-
You start the post: "I'm in agreement with the line I quoted,..." in which the writer questions whether the film " actually has anything of consequence to say". A liitle further down you write: "Dercourt has something unique to say." I'm confused.
Melanie's hypothetical role in the car accident is like a amuse-bouche, like a little "teaser". I knew I wasn't the only one who thought about it:
"She is taken on as a nanny for the couple's young son and soon she is not only caring for him but also tending to Ariane. The imperious pianist of old has been made fragile by a recent hit-and-run incident (the possibility that this was carried out by Mélanie is left tantalisingly open.) "
Sam Jordison
Channel 4 (UK) Critic
STRAIGHT TO THE POINT (Brazil)
-
I had actually meant to say I don't think despite his ironic comments on the bourgeois life Chabrol actually has anything of consequence to say either. So both have something unique to say, but not of consequence. Examples of films with something of consequence to say are too numerous to mention, but among recent ones I'd suggest The Lives of Others, or Days of Glory, or Letters from Iwo Jima. Your hypothesis and the UK TV reviewer's seems to me out of keeping with the style of the narrative and the personality of Mélanie, and it would mean she knew Greggory was Ariane's husband when she got the job, which we aren't told, so that would mean we aren't being told anything. You have found one English-speaking writer who agrees with you, but I could refer you to a dozen French-speaking ones who have written about the film and have not the slightest suspicion that Ariane's fragile condition has anything to do with Mélanie. I don't think this is "tantalizingly left open," I think it's a whole segment of the film where the girl is set up for her revenge that is really not very clearly worked out, but which presumably just happens fortuitously for Mélanie. We'd need to see how it goes in the screenplay or what Dercourt or his co-writer Jacques Sotty would say. I don't think it's an amuse-bouche, this uncertainty, but an indigestible element which, however, I don't think we're meant to be tantalized by so much as just accept. But since there's a question mark, you have pointed to a weakness. Thrillers often have such leaps or gaps, including Chabrol's. That's how I see it anyway. You're welcome to your opinion. If I find out anything further, I'll let you know. The film's coming to Berkeley for a one-week run in a week and I'll try to get somebody to go with me and get their feedback on the plot issues, see if their bouche gets amused.
-
I'm convinced Melanie knew Greggory was Ariane's husband when she got the job (even though we aren't told) and I don't believe Melanie was the hit-and-run driver even though I enjoyed entertaining the possibility.
MISSISSIPPI CHICKEN (USA)
-
I'm glad you're not pushing Mélanie's having a role in the accident as either a fact or an authorial tease any more. The husband's identity is equally unsupported, as you acknowledge. I don't use that approach. I don't like to get "convinced" of things for which there is no justification in the piece. I take a more rational and skeptical approach to interpretation. I try to stick to what I'm actually given; there's quite enough with that. It's a pity you focus on these pure hypotheses, when there are other real false hints, such as that Mélanie may be preparing to get Tristan drowned. As I said before, the whole sequence of events by which Mélanie is set up in a position to exact her revenge on Ariane years after she loses the scholarship is not very clearly worked out. But it's still evident that Mélanie just gets lucky.
-
I was never "pushing it". I never said it was a fact. It's still an authorial tease. It's not a "weakness". Film is fine if limited. And regarding Chabrol...better than some from the prolific master (who has admitted to accepting projects he shouldn't have just because he likes the shoot) and not as ambitious and significant as the best dozen films Chabrol directed.
-
-
-
Perhaps the most challenging film to review. My reaction to the film was very complicated. I wish I could have seen it again before reviewing it. The source novel is a dark, absurdist tragedy with an anonymous and nefarious protagonist. I concluded that the film's added humor and efforts to ellicit some sympathy for the character clash with the many elements from the novel that survived the translation to film. I think those are the reasons why I found most of the film both smart and unpleasant. But I'd have to watch it again to solidify my opinion. Anyway, here it is:
DRAINED (Brazil)
-
Probably your most interesting review of the festival. It pays to agonize. If done intelligently. And it was.
-
I'm glad you enjoyed it. It was hard to write. I hope it's shown at the upcoming Brazilian Film Festival (which now travels from here to NYC, and China!) so I can give it a second look.
THE CUSTODIAN (Argentina)
-
-
Black Book -- scheduled to open NYC and LA April 4.
-
Indeed. Thanks. I think I spoke too soon when I predicted Black Book would be the highest grossing foreign-language film of the year. It's going to go wide before the end of April. But not to over 1000 screens as Pan's Labyrinth did. It won't match that film's amazing b.o. take ($36 million) but it should surpass Volver's $12 million (quite respectable for a subtitled film in the USA).
-
It's nice that V. has gone back to Dutch and I hope I like it, but I'm a bit doubtful it will do as well critically as, or better financially than, Volver, just from reading about it. I guess the latter depends on levels of distribution and promotion -- unknown factors, presumably, to us?
-
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I'm a bit doubtful it will do as well critically as, or better financially than, Volver, just from reading about it.
It won't do as well critically as Volver. It will do at least as well financially if properly marketed. If the trailer emphasizes the sex and violence and de-emphasizes the fact that it's subtitled, pic will do real well at the box office.
