Spoilers herein.
I have demoted Anderson from my list of `filmmakers to watch' to `promising talents who one day may find a vision.'
Certainly the man is talented. Certainly this film is well made. Certainly it grabs.
But it is empty.
In his prior outings, PT borrowed from others with abandon, wedging in this and that from other films as it suited in order to present a world. We went along because he was so competent a borrower and because the target was a metaphoric texture, not a drama. That texture in both films explicitly included films in the plots, so at least there was some reference for the borrowed bits.
But here, he attempts something more ambitious in terms of mood, and he focuses on a single life. The two complaints (borrowing and mood only), suppressed for earlier films, become stronger here. The result is unwatchable.
His metaphoric fabulism works when all it has to do is sustain a mood. But here, he uses it to convey a message. More precisely, he chooses the form of dramatic romance which by its selection demands some content, some purpose. That purpose is missing. At the end, all we are left with is the feeling that we were only supposed to laugh and marvel at this `character study.' This may have been fair, but there is no clue at all through the film that it is just an empty spacefiller, in fact just the opposite is promised. So we patiently wait for the deft realization of the emotional anchor,,, and it never arrives. Watch `Exotica' for a similar voyage through emotional shoals, but one that takes us to the other side, a new vista.
The obvious borrowing is annoying as well and this is what kills it for me. An interesting filmmaker in his third major project should have developed his own style. But no.
In 2000, Kar-wai Wong changed the face of film with his `In the Mood for Love.' It invented a new camera eye, one that was anticipative, highly mobile. It had an attention deficit and focused primarily on the comings and goings of the tentatively motivated lovers. That camera mirrored the psychology of the characters in a powerful way by forcing us into their perceptive state.
PT borrows this camera idea, and even some of its little motions: an example is the shift while waiting for the call back from the sex girl. The mood is only a little different. Wong tapped the mind of a repressed Kung Fu writer: PT substitutes a manic Chaplin tramp and an Amelie-inspired `girl.' The result is snappier (in fact very much like Wong's `Fallen Angels' in energy) but the substitution is a trivial adaptation. everything else follows from that theft.
This borrowing is so obvious, I wonder no one is crying foul. Well, I will. For a serious filmmaker to score points in my book, he has to have his/her own vision and then create his/her own means from what came before. The result will be new, personal. Not plagerized.
Well, anyway, we get to see Phil Hoffman again. Oddly, all he is allowed to do is be barking wallpaper.
Ted's evaluation: 2 of 4 -- Has some interesting elements.
I have demoted Anderson from my list of `filmmakers to watch' to `promising talents who one day may find a vision.'
Certainly the man is talented. Certainly this film is well made. Certainly it grabs.
But it is empty.
In his prior outings, PT borrowed from others with abandon, wedging in this and that from other films as it suited in order to present a world. We went along because he was so competent a borrower and because the target was a metaphoric texture, not a drama. That texture in both films explicitly included films in the plots, so at least there was some reference for the borrowed bits.
But here, he attempts something more ambitious in terms of mood, and he focuses on a single life. The two complaints (borrowing and mood only), suppressed for earlier films, become stronger here. The result is unwatchable.
His metaphoric fabulism works when all it has to do is sustain a mood. But here, he uses it to convey a message. More precisely, he chooses the form of dramatic romance which by its selection demands some content, some purpose. That purpose is missing. At the end, all we are left with is the feeling that we were only supposed to laugh and marvel at this `character study.' This may have been fair, but there is no clue at all through the film that it is just an empty spacefiller, in fact just the opposite is promised. So we patiently wait for the deft realization of the emotional anchor,,, and it never arrives. Watch `Exotica' for a similar voyage through emotional shoals, but one that takes us to the other side, a new vista.
The obvious borrowing is annoying as well and this is what kills it for me. An interesting filmmaker in his third major project should have developed his own style. But no.
In 2000, Kar-wai Wong changed the face of film with his `In the Mood for Love.' It invented a new camera eye, one that was anticipative, highly mobile. It had an attention deficit and focused primarily on the comings and goings of the tentatively motivated lovers. That camera mirrored the psychology of the characters in a powerful way by forcing us into their perceptive state.
PT borrows this camera idea, and even some of its little motions: an example is the shift while waiting for the call back from the sex girl. The mood is only a little different. Wong tapped the mind of a repressed Kung Fu writer: PT substitutes a manic Chaplin tramp and an Amelie-inspired `girl.' The result is snappier (in fact very much like Wong's `Fallen Angels' in energy) but the substitution is a trivial adaptation. everything else follows from that theft.
This borrowing is so obvious, I wonder no one is crying foul. Well, I will. For a serious filmmaker to score points in my book, he has to have his/her own vision and then create his/her own means from what came before. The result will be new, personal. Not plagerized.
Well, anyway, we get to see Phil Hoffman again. Oddly, all he is allowed to do is be barking wallpaper.
Ted's evaluation: 2 of 4 -- Has some interesting elements.