The Savage Planet, also called The Fantastic Planet, is an allegorical science-fiction animated movie about morality and the established social order.
The story is set in the dystopian planet of Ygam, where the Draggs, a species of giant blue humans, rule. There is another human species, the Oms, tiny in size, whom the Draags consider a pest and exterminate regularly, keeping some some of them as pets. Terr, one of those pets, is found and kept in captivity by a girl called Tiva. He grows with her master, learns all the secrets of the Draags, and then...
The universe and atmosphere created by Laloux are superb. Mix Salvador Dalí surreal landscapes and imagery, Bosch architectural fanciness
and oniric creatures, add a hint of 19th century botanical
drawings, slowly pour some psychedelic music by Alain Goraguer, and whisk all
energetically with an allegorical story adapted from Stephan Wul's by Laloux and Roland Topor, and you get something unique. The 2-D animation has all the limitations that the genre had in the 1970s, but the creativity and artistry of the drawings and story will make you forget the deficiencies of the animation (especially clear in the poor mobility and reduced facial expression of the characters). Some of the scenes are memorable, and I especially liked the Draag's mating and meditation practices, and some of Tiva's learning trances.
The movie is not apt for children because it has violence, sex, nudity, and elements that are difficult to explain to children. The movie, indeed, touches many adult serious themes: slavery, class
domination, racial extermination, relationship between Theology and Science, relationship between Humans and Nature, cohabitation/conflict between different social systems, colonial and imperialistic attitudes. The movie is complex enough to offer many elements of reflection without being dogmatic, and the viewer will be surprised at finding oneself understanding the good and bad points in both societies and ways of acting and living.
The main problem with the movie is its slow pace, and the emotional frigidity of the characters that don't allow the viewer to empathize with them beyond a pure intellectual or visual level. Furthermore, there is not enough action or thrill, so one gets easily bored after the initial fanciness of the imagery sinks in.
The Fantastic Planet is weird, artistic, psychedelic (even hallucinogenic), naive and delightful, but not always engaging - one of those movies that you want to watch because it is like no other, and sounds too cool not to have in your watched-movies list. The movie wan Cannes Jury's award in 1974.
A Japanese animation movie based on a comic by Osamu Tezuka, that tells the story of android Tima and her human friend Kenichi in the city of Metropolis. It is loosely based in the classic movie of the 1920s.
Metropolis shares with Astroboy two of Tezuka's themes: 1/ Father-son troublesome relationship due to the Father's rejection and unloving treatment of the son. 2/ The presence of a great variety of old-style chunky robots and very developed humanoids who ask themselves what/who I'm I?
The animation is flamboyant and amazing regarding the settings, backgrounds, architecture and machinery, and combines 2-D and 3-D mixed with some real movie elements. Some of the scenes at the end of the movie are spectacular from a visual point of view.
The mood of the movie is excellent, with the creation of a retro-futuristic city very developed, but impoverished and without freedom. We have the bright city and the underworld, with different colours and styles.
The music is fantastic, also retro, with lots of Mow-Town, classic Jazz, alternating with symphonic pieces that reminded me of John Williams'.
The script, though, is a poor mix of well-known sci-fi elements and characters. I found the script not engaging most of the time, not only because of the lack of originality of the same, but, above all, because of the drawing of the characters is completely childish, which barely fits with the innovative and more artistic style of the rest of the movie. Tima and Kenichi are beautifully drawn, and, being children, the style suits them, but the adults are drawn in a very different style, very 1970s cartons!, which doesn't seem to give visual homogenity to the film or fit the story.
I felt that the movie was perfect for teenagers, with elements that would suit both children and young adults, not as much for adults, unless you are a Tezuka's fan. Entertaining nevertheless.
++ This review contains or might contain spoilers++
Last Tango in Paris tells the story of the sexual relationship between Paul -played by Marlon Brando- a mature selfish widower, and Jeanne -played by Maria Schneider- a naive 20y.o. emotionally immature girl.
Despite what one might think, the movie is not about sex, but about obsession, manipulation, grieving, deceit, primal emotions and social constrictions.
THE CHARACTERS One of the most fascinating things about this movie is how well drawn the characters are. They are multifaceted, never simple or linear, very human, but also very archetypal and symbolic. The viewer can hate or love them, but, even if one can't fully understand them, there is a feeling of acceptance and even empathy.
Paul is an obsessive person, who had an open relationship with his wife -the only way he believes love should be, free from any obligation. When his wife commits suicide, he is shocked. He takes the suicide as a proof of his wife's emotional treachery. A mix of grief and hatred, pain and disenchantment with love, is what Paul is feeling when he meets Jeanne. She is half his age and easy to manipulate, as she's emotionally insecure and unhappy with her boyfriend, who uses her like a doll. They are like water on fire.
Paul channels his conflicting emotions through raw sex. He forces Jeanne into a situation that it is not good for her, a fact that she realises early on. Jeanne is looking from love and for personal appreciation, the one she doesn't get with her boyfriend, and to be loved for who she is. However, Paul creates a situation of complete emotional and sexual domination by establishing the rules of their meetings, which only benefit him. The Society and world that Paul wants to leave behind is, after all, a wish to return to Paradise. The fact that the couple play and talk like baboons in their rendezvous is a metaphor of this primeval relationship and the space of mind that Paul wants.
Jeanne's character and her relationship with Paul is the catalyst for her inner transformation - the way she relates to men in general, and her boyfriend in particular. She is like a lamb at the beginning of the movie, but like a lioness at the end. Despite her obsession with Paul, she is able to see her own dependence and starts fighting it until she frees herself completely.
THE PERFORMANCES The respective ages and
level of maturity/immaturity of Brando and Schneider are perfect for
their characters, and the acting is convincing and dynamic on both parts.
Brando is great in his performance, superb sometimes, especially when he's able to relax in front of the camera and improvise those monologues for which he became famous. The scene in which the recalls the story of his childhood is so real and powerful that you feel that he's the character he's playing; the same can be said of his scene with Massimo Girotti (who plays the lover of Paul's wife). I found some of his crying scenes heartfelt, but some others a bit phoney. Despite Schneider's acting being labelled poor, she brings to her role exactly what it is needed, and what Bertolucci wanted from her. She plays with freshness, naivety, and emotional maturity a character that is extremely difficult, has many colours, and does so in front of a mature Brando, who was a legend at the time.
THE (IN)FAMOUS SEX SCENES The movie is disturbing
sometimes, but not because of the sex scenes. The raunchy images that scandalised the world in the 1970s are, in most cases, not that raunchy for modern standards. Nudity is limited, and the bed scenes are more hinted and talked about than explicitly shown.
The only scene that I consider confronting is the one involving the butter bar. I had a strong emotional reaction against the scene, and I found it disturbing, despite the characters being dressed, and some men viewers considering the scene "hot". It felt like a rape to me. Alas, in an interview, Maria Schneider mentions that this scene wasn't originally in the script, that it was Brando's idea, that Bertolucci loved it, that she didn't want to do it; however, she was was forced to do it, and that she felt raped; her tears in the movie were real and personal, not the characters'.
THE ATMOSPHERE I thought that it was one of the best things of the movie as masterly reflects the soul and essence of the characters, individually and as couple. The mix of colours, lighting, and music are in perfect tune with each other. Thus, the atmosphere is dark and claustrophobic, bizarre and horror-like when focuses on Paul's world.
The atmosphere is clear, luminous, fresh and bucolic when focuses on Jeanne's world.
The atmosphere is warm minimal and with a a pronounced chiaroscuro in the love meetings of the couple in the empty apartment.
The atmosphere is decadent, theatrical, and "run out" in the Tango dancing scenes.
To blend it all, the sound track by Gato Barbieri is beautifully unsettling.
THE FLAWS I found the movie a little too long, too theatrical at times, and some bits unnecessary and distracting. The tempo is uneven, not fluid or natural, more theatrical than cinematic. Maria Schneider's wardrobe is really poor and she wears the same attire for most of the movie. This is not an easy movie to watch, or so did I find.
***
Last Tango in Paris is
one of these movies that gets stuck to your memory for a long time. The
more time passes, the more it settles in. Few movies in the History of Cinema have been able to achieve that, especially one as disturbing as
this one is.Last Tango in Paris gets under your skin, gives you a gut reaction, and you like it and hate it at the same time. The movie is a terrific characters' study, and offers unforgettable images and performances that are already part of the History of Cinema.
Krysar is an adult stop-motion animation film, loosely based on the German folk tale the Pipe Piper of Hamelin. A real art-house piece of animation that has a mix of Renaissance and Medieval elements. There are many original elements about this film. The first one is the story, which deviates from the original, or better said digs into its original meaning, to offer a social allegory. Barta's Hamelin is a greedy, glutton and lusty male-dominated society - a kind of Sodom and Gomorrah. The piper is the punisher and redemptor, and the catalyst necessary for human renewal. The children are only seen at the end.
The second element of originality is its language... which is onomatopoeic: sounds, grunts, mumblings and gibbering, perfectly understandable by anybody in the world. I found it hilarious!
The third element of originality is the visual style of the movie, traditional and innovative at the same time, very odd and very artistic. Hamelin's backgrounds, architecture and interiors are made of dark carved wood, similar to the ones you find in some Renaissance cathedral choir chairs. The overall design is German expressionist in its design, which is noticeable in the diagonal and curved collapsing lines, unbalanced proportions and oniric elements, and the general darkness and oppressiveness of the space and atmosphere. On the contrary, the luminous colourful paintings used for the landscape are bucolic and very artistic, the sort of images you find in Medieval Gothic Books of Hours. They are human spaces, associated to the most human characters in the story, and a complete counterpoint to the rest. I found in the movie very Bergman's, with the sort of vibe, feeling, and themes one can find in movies like The Seventh Seal or the Virgin Spring.
The third element of originality is the design of the characters. Most of the Hamelin dwellers are wood puppets, with mobile parts and fabric clothing; they have angular-faces and are thin and tall. The Piper is also a wood puppet, but it looks very different - a mixture of walking skeleton, a Goth band member, and an apocalyptic angel. The only two good characters and pure souls in the city -the lady living in the city outskirts and the fisherman- are very refined sweet and delicate wooden puppets. The rest of the characters are the rats, real ones (more like big mice!), which are as big the human characters, naughty monsters as greedy as the humans, which move rapidly and awkwardly.
The music is terrific - a mix of dark classic pieces and rock sounds with the ethereal sound of the flute as only breaker.
The ending is great, and has nothing to do with the traditional story. It couldn't be otherwise, as the movie is an allegorical reflection of Society's sins. The title in Czech means rat trapper, which refers to the rats in Hamelin and also to its dwellers, which are a pest as much as the rats are, and the piper also traps.
I found annoying that some general scenes -landscapes shots, movement of groups- were repeated over and over.
The film is not for small kids because there are too many adult explicit elements in it: lust, rape, killing of animals, stealing, death, and the general nastiness of the dwellers of the city.
Krysar is an amazing movie, but also a bit freaky and grotesque! Dare to watch it.
Manderlay is the second instalment of Lars Von Trier's thought-provoking trilogy "USA - Land of Opportunities". The story starts exactly where Dogville ended. Grace, her father, and their bunch of paid gangsters stop to eat at Manderlay (Alabama), a plantation where slavery persists 70 years after its Abolition. Idealistic Grace decides to stay, free the black people, and start a communal free plantation.
The story is narrated in eight chapters: 1/ In which we happen upon Manderlay and meet the people there. 2/ The freed enterprise of Manderlay. 3/ The Old Lady's Garden. 4/ In which Grace means business. 5/ Shoulder to Shoulder. 6/ Hard times at Manderlay. 7/ Harvest. 8/ In which Grace settles with Manderlay and the film ends. The setting, like in Dogville, is an almost empty theatre set with minimalist elements of architecture, furniture and floor white drawings to mark Manderlay's different spaces and buildings. The camera wanders around the set very close to the actors, as if the viewer was filming them with his/her own video-camera; there are bird's view shots, too, in which the characters look like little pawns on a chess board. The Spartan setting helps the viewer to focus on the story and its message, not on superfluous things.
Trier is always merciless depicting Society and Human Nature, with both their flaws and virtues. Despite his bad name, he is a a true artist, and it is one of an artist' obligations -or it should be- to reflect on the issues that affect the world we live in. Four main questions are explored and implicitdly posed in Manderlay's script: 1/ Is Democracy the best political system to have a free society? 2/ Can Democracy be preached by supporting the use of guns? 3/ What is the best solution to the race issue in America (and elsewhere)? 4/ Was Abolition, the way it happened, the best way to free the Afro-American population in the USA and give them equal rights?
Grace teaches the Afro-American slaves the rudiments of Democracy, but she does so while she's escorted and supported by a bunch of armed gangsters; therefore, from a position of power and white-race superiority - the same she believes she's fighting against. Moreover, nobody has elected her, so she shouldn't be preaching anything. If this wasn't enough, Grace tries, despite being white and not a slave, to teach the Afro-Americans how to be black and free without even asking them what they want and what their opinion is. Grace became a sort of slave in Dogville, but she did not learn her lesson there. The shock that she gets at the end of the movie masterly reflects how a just system can turn into oppressive when it is imposed on people who don't benefit from it and have no voice in its establishment.
The little moral of the story is not presented at the end, but right at the beginning, when Grace's father reminds Grace of an episode of her childhood. He tells her that she had a beautiful bird in a cage, that she freed it thinking that it was the best thing for the animal, but the bird, not being wild could not survive the winter outside; she found the bird frozen dead on her window next day. Grace, in fact, treats Manderlay's slaves with affection and love, but also with the same paternalistic ego-centered view of the world she treated her bird.
All the cast members are terrific in their respective roles. Bryce Dallas Howard is good as Grace Margaret Mulligan; Howard's sweet looks help her to convey Grace's naivety, but I found her acting a bit bland at times. I would have liked seeing Nicole Kidman back in the role, as she looks fragile and naive but has more maturity, a fact that would have given an extra push to the character; having said that, I don't think that frigid Nicky would have been convincing in the hot explicit sex scene in the movie. Also very convincing in their respective roles are Isaach De Bankolé as the proud and feisty Timothy, Danny Glover as wise Elder Wilhelm, and Mona Hammond as lovely but week Old Wilma.
The music is great. I loved the fact that the movie ended playing "Young Americans" by David Bowie as the lyrics are relevant to the story, as well as the photo-slide that accompanies it, which showcases the de-facto apartheid and lack of freedom of the Afro-American population in the USA until well-entered the 1970s, not when the Abolition was issued in the USA.
The main flaw of Manderlay is that the fact that the story can be easily twisted if interpreted literally; simple minds could say that the movie supports slavery or that blames the Afro-Americans for not freeing themselves earlier, which is completely the opposite of what Trier intends. Moreover, the movie is not engaging enough at the beginning, and a bit of more editing would have been advisable. Finally, the colours and quality of the film used are very poor, which might put off some viewers; Trier was much more careful in Dogville, and the film looked nicer on the screen.
Manderlay is a a very good film, not always engaging, not for the faint-hearted, but a valid reflection about the the flaws of the human spirit, and a wonderful metaphor about the problems that plague our contemporary Western world. I loved the ending. I hope Trier finds the motivation, inspiration, time and money to finish this amazing trilogy.
All About Our House, also known as Everyone's House, is a Japanese contemporary comedy that tells the trouble into which a posh young couple puts themselves into after they decide to build a western-style house and, and instead of entrusting the construction to the wife's father -a traditional builder and carpenter- they do to a Westernised interior designer and unlicensed architect.
This is a subtle comedy that shows with charm and insight the social and personal dysfunctions that modern Japanese families find due to generational gaps and cultural clash due to the struggle to combine a Western lifestyle in a society that has deep traditional roots in their culture. The food scenes and food play an important role in the film, and appear as a bridge of communication between generations, and something that serves to amalgamate their differences.
The main roles are played by Naoki Tanaka (as Naosuke, the husband), Akiko Yagi (as Tamiko, the wife), Toshiaki Karasawa (Mr. Yanagisawa, the interior designer) and Kunie Tanaka (Tamiko's father). All of them are terrific in their respective roles, but Naoki Takana and Kunie Tanaka shine as the funny husband and the strict sbut good-hearted father, respectively.
The movie, however, has an uneven tone as the first part of it is mostly a light comedy, while the second one is much more serious and philosophical. I missed a little bit of equilibrium and fusion of both genres to get a rounder film. H
This is a delightful film that shows with humour and sensitivity the issues affecting inter-generational relations in modern Japan, very far from Manga, Geishas and other stereotypes of the Japanese culture we are used to focus in the West.
Underground is a Serbian-Franco-German allegorical tragicomedy about the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia.
The movie is structured in three parts: War, Cold War, and War. The first is devoted to the WWII, the second to Tito’s period, and the third to the civil war that ended with the disintegration of the country. The second part is the most interesting -and the one that gives the movie its title- as it shows, in a metaphorical way, how the Yugoslavs related to each other, deceived each other, exploited each other, lied to each other and built up the hatred that would end with a very nasty civil war. All the characters are well drawn, and all the actors do a great job in their respective roles. The main characters are a couple of rascal friends and a nymphomaniac actress. They represent three human archetypes. Marko -played by Miki Manojlovic- depicts those people who say they have political beliefs and brag about them, when in actuality they have none. Cmi = Blacky -played by Lazar Ristovski- depicts those people who truly believe in what they preach and act accordingly, but they do so in such a dogmatic and obsessive way that become oblivious to reality and ignore the harshness of they political regimes they support. Finally, Natalija -played by Mirjana Jokovic- depicts those people who will always support the political regime in power, with a passion, no fight or confrontation, and go on with the flow and with their lives in a successful way. The counterpoint to these three characters is the character of Ivan (Marko's mentally changed brother) -played by Slavko Stimacy-, who loves his monkey Soni and wants to hung himself as he's always deceived and betrayed by everybody; he seems to be the only honest decent person and human being around.
Although all the themes touched in the movie are serious and dramatic, Kusturica's merit is to present them in a farce-like comedy and to talk about his people showing both his positive and negative traits. The movie, thus, mixes
elements of surrealism (some of them very Buñuel-ish), comedy of the
absurd, neo-realism, and époque films. Some scenes of the movie are unforgettable. My two favourite ones are the one at the old village square, which is terrific and visually shocking, and the ending with the "island", which really explains the whole movie and contains one of its most beautiful scenes. Some of the scenes related to the marriage of Blacky's son, his first outing to the real world, and the shooting of the movie about Blacky, are also great.
Some Bosnians and French intellectuals accused Kusturica of producing a pro-Serbian pamphlet. Kusturica, who
considers himself to be an Othodox Serbian (despite being born a Muslim
Bosnian) does not mention anything about the barbaric acts committed by
the Serbians. I do not know the director personally, or enough about him, so I cannot speak about his true intentions. However, the fact is that the movie rarely mentions any ethnic group. I see the movie more an evaluation of the (arche)type of people you find during pre-war or war periods than a justification of any of the barbarian acts committed during those period by any ethnic group. In fact, we are shown that all of those ethnic and social groups are to blame for what happened. Kusturica shows, in a way, certain fatalism in his approach to the events, as if what happened was inevitable. We see best friends killing each other’s... anybody who wants to understand, will.
My main criticism to the movie is its the extremely long footage, its slow pace, and the fact that it is not always engaging. Moreover, the camera style and film colours are those ugly ones typical of the TV shows of the 1980s. That is so because the film is an adaptation for the big screen of a 5-hour TV series. I would have not had any problem with that if the editors had taken into consideration that people going to the cinema expect different things than those watching a TV series, and that superfluous things are OK for TV but not for a movie. I found the music overbearing and annoying in general, although some of the individual pieces are beautiful. However, the music goes well with the histrionics of the characters and the craziness of the story.
Once upon a time, there was a country... and people who were happy partying and playing music, would end killing, torturing, and hating each other in a way that is difficult to understand for outsiders.
Underground, despite its comedic tone, is a very sad movie that speaks of social and human failure, and of the wickedness of the human spirit.
** Warning - This review may contain spoilers. I recommend watching the movie and then coming here, especially if the ending intrigues you, and it will **
Mr Nobody is the story of Nemo, whose possible two life lines and three love stories are alternatively presented.
The movie is well
shot and the cast members convincing, especially Jared Leto (as adult
Nemo), who is always perfect in this sort of odd films and roles. Also excellent are Toby
Regbo (15y.o. Nemo), Juno Temple (15y.o. Anna) and Sarah Polley (depressive adult Elise). Diana Kruger (as adult Anna), Rhys Ifans (Nemo's father, Natasha Little (Nemo's mother), among many others, are OK in their respective roles.
The
visual effects are wonderfully understated, very well blended with and at the
service of the story. The theatrical movie sets, the
rich colours, the different hues attached to each different life path,
the wardrobe, and the lovely music -which mixes some old classic tunes with pieces specifically composed for the movie- create an ensemble that is very
easy on the eye.
However, Mr Nobody is a great movie mostly because of its subtle but profound reflection on Human Nature, Human behaviour, Free Will and the meaning of life. The movie reflects on questions like - what makes us what we are? Why we act the way we do? Is free choice a key element to happiness? How does other people's choices affect our choices? The philosophical, psychological, and metaphysical questions posed are sometimes explicitly mentioned, while others are hinted and expressed through the story as a whole, each different life line story in particular, and through Nemo and the other characters' behaviour. Among others, some of the concepts presented here are: 1. Butterfly effect. 2. Principle of Entropy. 3. Schrodinger's Cat Paradox 4. String Theory 5. The Pigeon's Superstition experiment 6. The Nature of the true self. 7. Free will and
fate. 8. The linearity of (or multidimensional nature of) Time. 9. Quantum Physics and parallel universes.
Do not worry if some of these things sound alien to you. They were also alien to me. However, they were intriguing enough for me to get more information, and try to understand what I have seen better. In fact, they are a reason to watch the movie again. However, you can watch it without even bothering, and you will find that the movie still speaks to you.
Jaco Van Darmael himself commented on the script and on his initial intentions in an interview. However, the story has taken a life of his own, way beyond the initial intention of the director.
***
THE ENDING OF THE MOVIE - MY INTERPRETATION The film ends in a way that is open to interpretation. Movie forums are full of comments on the ending, and on Nemo's different lives, actions and reactions. To, me, however, they miss a few important things that are pivotal to understand the way the movie ends. Or, at least, the way I understand it: 1/ The Lyrics of the song Mr Sandman, which is repeatedly played thorough the whole movie, especially the main verses. Are we watching something real or is it just a dream? A lucid dream? 2/ The beginning of the film, with the different possible endings, which all end with Nemo dead, lost in a rhomboidal aseptic nightmarish dream-like world. The narrator is Nemo himself. 3/ The scene where Nemo tells how he was born, which goes from minutes 12.20 to 15 approximately. Here my transcription of what Nemo's off voice says:
"I can remember a long time ago, long before my birth, in the squeezing with those not yet born. When we aren't born yet, you know everything. Everything that's going to happen. When it's your time, the angels of the living put their finger on your mouth and leave a mark on the upper lip. It means that you've forgotten everything.
But the angels missed me.
[Nemo immerses himself in a white milk-like liquid, as he is ready to being born]
Then you have to find a daddy and mammy, and that's not easy to choose.
[Different couples speak about their wishes to have a baby, until Nemo's parents appear]
In the end, I chose them because the lady smells nice, and the man said 'Well, I can tell you how we met. It meant to be. Have you heard of the butterfly effect?' ".
4/ The title of the movie is "Mr Nobody". Shouldn't this, per se, be an indication of something? Anything? Any bell ringing in your ears, yet?
Many of the
interpretations about the meaning of the movie
focus on the event that is photographed in the poster of the movie, but we need to remember that unborn Nemo chose his parents. Therefore, the moment of decisive choice is not the one in the poster, but the one of choosing his parents.
We are told, explicitly, that Nemo can see the future, any possibility in the future, every possible action and reaction in his life because the angels missed him. Therefore, all the couples that appear at the beginning are a possibility. Nemo chooses one. The more you think about it, the clearer you come to the conclusion that unborn Nemo is seeing his possible life IF he selected this couple as his parents, NOT after selecting them as his parents. Not convinced?
Now, we have the part of the movie in which we see centenary Nemo telling his life story/ies to a journalist. At a certain point, the world in which they are living starts to fade out and disintegrate, as it was a projection or a dream. And that is what it is. Something that is not real at all. All this world is white in colour, the same limbo and space of possibility in which Nemo immerses himself before being born. Old Nemo is not real, it is the way unborn Nemo sees himself if he chooses the parents shown at the beginning. If that wasn't true, how do you explain the fact that Nemo is the narrator of the three possible endings that we see at the beginning of the movie?
***
There are other movies that reflect on the effect that personal choice and randomness, free will, determination, fate, and the butterfly effect have in our lives. Just to mention three, just remember Sliding Doors, Run Lola Run, and Cloud Atlas. However, they do not have the clarity and depth that Mr Nobody has.
Mr Nobody is a very
complex film, which, however, is very entertaining and easy on the eye.
After all, it is a possible multiple love story. You can see it in many
different ways and give it the interpretation you want. However, this is a film that needs of certain frame of mind to watch it,
as this is not your usual fantasy or science-fiction movie.
Mr. Nobody is one of the most interesting and thought-provoking film I have watched in a long time. Perfect for Philosophy classes, and for oiling the creases of your brain in those days in which you feel them a bit rusty.Mr. Nobody is one of those movies that linger in the back seat of you mind for days, long after you have watched it. "No
choice is still a choice" is one of the statements presented in the movie on which I have been pondering for days. Would
knowing your fate help you to make a choice? Is one of those questions that did the same to me. The film
is full of statements and questions that will keep you thinking, for good. A cult film already.
Caramel is a Lebanon-France co-production with a charming story of female love, friendship and ageing. The story focus on the love lives of a group of young and middle-age Beiruti women who are regulars at a hair & beauty salon.
The movie mixes romance, humour and sadness with simplicity, warmth, and heart under the fresh direction of young director Nadine Labaki, who also plays the leading character.
The movie shoes a multifaceted image of Beirut and its dwellers, a city that is complex, diverse and rich in culture. Far from the stereotypes about the Midle East that we find in Western movies, Labaki is a local who knows her city, and brings to the screen the rawness and charm of everyday Beirut and of its dwellers. The movie has an honest and respectful approach to the interaction between Christians and Muslims, and how different social groups and genders relate in Lebanon.
The movie was shot in warm caramel tones, which is the colour of the home-made sugar wax traditionally used in Lebanon for waxing.
The music is a warm and sentimental mix of French and Arabic songs. Truly fantastic, but also very melancholic. All the actors are
terrific in their performances: Yasmine Elmasri as the modern Muslim girl Nisrine, who is going to get married; Joanna
Moukarzel as the boyish Lesbian Rima; Gisèle Aouad as the aging divorced
actress Jamale; Nadine Labaki as
Layale, a good-hearted girl in love with a bad man;
Adel Karam as the sweet policeman Youssef enamoured of Layale; Sihame
Haddad as the patient and shy single tailor Rose, and Aziza Semaan as an
impressive demented Lili.
Caramel is a heart-warming enjoyable chick flick, soapy at times, that offers a real portrait of life in Beirut and of Lebanese women. The story is narrated in an universal simple language, but breaks many stereotypes about religious confrontation in Lebanon and on how Middle Eastern Women think, feel or live.
Little Ottik is a bizarre horror comedy that adapts and reinterprets the folk story of Otesánek (aka Greedy Guts) for the big screen.
This is the story of the struggle of Bozena and Karel to hide and control heir piece-of-wood son Otesánek, a freak of nature with an insatiable hunger, from their neighbours.
The film re-examines the myth of the primeval creation, in which the natural order is subverted and disrespected. The couple succumbs to an act of greedy love that produces, as a result, a greedy gluttonous carnivore woody creature. Svankmajer depicts with great insight the sins of parenthood in our modern world, in which children are spoiled rotten, and anything they do is excused or justified. The movie also depicts with great humour and realism the social dynamics of small groups in blocks of apartments and neighbourhoods, paced not only by a net of support, but also by gossip, the power of appearances, and enmities and tensions.
The role of food in this movie is also very interesting, as most human characters in the movie eat disgusting porridge-like meals, despite them longing for meat, while Otesánek, a wooden creature, is eating meat all the time!
The Actors are all great and charming in their respective roles. Veronika Zilková plays with great conviction barren wife Bozena, while Jan Hartl plays with sweetness her doubtful and confused husband Karel. Also terrific are the actors playing the good-hearted neighbours: Kristina Adamcová as the incisive rebel child Alzbetka -who is also the catalyst of the story-, Jaroslava Kretschmerová as Alzbetka's sensible Mother, Pavel Nový as Alzbetka's working-class male Father, and Dagmar Stríbrná as the building caretaker.
The stop-motion animation of Otesánek is delightfully odd, and the drawn illustrations (by Svankmajer's wife) shown in the book that Alzbetka is reading are colourful and artistic. Also delightful are the episodes involving the interaction between old spectacled neighbour and Alzbetka, which are really really naughty.
On the negative side, the film was shot using ugly-looking 1970-like colours and lighting, which are a bit weird for a 2000 movie; still they somewhat go well with such an odd story. Moreover, the movie is too long and its pace too slow at times, and that is not excusable in this case.
Little Otik is a grotesque mesmerising adult tale with a great story, terrific performances, and very interesting themes. Nothing you've watched before!
Waltz with Bashir is a documentary animation movie that narrates director Ari Folman's personal trip to recover his memory regarding his participation in the invasion of Lebanon and in the massacre of Sabra and Shatila (1982) while he was a soldier in the Israeli Army.
Different elements are shown in the movie, all interconnected. 1/ The story shows how post-traumatic disorder works in soldiers, how tricky and fanciful human memory is, and how memory hides from our conscious anything that causes us pain and shock. The trips and chats Folman had with some of his old Army fellows and one journalist who covered the events helped him to understand what happened to him.
2/ There is a depiction of the reality of war, with its drama, blood, death, fear, and normality. We see young teen soldiers doing a job that overwhelms them, and their fear being the trigger to kill, not hatred. We also see the happy every-day moments lived in their fight idle days and moments: soldiers listening to music, talking about girls, life plans, and longing for home and a normal life.
3/ There is the narration of the events leading to the massacre of Sabra and Shatila, in which thousands of Muslim civilians (mostly women, children and old people) were pitiless slaughtered by a group called the Christian Phalangists, with the passive connivance of the Israeli Army. We witness with horror the impact that such barbaric acts had on the victims and on those who witnessed the events.
The movie succeeds at presenting such a harsh story by combining different elements in a masterly way. [1] The movie creates an animated world that is alien and intimate at the same time. This is done by using an unique animation style that is very realistic (very similar to rotoscopy), by using and odd combination of orange & beige hues, and great chiaroscuro, which create an ominous atmosphere that is surreal at times. The recurring image that Folman remembers -he and two soldiers emerging naked from the beach with a gun (as shown in the movie's poster)- shows very well the sense of spiritual abandonment, alienation and regret that permeates the movie.
[2] The movie paces and presents the research for Folman's memory as if it was a mystery movie. We walk side by side with him while he puts together the pieces of his past; the tempo (and the uneasiness) goes in crescendo and ends in the shocking non-animated final minutes of the movie. They moved me to tears.
[3] The movie uses an impacting and soulful soundtrack that will touch you. It mixes some classical music pieces, well known songs of the 1980s, and some songs and musical pieces specifically written for the movie.
[4] The movie showcases the importance of our oniric world to understand our present and to retrieve pieces of our past that lay dormant in our subconscious; they are -and were for Folman- a doorway to any locked-in memories. In fact, the movie starts with a dream, and contains several oniric surrealist scenes.
[5] The movie mixes the harsh images and sub-stories with others full of intimacy, lyricism and poetry, and shows different facets of the life of a soldier and of War.
My main criticism to the movie is that Ari Folman does not explicitly condemn the Israeli involvement in the massacre. He does so implicitly and from a personal point of view, which is full of regret and shame. In a way, the movie is politically correct for the Israelis. To me, the fact that only the Christian Phalangists are depicted as the barbarians and slaughters is a bit washing one's hands. If you see somebody killing frail people and do nothing to stop it or succour them, you are as guilty as the butchers themselves. Most of the victims were women, children and elderly people. How could a soldier do nothing to stop the slaughter?
***
This is one of this movies that everybody should watch, not only because it is a piece of art, but because it as powerful reminder that War debases us all, destroys the lives of all the parties involved, except of those politicians who started them, and whom we elect.
One of the most amazing films I have seen in the last years. Multi-layered. Confronting. Lacerating. Unforgettable.
Antichrist tells the story of a couple's grief after the death of their child, their progressive alienation from reality, and their descend to a personal hell, especially after they retreat to their cabin in in the forest, which they call Eden. Antichrist also
narrates the trip of the female character "She" to her inner hell, so
she becomes a demon (or the Antichrist) in an Eden inhabited by only a
man and a woman.
The movie is structured in four parts: Grief, Pain (Chaos Reigns), Despair (Gynocide), and The Three Beggars, plus a Prologue and an Epilogue.
The Prologue in black and white is a short masterpiece, classy image quality and tones, wonderful music and mood, perfect tempo. It really sets the mood of the rest of the film, and offers a lyricism that gets lost afterwards.
Once the first chapter starts, the movie, its colours, its lighting, the atmosphere, and the acting start to dig in and unsettle the viewer with an unidentifiable menace that you feel even before the couple moves to the woods. That menacing feeling grows at the same pace as the tempo of the movie, being suffocating when the tragic events unfold. There are amazing oniric, premonitory and surreal images blended with the real facts, but these are progressively intermixed, and the boundaries between reality and unreality, sanity and insanity, get faded out.
The epilogue is very surreal, quite easy and light, more fairytale-ish in a way, and I thought that it did not glue well to the rest of the movie in story or mood.
The movie has only two
actors, William Dafoe as He and Charlotte Gainsbourg as She, who carry out the heavy
weight of the whole movie. Their physiques really suit the gloomy
characters they play. In both cases, the roles are very demanding
physically and emotionally, so their work has to be praised. I found,
however, that their personal chemistry was somewhat lacking. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle produces superb bucolic images, but also eerie oniric images and tones, that are not complacent or decorative, but the third character in the movie.
Antichrist is a psycho-thriller, and it is barely gory or explicitly violent until the last 20 minutes of the film, which are horrific. The violence and horror in the movie mainly come from the atmosphere and the dark places of the human soul where the story takes the viewer to. The fact that Von Trier was quite depressed when he filmed this movie, helps the movie to portray sadness, depression, mania, mental alienation and therapy with great accuracy. The movie has that profound eeriness that Japanese horror movies have, too, but explores other themes, and is not as entertaining, to be honest.
The surrealism of the movie is more Buñuel-Dali's in "Le Chien Andalu" than Tarkosky's, although some of the forest scenes and images would remind the viewer of the Russian Master, especially in The Mirror.
***
A few tags have been attached to the film by a few critics and, more often, by those people who have not watched the movie or follow what other people say without any further questioning.
Critique given no. 1 - The movie is "offensively misogynistic" Really? I did not feel the hate towards women anywhere. The female character is a troubled spirit with a shocking behaviour, but if you consider that a proof of Trier's misogyny, you should categorise most Japanese horror film directors the same, as they have this sort of nasty women, too. To me, there is more misogyny in most Hollywood movies (in the way women are usually portrayed with regards to men and women) or in any bunch of randomly selected video-clips (where you will see women presented as trash and as pieces of meat) than in this movie. However, I don't see critics vehemently denouncing that.
The only misogyny in the film comes from the fact that the female character shifts the intellectual approach to her Ph. D. thesis called "Gynocide" (about the genocide of women through History) from a feminist one to a misogynist one. However, that is the direct result of her progressive mental and emotional alienation, in which she convinces herself that female nature is evil, as also her own nature, which explains the final horrific events. Von Trier offered an interview to Rotten Tomatoes, quite interesting, light and frank, that you might want to check if you want to see the movie or if you've already watched it On the other hand, the male character is patronising, intellectually patronising, and his approach to his wife's problem, despite the love he has for her, is too clinical and emotionally detached - aseptically empathic if you want. So is not misogynist either.
Critique given no. 2: "The viewer cannot relate to the characters and their circumstances". Of course not. The movie deals with maniac depression, even schizophrenia at times, grieving, pain, and alienation. They are not sane characters. You do not need to relate to them at all.
Critique given no. 3: "The film is depressing". That's for sure, but, again, is a film about grieving and sadness, and the viewer knew that before watching the movie. Critique given no. 4: "I do not know the point of the film", or "What is the movie about?". I think that, if the film had been more entertaining, you would not be asking that question. That is the director's fault. Still, the film has many different readings and interpretations. Some of the surreal and oniric images have no explanation, or as many explanations as you want. That is so, because our subconscious world is never straightforward or easily explainable: A fox eating itself alive, a gazelle with a dead foetus coming out, the sex scene under the tree, the dreams of the female character, some elements of European folklore and wizardry to mention just a few eerie (horrific to me) images. The mix of visual and narrative elements is overwhelming, and very complex.
***
Antichrist is an excellent movie, confusing a times, not entertaining enough, not easy to watch at all, with good performances. It contains horrific impacting images and moments that will upset you, especially if you are not into horror films. The film is still fascinating, but you are not going to recommend it to anybody to pass the time or have a nice relaxing Sunday afternoon.
Just a warning. If you are interested
in watching explicit sex images, you better chose another movie, because
you will be disappointed with the ones here, as the number of them is
limited, of short length, and anti-erotic. Nothing that will turn you on
- Guaranteed.
A marvellous movie by Hong Kong director Kar Wai Wong, with an original script, innovative film narrative, wonderful characters and a super-stylish visuals. The movie depicts with realism, nostalgia and lyricism the difficulties and constrictions of the human heart, to love and being loved.
It is a nostalgic view to the bygone loves of Tony Leung's, a part-time journalist and writer of romance novels, who lives in room 2047 in a hotel in Hong Kong. 2046 is the room where some of the stories happen, and also the title of Tony's sci-fi novel. The movie is the continuation of In the Mood for Love, and some references are directly related to the story in that movie.
1/ The visuals The first thing that will catch your eye are the rich deep colours of the movie, especially the gorgeous reds and greens, but also the beautiful interior cinematography, the dresses, the make-up and hairdos, the colourful retro atmosphere and vintage texture of the film, the super-classy style of the film. Even the smallest detail is taken care of.
2/ The story Two main themes are explored in the film, love and literature. The movie tells several love stories, but they are not corny, as this movie is a reflection on real love - about how the past conditions our present relationships, about how love obsession can self-sabotage your emotional life, about those people who love us but we cannot love, and about the importance of timing in love.
Secondly, the movie depicts the process of literary creation, how our life and experiences affect our writing consciously or not, and how they are intricately mixed together.
Tony's character is terrific so realistic and sophisticated at the same time, without all his human flaws well visible to the viewer. The women characters are quintessentially female, clever and powerful, and drop- dead gorgeous.
3/ The narrative The narrative is circular but not straightforward as the different love stories are not chronologically told. The movie starts with one important story that happened in the past, and ends with the same story, as this story is the one that affected Tony's heart the most. Moreover, this circular and hopping movement is affected by the insertion of pieces of the present, in which Tony writes his novel 2046 and reflects about his past.
The narrative breaks the love stories in different pieces, placing them according to the heart, not according to the time in which they occurred. This honours Tony' emotional memory, although emotional memories are never linear, and they are also affected by our present. Moreover, the way the story is told is intensely evocative and full of nostalgia, and really engaging from a mental point of view. I think that a linear script would have ruined the movie and had a soapy effect.
4/ The acting Tony Leung Chiu Wai (as Tony Leung), Ziyi Zhang (as Bai Ling), and Faye Wong (as Wang Jing-wen and the android) are terrific in their performances, completely in tune with the needs of their characters. This is specially true in the case of y Ziyi Zhang, who looks ravishing beautiful and offers an unforgettable depiction of an emotionally multifaceted woman. One wonders why such a fine talented actress is doing crappy movies in Hollywood while she can really perform.
Kar Wai Wong is a rare example of true artist, and this movie is a perfect example of that. Beware, this is not a movie of mainstream watchers or if you are just looking for a bit of fun.
Nobody Knows tells the story of a group of four siblings before and after their abandonment by their mother.
The movie is magical and poetical, but also heartbreakingly hard, from the first scenes to the ending. It has great lyric moments combined with very lovely light ones.
I was surprised that the director and the script did not use such a hard story to make the viewer sob, or to make the viewer mourn for the children. That would have been not only predictable but make the script mundane, and not the lyric piece it is. Instead, the viewer witnesses the children's hopes, hunger, despair, acceptance, survival, union and happiness, despite everything. Although the story of the misery of the children is explicitly told, what catches the viewer's eye is the emotional positive outcome that misery brings to these kids. One of the things that shows this clearly, is the part related to the secret garden that the kids start to grow in their balcony, and the enthusiasm and effort that they put into it.
Sometimes you feel so immersed in the life of the siblings, that you feel as if you were there, enduring the heat, the bad odours, the hunger, the playfulness, and their problems. That is so because the director creates a very intimate connection with the viewer, something really special.
The children actors are UNBELIEVABLE, especially the leading young actor, Yuya Yagira, who delights us with a moving mature strong performance. You do not feel they are actors performing, giving life to a script, but real children abandoned and filmed. That says a lot about the art director, too.
I did not like the title, which does not convey what happens in the movie. Nobody Cares would have been a more accurate one.
Irreversible is a very confronting raw and violent French movie that tells the story, in reverse chronological order, of a serious of violent events happened during the return home of the female protagonist Alex. The least you know, the more shocking and though-provoking the movie will be.
Three main themes are explored in this movie. 1/ The
movie is an exploration of Sexuality - Sex as mean of human
communication and love, versus love as a mean of hatred and subjugation.
Sex as pleasure versus sex as abuse. The intimate scenes of
Alex and Marcus are all sensuality, playfulness, joy and love. The
conversations about sex between Alex, Marcus and Pierre explore the
matter of pleasure and human connection, of what makes humans click
sexually. The rape scene is an antithesis to all of that.
2/ The movie reminds the viewer that there is nothing to forget or forgive about rape. The movie is a brutal depiction of the brutality that any rape against any woman is. One of the most
asked questions regarding this movie is, did the rape scene need to be so brutal and 9-minute long? Despite how hard was watching it, especially if
you are a woman, I think the answer is yes, for several reasons:
Because (too) many
people out there consider rape a second-rate crime and somewhat blame
the victim or excuse the perpetrator. There are judges around the world
saying that the victim somewhat provoked the rapist with her sexiness or behaviour.
Because the effects
of rape are very damaging, emotionally and mentally, and some people
cannot understand them unless they have been raped or seen a rape.
Because the erotic industry somewhat glamorises women being raped. Rape is
always a brutal act, even if the rapist does not beat you, but there are
rapists doing nasty brutal things to women, something worse than anything depicted in this or any other movie.
3/ The movie is a successful reflection on the double-side of human nature and of the two faces of violence. The messages embedded
in the story are important and offer a glimpse of what is having a
normal life full of hopes and joy, to found it completely turned over
and ruined by violence in a matter of hours. Telling the story backwards makes the story not only more interesting and intellectually engaging (or is it puzzling?!), but also a very successful way of exploring this theme as we feel an instant repulsion and disgust towards the characters that appear at the beginning of the film, and towards their language and behaviour. Some of the ethical questions posed by Noé are: Even if there is a good reason for such acts, is violence justified? Who is more ethically an morally reprehensible, the nasty person who does a nasty thing, or the good person who does a nasty thing? Does nastiness and violence have class or gender? Noé's message is that violence is always repulsive no matter the reasons (or lack of them) behind and that normal
people can be as violent as violent people in certain circumstances. If we had seen the events narrated in chronological order, we would have, perhaps, justified them.
The atmosphere of the movie is excellent, as well as its hues and music. The use of strobist images is sickening, but it helps to unsettle the viewer since the beginning. However, there wasn't any need to use so many strobist images and for so long as, by doing so, the movie becomes a little bit hallucinogen and the viewer loses focus; to be honest, I would used strobist images quite differently and with a different timing.
I found Monica Belluci great as Alex both in the sweet and playful scenes, and it the harsh ones; she demonstrates here that she is not just a pretty face. Jo Prestia is superb as the disturbing disgusting rapist Le Tenia. Vincent Cassel is just OK as Alex's boyfriend Marcus, while Albert Dupontel is good as Alex's best friend Pierre.
Among the downsides, beyond the overuse of strobist effects, I would mention two. The first is the opening scene, which is irrelevant and does not add anything to the story. Moreover, All the gay thing was really unnecessary as does not add anything to the story and is very negative bordering homophobic. There are heterosexuals who would have similar sort of clubs and behaviour. This is not an easy film to watch, and it really gets you upset. In that regard, it achieves what aimed, as it makes you think and react against the motto of "an eye for an eye", violence confronted by violence, and reminds you that rape is a brutal act of violence, not just an act of sexual abuse.
If you can stand the whole ordeal and reach the last minutes of the movie, you will get to the start of a relaxing bright day that was full of promises, which is how most of our days start before something bad happens. That is life in its full splendour and nastiness.
Kiki's Delivery service is a Studio Ghibli's traditional hand-drawn animation movie loosely based on Eiko Kadono's eponymous book, but with important additions by Miyazaki. It tells the story of Kiki, a 13's y.o. witch who leaves the family home with her cat Jiji to get a life of her own and start her training as a witch in a big city away from parents and friends.
It is a Ghibli's trademark the detail and artistic drawing of the scenery and cityscapes, and Kiki's is no exception. It has a precious and colourful drawing. The European city where Kiki goes is a mix of Northern European architecture and Southern European lighting and mood. The time frame is an imprecise point in time, a golden-era of peace and tolerance, set around the 1950s, but with elements that go from the 30s (the zeppelin) to the 60s (B&W TV), with other elements that can be placed in between.
Three elements stand out in this movie beyond the hand-drawn precious animation. The first one is Kiki's story - a metaphor of the changes that take us from childhood to adulthood, from being in the family's womb, many times taking for granted what we have, to being alone, unprotected, standing by ourselves, defining who we are and want to be as individuals. Jiji's evolution with regards to Kiki is just the result of Kiki's transformation into an adult, not of the cat's changing ways!
The second element is very Miyazaki's - the presence of magical and non-magical elements combined harmoniously in a world of good-natured tolerant humans that accept magic as a natural thing, like Kiki's flying her broom through a city making courier deliveries.
Thirdly, this is a movie about women, female nature and sisterhood. Except for Tombo -Kiki's admirer and good-natured inventive friend- the main characters are powerful savy women: Osono, the pregnant baker, represents acceptance without questions, maternal care, the City, hard work and determination. Ursula the painter, on the contrary, represents freedom, personal independence, individuality, the wild, the follow your heart and explore your soul message. Finally, the two old ladies in the blue-roofed house -Madam and Bertha- are examples of kindness, carefulness, attention to the detail, old manners and class. In fact, Kiki finds a mother, two grandmas and a big sister in the city. Miyazki's Europe is, it seems, a a matriarchal society. There a few points that I would have liked further explored with extra footage, as the movie is enjoyable, and the ending was unnecessarily hasted and leaves you with a big sweet and sour after-taste. Still, Kiki is an adorable
story with lovable characters, that is entertaining and good for both
children and adults, especially if you love magic realism and Ghibli and Miyakazi's magic worlds. A warning - Some of the DVDs come with several dubbing versions and several captions. Beware, the original first dubbing of the original was done without respect to the original, and changes and mutates the dialogues without respect, changes the tone of the movie and even transforms Jiji into a sarcastic adult cat. It is not a proper dubbing but an interpretation with additions to the original made by Disney. It is shameful and disrespectful and you better ignore it. There is a second American dubbing that is truthful to the original. Watch the original Japanese with captions, and choose the captions that follow the Japanese script not the invented superposed American. Who wants to watch an adulteration when the original is perfect?
Fahrenheit 451 is a visionary movie based on Ray Bradbury's eponymous novel. It was Truffaut's only English speaking movie. The title is related to the degrees needed for paper to get on fire.
The movie is set in an imaginary aseptic future world, ruled by an oppressive system that has created an uber-clean society that thrives on TV plasma screens, forbids reading or having books and burns them, and promotes drug use for emotional control. Guy Montag, married to an emotionally frigid Linda, is one of the firemen in the anti-book brigade, very passionate about his job and purpose, until he meets his neighbour Clarisse and starts questioning himself and the system.
The movie is an allegory about what a world without books and culture would be, an ode against ignorance and simple minds, a reminder that burning books is a sign of human degradation and typical of tyrannical regimes. The movie is also an homage to Literature, in this case to Truffaut's favourite books, which are part of the burnt books shown in the film, and his film is, of course, based on Bradbury's novel.
The movie honours Bradbury's visionary novel. Think about our modern world, dominated by big plasma screens hanging from the walls in which reading and culture are each time less valued and appreciated. Think about those reality shows in which our opinion is asked to create a false sense of participation when our answers are, indeed, irrelevant and certainly unimportant. Think about a world in which the information is manipulated by the media to support the political regime in vogue... It sounds familiar, no?
All the actors are good in their roles. Cyril Cusak is truly convincing as the fire brigade captain, completely sure about his Mission and about the danger of books for Society. Oskar Werner is also great as fireman Montag, and does a great job at going from his initial hieratic self to his soulful more sensible and sensitive self when the character starts to change. Julie Christie, despite being accused in the past of not being able to act, is great in her double role as Montag's wife Linda and neighbour book-reader Clarisse. I loved the fact that Christie was able, through characterisation and performance, to offer a Linda who is very feminine and sensual on the exterior but emotionally frigid, and a boyish Clarisse who is very sensual and warm.
This was Truffaut's first film in colour, and the colours are not randomly chosen. The movie offers subdued grey and pastel tones that are constantly highlighted by two main colours: dark grey (the colour of the grey society it represents, even the school uniforms are grey!) and a beautiful intense deep red (associated to fire and passion). The end of the movie is magnificent - lyric and full of hope. The whole snow scene and
recitation of the old man with his grandson is gorgeous and very moving.
The OST by Bernard Herrmann is great, dramatically neurotic sometimes, lyric some others, while the tune that accompanies the fire squad's outings is very Ravel-ish and anticipative, also very catchy, and sets the pace of the movie. Most of the time the music is unsettling, but sometimes it is unnecessarily overwhelming and annoying.
I watched this movie for the first time on TV in my teens, in a special series showcasing Truffaut's films, and it had a huge impact on me. In fact, I forgot the title of the movie, but not the movie or its message. I saw the movie again last year, and, by re-watching it, I understood why it has a spot in my forgetful mind. It is the soul and the message, the power of the themes presented, its plea to Literature and the written word, and the power of knowledge and the Arts in creating a freer society. You see, it is Bradbury's merit that I did not forget the movie, not the other way around. I have forgotten most of the other movies that I watched in that very series, but not this, because of the story.
The only think that does not stand the pass of time are the fashion and, above all, the special effects, which are very outdated, even cheesy, and made me laugh when re-watching it. However, the movie has a lot of experimental things that are still daring. For example, the opening credits, all spoken, no word written until we see "The End", or the scenes in which half the screen goes black.
***
Fahrenheit 451 is a cult classic science-fiction film that should be in everybody's bucket list. It is not an easy movie to watch, especially being so out of fashion in style, effects, music and conception. One of those movies you love or hate. Still, it explores many themes that are still valid for our society and does a remarkable job at bringing Bradbury's novel to the big screen.
