Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
I need to see this film. Mr. Beaks and I were talking about this tonight, and we’re both absolutely manic to see this as soon as possible. Even a review as scathingly negative as this one has me interested. Films that cause this sort of reaction always fascinate me.
Okay, so I saw this film at Sundance this year based wholly on Harry's placement of it on his top ten list. Now I haven't completely agreed with Harry in the past, but I've visited the site for several years now and I felt that Sundance is such a crap shoot that I might as well trust him on this one. Now it might have something to do with all the movies and the traffic and the Hollywood people, but I got to tell you I was repulsed by this film. Now, I'm not a prude. I like French cinema. I've enjoyed experimental film for years, but this film is such a nihilistic celebration that one wonders how a collection of very technically proficient artisans constructed it.
Let me begin with the opening five minutes, wherein we have a director who is arrogant enough to abbreviate a sequel to his own film by having his heartless character show up. I mean by this having the protagonist from I Stand Alone declare his great sin. Now some might see this as a clever way we give a primer to the director's motives, but it of course only works as most of the rest of the film does, for little more than shock value. Now during this first five minutes the camera floats around a building, now when I say it floats around a building, I mean to the effect of making you have motion sickness. I'm not kidding, I GOT MOTION SICKNESS, WHICH I HAVE NEVER HAD BEFORE IN MY LIFE. Again, some might say that this is a clever way of daring your audience not to watch. I would have to retort with, "No, that’s why man invented the tripod!" It has no real effect other than to ignite the imagination with nothing underneath the highly stylized layer of camera work. What good is it having a audience willing to pay to see a film that they can't watch for any other reason than is makes them have motion sickness. I can't say this enough, just because someone has never done something before doesn't mean it has to be done.
Now I haven't even scratched the surface of whats to come, The Rectum. I couldn't have said it better myself. Yes, we enter the Rectum (literally) a sort of highly aggressive homosexual sex club in the darkest corridors of Paris. Now, as I said, I'm not a prude, but I could have gone the rest of my life without seeing a man fist himself, or a CGI collapsed skull, or any other image that popped-up in this dark and confusing scene. Half the time you don't know whats going on (The only part which actually works into any cohesive themematic structure) and the other half of the time you are seeing the images that must play in Marilyn Mason's head. Black leather, whips, chains, and of course murder-death-rape. We have all heard about the now infamous rape scene that another reader dubbed the "cold-heart" of the film.
Well, its worse than you thought, its in realtime, and its awful. That isn't a testament to the filmmaker, its just that rape is bad. I mean, the director goes to such great lengths to give a real feel to this movie, a street sensibility to it, but has the most heart wrenching scene take place in a bad David Lynch set. No shit, red walls, flickering lights, add a dwarf and you have the red room. This is where the first themematic problem of the film is really established, Vincent Cassel's reaction. Now a film where revenge and action are presented in such a visceral manner means that we are going to learn about the nature of something. Be it evil, be it love, or emotion. This film's message is that nothing is safe, nothing is secure and that the great equalizer is reaction. We know nothing of why the rape happens, or the nature of the arguement preceeding it, nor the purpose of the rape.
The defense to these questions by the director was he was atempting to attain a documentry feel. Well, thats fine but it destroys the last of the film where he tries to make the film a reverse 2001. This is the part that makes me question Harry's review, he never mentions that this films ends(but I guess begins) with the entry and exit of the stargate. There's even a 2001 poster on the wall. To what effect, god only knows, by this time the film has descended into pretensiousness the likes of which I've never seen in film. Loving exchange of emotions between characters which, in this contrived structure, serve to not only undermind any development, which is almost completely lacking, but also further remind you the audience that believing in things is for squares. Also, in a paramount of absolute self serving pretension the credits are made completely unwatchable, with the exception of the directors name, hows that for egoism?
For the record I loved Memento (which I saw at the first showing at Sundance), I've been to North Bend Oregon (where Twin Peaks was filmed), and think that La Haine (HATE) was one of the best in 1996.
Sorry about the rant, call me tk-421
I’m willing to bet we’ve had over a dozen spies or chatters over the years who have called themselves TK-421. That’s almost as common as “Darth [insert witty second name here],” as nicknames go.
Thanks, though, man. Sorry this one didn’t work for you.
"Moriarty" out.
