Talk about opposite ends of the opinion spectrum. This week I reviewed Derek Cianfrance's "Blue Valentine" (3 1/2 stars), an intense look at the disintegration of a marriage, and "Somewhere" (1 star), Sofia Coppola's blank stare at a privileged movie star (Stephen Dorff) hanging out in the same room as his perfectly pleasant daughter (Elle Fanning).
I relished "Blue Valentine," though wasn't surprised in the least to see that the Union-Tribune's two "citizen critics" (regular folks who share their opinions alongside mine) absolutely hated it. The relationship between Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling's characters isn't easy to watch, and you don't entirely like how they behave either. But real relationships aren't always as lovable as a Jennifer Aniston rom-com and I can see how a feature length sit-down with the truth about love's failings could inspire a strong negative reaction for some people. As for me, I thrive on films that are able to portray some truths about the human experience--even if you don't exactly like what you see.
Unfortunately for me, I had to sit through "Somewhere" twice-- first when I got the screener in November to see if it was worthy of Best of 2010 consideration (wrote off that idea in the first 10 minutes), and again this month when I decided to review it. Now I think I deserve some sort of hazard pay, but at least Elle Fanning (Dakota's little sister) is a pleasure to watch-- even if she's reduced to a wisp of character.This weekend, I'm hitting the Gaslamp theater to revel in the craziness of Dogtooth. Hope to see you all there!
You definitely deserve hazard pay for seeing "Somewhere" twice. Or at least an extra vacation day.
ReplyDeleteWhat did you end up thinking of Dogtooth?
ReplyDelete@JeanRZEJ Didn't get around to reviewing it but I must admit it didn't live up to my expectations. Rather than say something, it seemed to settle for just trying to provoke. And what it got out of me was just "ewww." Felt like it was an excuse to be pervy more than a deep-down excavation into a dark place with something behind it.
ReplyDeleteAhh, that's too bad. I was quite smitten with the descent from stilted farce to troubling violent tragicomedy. I think provocative films are far more interesting than films which have a statement, myself. I didn't even really think of it as pervy at first because it was so stilted to the point of impersonal detachment between the characters lacking personality and the camera cutting off heads and the empty soundscape that it clearly seemed like an unrealistic joke. Once things started turning inward, both the violence and the sexuality, the humor became choked by the troubling nature of events and all of the film's earlier detachment conspired to heighten the contrast between what was a harmless comedy of errors among skeletally drawn characters with the unshakable visceral immediacy of violence done to any onscreen character. That was what hit me the most about the film: the power of clearly portrayed violence to transcend numerous contradictory filmmaking elements introduced earlier, something certainly related to the film's strong undercurrents of the role of media and questions of forceful conditioning. I think it's a very cleverly designed film, very aware of the methods of rendering audience identification and preventing them from appearing. It's almost like the director is doing with film grammar what the parents do with language. I find this sort of dramaturgical deconstruction fascinating. As such, I loved Dogtooth.
ReplyDelete