the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

[Chris Knipp]

Ilan Duran Cohen: Confusion of Genders/La Confusion des genres (2000) Netflix dvd

Dry French comedy doesn't always travel well

Confusion here means inability to choose, but also suggests profusion, plethora, -- a delirious embarrassment of riches (and choices). At the center of every scene is bisexual lawyer Alain (Pascal Greggory). Everybody wants him, or thinks he wants them -- handsome imprisoned murderer Marc (Vincent Martinez), cute gay boy Christophe (Cyrille Thouvenin), attractive and accomplished law partner Laurence (Nathalie Richard, who's more Alain's age); the prisoner's (former) girlfriend Babette (the beautiful Julie Gayet). Marc's cellmate Étienne (played by noted singer Alain Bashung) even gets involved toward the end in this dry celebration of indecision and randomness. Alain and his law partner are talking about marrying, and it's all practical and boring, except that it's impulsive too. And not utterly cold, because, though she is even more neurotically indecisive than he is, they are best friends.

Through it all Pascal Greggory has that bored, annoyed look he always has; but he registers a lot of other looks too -- he's a consumately adept movie actor and for good reason one of the busiest in France. This is very French, a sort of comedy of ill humor, sex, and indecision, a very comfortable and vernacular variation on very old themes. The hilariously grumpy and irritable haute bourgeoisie relatives of Laurence and Alain who come into play when wedding bells are in the offing include the great Bulle Ogier as Laurence's mother. The various nude scenes aren't just titillation; they're all skillfully and sometimes hilariously illustrative of characters and situations and of Alain's embarras du choix, in a film that shifts quickly from the droll to the ridiculous and back again. A scene where Alain and Christophe undress each other while Alain talks on a cell phone, Alain protesting, then acquiesing -- to give just one example -- is as funny as it is physically agile in the staging.

La Confusion des genres is quick-witted and fast-paced and has an excellent cast but it's very French, very dependent on style and tone and language, and you wouldn't necessarily expect it to go over well with Americans. US critics pretty much hated it. On Metacritic it got a 39. Many American viewers think it's pretentious and unfunny. They miss the witty but blunt dialogue (which all the French critics complement), and they don't appreciate Greggory, who's perfect here, or the delicately observed range of French social and personality types. This is as good a treatment of the pains and pleasures of the bisexual life as seen from the French 21st-century standpoint as, in its time, was John Schlesinger's very English (1971) Sunday Bloody Sunday as a treatment of that kind of life lived across the pond, though as a movie this newer one doesn't carry quite as much weight as Schlesinger's did -- and clearly, like some wines, does not travel well even now. Yet it's great fun to watch if you can even come close to keeping up with the French.

Three Frenchmen doing a voice-over commentary in English for an American DVD doesn't turn out very well either. Director Duran Cohen studied at NYU Film School and and is fluent, but he's paired with Greggory and Thouvenin, who come across as both tight-lipped and short on vocabulary, and the conversation never gets going. Why didn't they do it in French with subtitles as Kassovitz, Cassel, and Reno did so entertainingly for the US Crimson Rivers DVD? Then maybe they would have been relaxed and talkative, as the Crimson Rivers team was, and something more informative might have resulted.

[arsaib4]

Proof, one of the numerous delayed releases from the Weinsteins-owned Miramax, is a compact, gripping and highly-effective drama from Director John Madden (Shakespeare in Love [1998]). Based on a stage play by David Auburn (who co-wrote the film’s script with Rebecca Miller, director of films like Personal Velocity [2002] and The Ballad of Jack and Rose [2005]), Proof stars Gwyneth Paltrow as Catherine, an emotionally fragile woman whose mindset early on in the film is in just as much disarray as her domicile. The reason for her condition is that her father Robert (Anthony Hopkins), once a university professor and a mathematics mastermind, recently passed away after persistently suffering from a mental illness. Catherine, who had to drop out of school in order to take care of him, is unsure about her own mental health, even though she disagrees with her estranged older sister (Hope Davis, miscast as an insolent New Yorker), who now wants to take her for psychiatric help. But she gradually develops a relationship with Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal), Robert’s committed former student attempting to uncover any traces of genius in his mentor’s old notebooks (which he eventually does). While almost claustrophobic in nature, Proof is comprised with a surprise or two to jolt the proceedings, that are usually maintained at a steady pace throughout. The script beautifully incorporates Catherine’s relationship with her father via flashbacks, discerning the toll it gradually took on the young woman. And Paltrow’s performance, arguably the best of her career, not only enables us to relate to her anguish, but it also overcomes a few awkwardly directed moments to guide the film to its logical, understated conclusion.

Grade: B+

__________________________

*PROOF is currently in theaters. Its DVD release date is Feb 14th.

[Chris Knipp]

I thought I had posted a review of Proof on this site, but I can't find it. It can be found here; on Filmwurld the thread started earlier for Proof is here -- but nobody who actually saw the movie made a contribution there. My problems with Proof can be summed up as follows:

--artificiality of the action attributable to too-direct transfer from play to movie; dryness of the action for the same reason -- a possible danger noted by JustaFied in his opening of the Proof thread

With so much available to a filmmaker (i.e. use of background scenery, music, editing, special effects, lighting, etc.), is the filming of a play just plain boring?

--lack of interest in the Robert (Anthony Hopkins) character compared to, for instance, the math genius in Beautiful Mind (a movie I find pernicious, but whose effectiveness I fully acknowledge)

--slowness of the flashbacks

--important casting weaknesses: as time goes on, Jake looks nuttier than Gwyneth, who's suppose to be possibly crazy; Hopkins convincing as an example of dementia but not as a genius (I did think there was some chemistry between Gweneth and Jake, though Hope Davis is good in her thanksless role of the bourgeois proper sister

--failure to drum up a sense of urgency over the "mystery" of who did the proof; lack of emotional punch

I concluded that the filmed Proof is "mildly entertaining, respectable, but uninspired." It rather astonishes me that you would rate it higher than Grizzly Man -- but there's no acounting for tastes!

I'm going to put this exchange over on the Proof thread.

[Chris Knipp]

Claude Chabrol: La rupture/The Breach (1970) Netflix DVD.

Study of upper bourgeois snottiness and the attempt to destroy and corrupt less fortunate people. Creepy, with a famously violent opening (before even the title), but somehow unconvincing and lacking in momentum. Stéphane Audran is immaculate and beautiful, the kind of "Ice Queen" the French liked at that time (a contrast to the slightly funkier beauties of today), Jean-Pierre Cassel is smarmy and oily, and the tireless Michel Bouquet is appropriately self-important and overstuffed as the rich in-law trying to crush Stèphane's character. But the best characters are really the minor ones, like the oddball inhabitants of the rooming house. And I'd have to say that Jean-Claude Drouot, as the ghoulish husband, is a really creepy "monstre."

But if you compare it to, say, Hitchcock or a Highsmith novel, doesn't it really just seem rather crude and odd, instead of masterful? And despite the learned commentators on the DVD saying Chabrol is period-neutral as to dress, etc., it also looked dated to me. I found it a bit hard to get through.

[Chris Knipp]

Mikael Håfström's Derailed, now in theaters, starring VIncent Cassel, Clive Owen, and Jennifer Aniston.

[arsaib4]

While subtlety isn’t a virtue associated with the recent works of British filmmaker Sally Potter (The Man Who Cried [2000], The Tango Lesson [1997]), she has consistently pushed-the-envelope when it comes to form and content. Her latest effort, Yes, an artful meditation on class, gender, religion, politics, love, etc. is an interesting, if not wholly successful, experiment which doesn’t quite have the depth to support its pragmatic themes. And so the experience ultimately is akin to interpreting an upscale magazine whose content only massages one’s intellect, instead of expanding it. The film opens fascinatingly enough: a housemaid (Shirley Henderson), who’s seen at various intervals, philosophizes (in iambic pentameter, no less) about her work while facing the camera. But then we’re in familiar territory as it turns out that the house belongs to our "She" (the ever-elegant Joan Allen’s name in the credits), an Irish-American biologist, and her uptight husband (Sam Neill), a British politician. Needless to say, the marriage is an unhappy one, and that’s where "He" (French actor Simon Abkarian), a Lebanese cook, comes in. Their relationship is fulfilling early on, but the differences between the duo eventually come to the forefront, especially after "He" gets involved with an argument with a few clichéd types at work. And Potter’s approach also starts to become heavy-handed. If she didn’t already have enough issues to deal with, she throws in a few sequences involving a teenager’s weight problems. Potter’s musical sense is impeccable as always, but her visual choices, while endearing at first, eventually become intrusive.


Yes - Grade: C

[arsaib4]

Mikael Håfström's Derailed

Based on this and a few other films you've recently reviewed, it seems like your agenda is to simply oppose whatever the critics seem to be saying. Not long ago, it used to be the exact opposite. What do you think? ;)

[Chris Knipp]

It may look that way for the moment, but I don't have an agenda, as should be obvious since you're basing your conclusion on this "and a few other" comments of mine, not all of them. But it is often interesting, and indeed necessary, as someone who comes in after press screenings, to point out what the general run of critics have not seen or said. It's not simple opposition -- a you say black I say white kind of thing. It's a corrective, and an attempt to develop nuances. You will find other critics who say what I say, unfortunately for me. There are several who pointed out in print that Derailed is quite enjoyable if you overlook its last segment, which is basically what I am also doing. I am not giving this movie a high rating. I'm just pointing out that it's enjoyable.

[arsaib4]

Arnaud Desplechin's Kings and Queen (2005)

Jacques Rivette's The Story of Marie and Julien (2005)

[Chris Knipp]

Joe Thomas's Pride and Prejudice (2005) in theaters now.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I concluded that the filmed Proof is "mildly entertaining, respectable, but uninspired." It rather astonishes me that you would rate it higher than Grizzly Man -- but there's no acounting for tastes!

I hope y'all don't find it redundant for me to reinstate my argument regarding the subjectivity of film appreciation. There's no accounting for taste, indeed. It's mostly about personal predilections, interests, values, biases, mood and level of attention while viewing, etc. I've had plenty of disagreements with Chris this year. Now arsaib4 gives a "C" to Yes, one of my candidates for Best Film of the year (definitely a Top 10, a second viewing will decide placement).

One either assumes one's taste/intellect/discernment/knowledge of the medium to be better or greater than "the other" or buys into the subjectivity argument. Once you do the latter, films become a way of helping you learn about your own biases/predilections/interests/values and those of others you find interesting. Writing and reading film reviews is a lot more fun and edifying when it stops being about who's right or wrong.

This is the reasoning behing my advocacy for a more personal type of criticism. Using the personal "I" rather than the royal "We", which presumes that others will have similar reactions or arrive at the same conclusions as the writer. It's not necessary for the critic to use many "I statements" (although it doesn't hurt, Georgia Brown used this approach effectively) but the criticism I prefer seems to incorporate awareness that criticism is mostly advocating for one's subjective opinion.

[arsaib4]

Apparently Oscar Jubis only has a problem when someone negatively reviews one of his "favorites." The quote he used to make his statement simply further proves his ignorance.

[Chris Knipp]

I would never say Oscar "proves his ignorance. " He's constantly proving and increasing his knowledge. But in his theory about reviewing he carries subjectivity too far and fails to recognize that some reviewers are better than others. He is lowering reviews in his definition to a mere subjective expression of opinion in which everybody is equal, but yet he gets upset when somebody's review fails to gibe with his. That's illogical.

I haven't seen Yes, but it got terrible reviews and sounded a bore. Hence it's more surprising, simply on a statistical basis, that Oscar counts it potentially among the year's best than that arsaib4 just gave it a "C."

"There's no accounting for taste" doesn't mean all reviewing is equally subjective and a mere personal outpouring. It means that once somebody's made a judgment about the meriitc of a film there's no way of convincing them otherwise. But as we respect each other's opinions, to that extent we may be moved to reconsider.

[arsaib4]

Thanks for the post, Chris.

I don’t like getting angry but his ignorance once again astounds me. I always speak confidently for myself and don’t make specific comments regarding how others will perceive a particular film; the words “we,” “one,” or “you,” don’t necessarily correlate to “others” in reviews. On the other hand, this quote certainly DOES: “It's just that Yes is the type of film that conjures up the sarcastic, jaded and Philistinic out of reviewers, particularly those employed by mainstream dailies.” That came from our champion of “I.” If I didn’t respect members like you, Chris, and especially our moderator, I truly would’ve ripped into this… person.

This member also tends to forget to use “I” when his reviews follow mine: The Constant Gardener (his post there is eerily similar to mine) and Sometimes in April are two of numerous examples.

He also misused your quote, Chris, to eventually come to something different altogether. I really can’t do anything about this, but I truly hope that people like him stay out of my threads.

[Chris Knipp]

One either assumes one's taste/intellect/discernment/knowledge of the medium to be better or greater than "the other" or buys into the subjectivity argument.

No. It isn't a simple "either/or." That's the mistake in Oscar's argument. There's no need to make a choice between some sort of hubristic, egocentric conviction that one is invincible and "buying into the subjectivty argument." As I just wrote, some reviewers are better than others, but ultimately which ratings reviewers give to which films is unpredictable. Clearly some people do have more knowledge, taste, and discernment, but there's no one right opinion about a film.

I want to say I hope everybody gets into everybody else's threads. That's what this kind of site is for, a free exchange of ideas, information, and opinions. Let's not lose our cool, here. There wouldn't be much to Filmwurld without either Oscar or arsaib. Let's have dialgue, not standoffs. I'm obliged to both of you for bringing up this interesting topic for another look.