Re: Swimming Pool: two takes
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
In my view Swimming Pool is a movie that simply dissolves when one sees through its premise. If you observe carefully the trajectory Ozon is following, you will not fail to conclude that he is getting slicker and emptier each time.
At the end, you realize you've been watching a character study. Since what you've seen is Ms. Morton's creation, it reflects her concerns and preoccupations, with sex and middle-age being foremost in her mind. The film illustrates how art can have a therapeutic effect, when you contrast Ms. Morton's stance towards her publisher before and after the writing of the novel.
In UNDER THE SAND(which I prefer) and SWIMMING POOL, Ms. Rampling and Mr. Ozon get inside the mind of middle-age women, with sensitivity and insight. These mature yet entertaining films are superior to hip banalities like Criminal Lovers.
According to Hitch Ozon is doing fine
Hitchcock famously said: "If a movie is worth the price of the ticket AND dinner, it's a good movie".
Swimming Pool is a great night out at the movies, and it certainly pays for dinner, parking, key lime pie afterwards.
So what if it seems "empty" or "slick" or "It cries out to be spoiled"- that's something we need today: good films like The Game, A Perfect Murder, et al that "dissolve" after one viewing.
They stay with me longer than any other type of film- look at Eyes Wide Shut. Once you discover that Tom's "sex odyssey" was needless, the film collapses into a "why make it" pile of confusion.
Those are the films that have a genius behind the camera.
Your title is a falsification: Hitch has no view on Ozon
I don't at all agree -- with you, I mean, not Hitchcock, who's just trying to be witty, not saying anything profound there . Good movies, no matter how light and entertaining, do not dissolve after one viewing.
I think I made it clear that I feel Swimming Pool is (up to a point anyway) quite entertaining, that the film has a glossy beauty, and that Charlotte Rampling is marvellous in it. Nothing that finally goes wrong in it is her fault. (Hitchcock also famously said something about actors and livestock. . . that applies here: she's being moved around; she cannot save the ending). The fault is in the superficiality and arbitrary cleverness (in my view) of Ozon's overall design. That leaves me with a bad taste, and doesn't make me want to see the movie again. It hasn't dissolved! I wish the ending would dissolve, and another one would come in its place, a better one! It keeps coming back, and haunting me, and annoying me with its superficiality and false cleverness. The girl's murder isn't motivated, as in Patricia Highsmith, and it isn't believable. At that point the whole thing falls apart and one loses interest. I've talked to other people and I'm not at all alone in feeling this way.
With Swimming Pool, once you know the payoff, it's ruined, and you don't want to watch it again.
I'd prefer the Marx Brothers. Their movies one can watch literally dozens of times. This is true of classic comedy. It just stays funny. Good scary movies just stay scary. And so on.
As for your citing of Eyes Wide Shut, one's own personal dislike of a particular movie is never clearcut proof of any particular point, because somebody else will have loved it. I simply don't agree on your interpretation, as stated. Tom's sexual odyssey wasn't "needless." No odyssey is ever needless. The journey to the treasure is the treasure. And there is a compelling, hypnotic quality about his "odyssey" that shows how inevitable it is for him. But many people find Eyes Shut difficult to watch, as they find other Kubrick movies difficult to watch. That doesn't make them unsuccessful, only challenging. Swimming Pool doesn't seek to be challenging; it only seeks to be entertaining, and clever. And ultimately it falls short, though it comes tantalizingly close. It's Ozon's tinkering with convention -- or more realistically his inability to use convention well -- that sinks him.
Let's leave Hitch out of this!
www.chrisknipp.com
Re: Your title is a falsification: Hitch has no view on Ozon
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Good movies, no matter how light and entertaining, do not dissolve after one viewing.
What do you mean by "dissolve"?
Do you mean "the story" or the film as a whole?
I'm talking about the film as a whole leaving an impression.
You say that "the treasure" is paramount in an odyssey. Well, I seem to recall a Kubrick film in which the "treasure" sought after at a racetrack ends up being blown all over an airport tarmac...The "odyssey" was needless. It landed sterling hayden in the slammer. He brought it on himself. Just like Cruise in EWS. He didn't have to act like a jealous man-beast after Alice's devastating monologue. But he did. For what? He was back at square one when she says "fuck" in that toy store.
Swimming Pool has the same elements. That's all I'm saying.
I enjoyed it way more than you did. (But then I'm on the Ozon bandwagon)
Of course Hitch has no actual thoughts on Ozon- I was illustrating that Ozon matches his quote on a movie being worth the price of admission- not "actors/cattle" which is parroted far too often. Hitch had many far more interesting quotes. I would rather read his interviews/quotes than see one of his films..
It's also too bad that people find Kubrick's films "challenging".
There is nothing more comforting to my cranium than a Kubrick film
You Understand Swimming Pool
It is painfully obvious that you understand Swimming Pool, but the problem I have is with your dismissal of it.
At the very least, when Ozon's film is over, you think as a filmgoer "That was an interesting film". Is this not enough? You seem to feel cheated, played, misled even. This bothers me.
Ozon had only the best intentions with Swimming Pool and you outright say he is suspicious. Suspicious of what? manipulation?
Godard did it much more brazenly- with huge doses of pretention. Ozon is just stretching his muscles. I'm following his career with great interest.
I see what you're saying about a "square one" ending to an odyssey. No it doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly puts the film in proper perspective: i.e. the character's journey was needless. Kubrick loved stories like that. Look at his canon. It's clear cut Kubrick loved characters in intolerable situations.
Yes, Hitchcock doesn't impress me all that much. His arrogance is something I cannot embrace. He's a serious talent but as a man he's nothing more than a grouchy auteur.
Interesting dialogue here
I'm just glad there is discussion about good movies on this site.
I certainly don't expect people to agree with everything I say, but I know what I know, and Oscar Jubis' interjection is quite appropriate & accurate. I feel the only way you're going to get a grasp on what a director's intentions are is to read quotes, interviews, see featurettes, and most importantly: WATCH THE FILMS. OVER and OVER. Without meeting the person, how the hell else are you gonna do it? The only option is to assimilate the work thru repeated viewings. If you made a film, would you not want the public to see it as many times as possible to really appreciate what you wanted to do? I would.
The trouble is explaining one's opinions with words. They are so open to misinterpretation. I'm amazed that I get my thoughts out as clear as I do. (Not being a writer) Words are just sounds- utterances. What someone is
actually trying to say is difficult to read. Feelings/emotions are the greatest way to communicate. Hard to do with just a keyboard with people you've never met..
[second reply, this time to Johan:]
Quote:
I certainly don't expect people to agree with everything I say, but I know what I know, and Oscar Jubis' interjection is quite appropriate & accurate. I feel the only way you're going to get a grasp on what a director's intentions are is to read quotes, interviews, see featurettes, and most importantly: WATCH THE FILMS. OVER and OVER. Without meeting the person, how the hell else are you gonna do it? The only option is to assimilate the work thru repeated viewings. If you made a film, would you not want the public to see it as many times as possible to really appreciate what you wanted to do? I would.
I completely agree with you that repeated viewings of a movie are very desirable if you want to discuss it intelligently, always bearing in mind that some people observe and remember movies better than others, and may not need to see one fifteen times to know it almost by heart, while others of us may have to have a tape of DVD of it constantly front of us to talk about details with confidence.
But if you read my previous comment, you'll understand why I don't see any need to "get a grasp on what a director's intentions are." That doesn't mean we should ignore what he's said about his intentions, if he's said something: it's all useful. So yes, watch a movie many times, but don't slavishly seek the director's intentions in the belief that discovering them is going to be some magical key to the interpretation and evaluation of the movie.
http://www.chrisknipp.com