to England, where the prep for Antichrist's release (today) was in full force. It's interesting that more than one publication seems to have decided that they're not sure if they can rely on their own critic's judgement, and have hence consulted an array of diverse 'consultants' from across the arts to have their say (Guardian, Time Out).
A notable exception to this trend is the famous Daily Mail, whose criticism of the film nearly had me laugh out loud. For anyone outside of the UK, this newspaper, in my opinion, is our most abhorrent publication - a national embarrassment which is more deplorable than any of the red top press purely because of its hypocrisy. The DM pretend to be a bastion of middle class morality, while at the same time being so surreptitiously right wing, misogynistic, xenophobic (I stopped short of racist), self-righteous and outrageously antagonistic that it makes my blood boil. The worst thing is that a large section of the middle class are oblivious to this, and see it as a nice middle of the road paper somewhere between the broadsheet and the tabloid.
Anyway, the point of the matter is that their self-proclaimed 'liberal' film critic Christopher Hart has proposed a new genre of film criticism where you review a film without having seen it. Quote:
I haven't seen it myself, nor shall I - and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency. But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.
Maybe more critics should take note of this great time saver - why bother seeing any source material when you can just judge a piece of art from reading about it?
However, it looks like Hart may have risen to the bait as proffered by Artificial Eye's PR company who seem to be plumbing new depths of promotion tactics with their lowest common denominator press release.
I feel a bit sad that an independent distributor who prides itself on offering films of quality would then market such a film in such an unashamedly populist way. It goes without saying that I want as many people to see great cinema as possible, but this kind of marketing is surely only going to attract the wrong crowd. Antichrist isn't a gory, voyeuristic thriller - it's an art film that is surely going to disappoint a large number of people who are attracted purely by the controversy.
Anyway if it wins some converts to the goodness of European cinema, I'm all for it. I just wish the means didn't leave such a bad taste in my mouth.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Lethargy
I've not posted for a while because frankly I haven't seen anything good. I was beginning to worry that I was slipping back into my literature phase - I used to have a steady cycle of about 3 months heavily into cinema, 3 months heavily into books, quite organically, although I've been entrenched in cinema for an extended period now. Let's have a quick rundown of what produced this state of mind:
Jeux d'enfants - I should have known better but in the interests of immersing myself in my new homeland's culture, I decided to try and understand the fuss about Guillaume Canet. A little part of me was also intrigued about seeing the chemistry between Marion Cotillard and Canet, who met during the making of this film. I lasted about 20 minutes, and would have lasted even less if I hadn't been watching it with someone who looked like he was enjoying it. It was a very sugary production, whose target market I couldn't quite identify. It felt like a kids' film (lots of toys and saturation), yet had an adult edge. It was frankly tedious.
Lost in Translation - This was my second viewing, prompted after reading one too many posts on the Auteurs about its greatness. My first viewing had left me a bit emotionless, but I put this down to seeing it after the hype had spun out of control. However, on a second viewing, I didn't really connect with it any further, which is a shame because the eloquence and simplicity of its simple story and emphasis on human relationships should have pushed all the right buttons with me. Instead I couldn't stop thinking the following:
-The 'husband' was just a massive caricature whose scenes really interrupted the flow of the movie, removing it from any realism she'd established elsewhere.
-Murray's character's incessant irony and sarcasm threatened to drive me up the wall. I also felt that it made a real insensitive mockery of the Japanese, portraying them as rather stupid, which irritated me. Not that I have any special sympathies with them, but I just thought that for a film about human understanding, this aspect really jarred.
- The dumb blonde friend character (allegedly based on Cameron Diaz due to Coppola's irritation at then partner Jonze's friendship with her) is too caricatured to deserve a mention really, but again, she really spoiled the rhythm and helped to make the two main characters seem just a little too smug and self-satisfied in their condescension of her.
I want to like Sofia Coppola's work - but I fear that Marie Antoinette might finish me off, although I may revisit The Virgin Suicides which charmed me the first time.
Kramer vs Kramer - This is not a bad film, but I felt like I'd seen it 100 times before. That is not the fault of the film - I think it's been copied 100 times since, and obviously at the time, when divorce was starting to become more common, it would have been very reflective of the era. Although even now, the idea of a woman leaving her child is still a bit taboo, which still gives it relevance. Everyone involved gives good performances, I guess I just wanted more from the plot. The idea of the father surprsingly bonding with the son just feels a bit hackneyed now.
On another note, I couldn't believe how much a young Meryl Streep resembles Jewel Kilcher.
Dazed and Confused - Had this down to watch for a while. Linklater's Before Sunrise/set are two of my favourite films ever, but I struggle to engage with much of his other work. He is very diverse, but I sometimes feel that, for however much Sunrise/set spoke to me, much of his work is targeted at teenage boys. Dazed and Confused frankly bored me. I don't mind the odd good high school movie - Mean Girls, Heathers, Ferris Bueller etc - but this film just never seemed to get going. I've read about how the strength of the ensemble cast in this film really caries it, yet hardly any of the characters were memorable for me. The only one of note was Pink, whose cheating kiss towards the end of the film seemed to run contrary to the idea that he was our good guy. There were some entertaining moments, but there just seemed to be a distinct lack of depth - of character and plot - and I found myself tapping my feet waiting for the end. Quite entertaining to see the early work of a few famous faces, not least Matthew McConaughey. Rumour has it that Linklater is plotting a sequel, and McConaughey is among those interested in reprising their roles.
Abre los Ojos - Again another one that had been gathering dust on my shelf. This is the famous supposed 'better' original version of Vanilla Sky. In fairness I've only watched half of it, and I will go back and finish it at some point, but so far it's not doing much for me.
Baise-moi - What was I thinking? For a good few years I lumped this together with 'Irreversible' - I'd seen neither but knew they were big French violent-sex-shock fests. I watched the latter about 3 years back and actually found it very interesting. But Baise-moi?! How did this ever get a release? The quality of the video is diabolical (it was clearly shot on video), before we get anywhere near the narrative, script and acting. I actually only lasted about 20 minutes before I jumped through and watched 5 minutes every 30 minutes or so until I just gave up. Everything about this is bad bad bad, the word that best describes this is a French one and it's 'pourri'.
28 Days Later - This film just reminded me of how much I don't like sci-fi and zombie movies. It reminded me of Children of Men which bored me. I was willing the end on far too early. But I know I'm not immune to the effects of sci-fi, as proved when I watched Minority Report the other day, followed it all the way through (I even surprised myself) and properly got into it.
Sorry I feel like this post is compete devoid of energy - it's just the reactions that these films inspire in me. I will be back with some good energised commentary soon.
Jeux d'enfants - I should have known better but in the interests of immersing myself in my new homeland's culture, I decided to try and understand the fuss about Guillaume Canet. A little part of me was also intrigued about seeing the chemistry between Marion Cotillard and Canet, who met during the making of this film. I lasted about 20 minutes, and would have lasted even less if I hadn't been watching it with someone who looked like he was enjoying it. It was a very sugary production, whose target market I couldn't quite identify. It felt like a kids' film (lots of toys and saturation), yet had an adult edge. It was frankly tedious.
Lost in Translation - This was my second viewing, prompted after reading one too many posts on the Auteurs about its greatness. My first viewing had left me a bit emotionless, but I put this down to seeing it after the hype had spun out of control. However, on a second viewing, I didn't really connect with it any further, which is a shame because the eloquence and simplicity of its simple story and emphasis on human relationships should have pushed all the right buttons with me. Instead I couldn't stop thinking the following:
-The 'husband' was just a massive caricature whose scenes really interrupted the flow of the movie, removing it from any realism she'd established elsewhere.
-Murray's character's incessant irony and sarcasm threatened to drive me up the wall. I also felt that it made a real insensitive mockery of the Japanese, portraying them as rather stupid, which irritated me. Not that I have any special sympathies with them, but I just thought that for a film about human understanding, this aspect really jarred.
- The dumb blonde friend character (allegedly based on Cameron Diaz due to Coppola's irritation at then partner Jonze's friendship with her) is too caricatured to deserve a mention really, but again, she really spoiled the rhythm and helped to make the two main characters seem just a little too smug and self-satisfied in their condescension of her.
I want to like Sofia Coppola's work - but I fear that Marie Antoinette might finish me off, although I may revisit The Virgin Suicides which charmed me the first time.
Kramer vs Kramer - This is not a bad film, but I felt like I'd seen it 100 times before. That is not the fault of the film - I think it's been copied 100 times since, and obviously at the time, when divorce was starting to become more common, it would have been very reflective of the era. Although even now, the idea of a woman leaving her child is still a bit taboo, which still gives it relevance. Everyone involved gives good performances, I guess I just wanted more from the plot. The idea of the father surprsingly bonding with the son just feels a bit hackneyed now.
On another note, I couldn't believe how much a young Meryl Streep resembles Jewel Kilcher.
Dazed and Confused - Had this down to watch for a while. Linklater's Before Sunrise/set are two of my favourite films ever, but I struggle to engage with much of his other work. He is very diverse, but I sometimes feel that, for however much Sunrise/set spoke to me, much of his work is targeted at teenage boys. Dazed and Confused frankly bored me. I don't mind the odd good high school movie - Mean Girls, Heathers, Ferris Bueller etc - but this film just never seemed to get going. I've read about how the strength of the ensemble cast in this film really caries it, yet hardly any of the characters were memorable for me. The only one of note was Pink, whose cheating kiss towards the end of the film seemed to run contrary to the idea that he was our good guy. There were some entertaining moments, but there just seemed to be a distinct lack of depth - of character and plot - and I found myself tapping my feet waiting for the end. Quite entertaining to see the early work of a few famous faces, not least Matthew McConaughey. Rumour has it that Linklater is plotting a sequel, and McConaughey is among those interested in reprising their roles.
Abre los Ojos - Again another one that had been gathering dust on my shelf. This is the famous supposed 'better' original version of Vanilla Sky. In fairness I've only watched half of it, and I will go back and finish it at some point, but so far it's not doing much for me.
Baise-moi - What was I thinking? For a good few years I lumped this together with 'Irreversible' - I'd seen neither but knew they were big French violent-sex-shock fests. I watched the latter about 3 years back and actually found it very interesting. But Baise-moi?! How did this ever get a release? The quality of the video is diabolical (it was clearly shot on video), before we get anywhere near the narrative, script and acting. I actually only lasted about 20 minutes before I jumped through and watched 5 minutes every 30 minutes or so until I just gave up. Everything about this is bad bad bad, the word that best describes this is a French one and it's 'pourri'.
28 Days Later - This film just reminded me of how much I don't like sci-fi and zombie movies. It reminded me of Children of Men which bored me. I was willing the end on far too early. But I know I'm not immune to the effects of sci-fi, as proved when I watched Minority Report the other day, followed it all the way through (I even surprised myself) and properly got into it.
Sorry I feel like this post is compete devoid of energy - it's just the reactions that these films inspire in me. I will be back with some good energised commentary soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
