Harry here, and I wasn't planning on running any more reviews of PLEASANTVILLE except that... well this one got me. Here's someone that can't really see colors all that well. Their world is a bit like the world of PLEASANTVILLE and I thought, "What an amazing vantage point this person has on this film." There's always been this fascination I have with the 'film experience'. What is it like to watch a movie with no sound? What is it like to sit in an auditorium and not hear the film or the crowd. And to watch PLEASANTVILLE with the colors as you see them in your world. Well, that's something I can never experience. So enjoy this review, it's quite something I think.
Okay, Harry, I know you've already received a stack of reviews on PLEASANTVILLE, but I just got back from an advance screening of this incredible movie and I had to offer you my two cents.
First off, let me tell you two things about myself:
1. While I like a good comedy just as much as any other guy, I'm known to my friends to favor somewhat serious material. Every time I recommend a book or movie to my best friend Bobbie, she always asks me, "How sad is it? How many people die?" This is not to say to that I'm a gloomy, black-clad, Gothic moper, but whenever Bobbie says things like that it always makes me hyper-aware of how I definitely DO have a tendency towards more serious stuff. Needless to say, I loved BELOVED.
2. I am partially red/green color blind. This doesn't mean that I see reds and greens in gray. It's just that those colors are sometimes are harder for me to distinguish from basic reds and greens. For instance, your typical green traffic light looks like dirty white to me, not green. Now...on with my review.
Late last week, I somehow managed to score tickets to an advance screening of PLEASANTVILLE that took place this morning. Thanks to your site and others, as well as a few trailers, I thought I had an idea what PLEASANTVILLE was about. Boy, was I wrong! Well, not wrong exactly, just a little off the mark.
When I woke up (it was an early screening--10 o'clock, but the invitation said to be there 45 minutes in advance), it was cloudy and gloomy outside. A typical gray fall day. Cold and kinda foggy. Kinda poetic, I thought. I'm going to see a comedy about kids who get stuck in a black and white sitcom world and somehow manage to bring color to the sitcom's world. Much to my surprise, though, the Back to the Future-esque comedy I had come to expect from the trailers I'd seen turned out to be something entirely different.
Oh, sure, this movie has some good laughs. But it isn't really a comedy. It reminded me of a fairy tale (the "Once upon a time" cue early on the film probably set that idea up in my head--but this time the movie actually delivered). It was entertaining, but also thought provoking. Kudos to Gary Ross for his knockout script.
What I especially appreciated, though, was the cinematography. And here's why: as I said earlier, I'm partially red/green color blind. When color first arrives in PLEASANTVILLE, it's subtle. I don't know if the filmmakers had color blindness in mind when they made the film, but if they didn't, they sure as hell DID stumble upon a lucky mistake. The reason I say so is this, some of the first incidences of color (the girl's tongue, the green car outside the soda shop) were hardly visible to me. They helped me gradually segue into the shock of color, just as the residents of PLEASANTVILLE did, instead of boom! here's a candy-apple red convertible. Once color arrives in shockingly vibrant detail (the fire, Lover's Lane) it's like stumbling onto a dream. The cinematography in this film is ravishing. I literally wanted to take a bite out of the screen.
The performances were also just as subtle--Joan Allen, in particular. Her quiet blossoming from a mousy PLEASANTVILLE sitcom-Mom prop into a sexy, stunning woman was breathtaking. The scene where she discovers color (you KNOW what scene I mean!) was absolutely startling, and oh so honest. I haven't seen every movie this year, Harry, but if you know of a more deserving Oscar-caliber, Best Supporting Actress performance, I'd appreciate you letting me know about it so I can make sure to check it out.
As for the story itself, like I said, it reminded me of a fairy tale. I felt transported by this movie. PLEASANTVILLE is a place I have never been or seen before, yet it definitely had relevance to my everyday world. The one thing it didn't have, that most fairy tales DO have, is a tidy ending. In a way, the ending reminded me of THE TRUMAN SHOW. However, in Truman's case, I found myself asking "How can they end it this way? What happens to Truman now?" Leaving his cozy little dome might have seemed like freedom, but I couldn't help but believe that leaving was the worst thing he could do. The tabloid press and paparazzi would have hounded the poor guy until he slit his wrists to escape again. PLEASANTVILLE has a similar, somewhat ambiguous ending--and, for those of you who've seen the film, I'm talking about Jennifer/Mary Sue's ending--which will leave many a viewer asking, "How could that happen?" or "What next?" But the movie itself provides a satisfactory answer. Who knows? That's what real life is like. It can't be programmed like a TV sitcom. No one really knows what happens next. And I like that. Not knowing all the answers is sometimes best.
I loved this movie, Harry. It's the best thing I've seen this year. And it's definitely more serious than the candy-colored comedy that New Line is advertising it to be. In this case, though, I'm glad of the misleading advertisements. For once I can tell my friend Bobbie that nobody dies in the movie, and I can also point to the commercials and say, "Look, it's shiny and pretty, and funny, too." I think she'll thank me for recommending this movie.
So that's it, Harry. If you decide to run this review, you can call me Moonshine.
