There's just something wrong when a writer and / or director tell a story without providing context. I've witnessed this far too many times in film.
My impression is that it arises from immaturity in skill and understanding, or perhaps empathy for the reader / listener.
It reminds me of conversations with my children when they were little ... they would begin speaking as if we had already been in a conversation : )
Here's my breakdown:
STORY: It's a huge risk to begin a film in an obscure context AND drop a bombshell at the same time. The two are essentially incongruent, and likely no fiddling will produce a sensible outcome. Here, that risk did not pay off.
The whole of the story has been played a thousand times, and this just devolves into tripe. My impression is that it was originally written for the stage, and perhaps a very small stage. (Note: see Koch's work)
The only, yes, the only grace in this film was Fontaine's character in the beginning - I thought it might hold! But alas, that too was torn from the story and once again, another story drops into the turd bucket. Oh well.
ACTING: As mentioned above, Fontaine's character (initially) was the highlight of the film - nothing else piqued my interest. While she played it well, that's about it. As the character "matured," she (actor) resorted to her usual tenor of being uptight, shy, submissive. No doubt, the "adult" version of her character was written in, but it showed how shallow the writing (or directing) was here.
TEMPO: OK
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Blah
DIRECTING / WRITING: I've said time and time again ... when director's write it's usually a dud, and this film just reinforces my stance. Ophuls (director / writer) spend a lot of time doing both, and it appears he wasn't terribly good at either. I don't care for Koch's work either - that's right, I thought "Casablanca" was absolutely boring.
Is it a good film? No.
Should you watch this once? Yes, if you're painfully bored.
Rating: 5.5.
My impression is that it arises from immaturity in skill and understanding, or perhaps empathy for the reader / listener.
It reminds me of conversations with my children when they were little ... they would begin speaking as if we had already been in a conversation : )
Here's my breakdown:
STORY: It's a huge risk to begin a film in an obscure context AND drop a bombshell at the same time. The two are essentially incongruent, and likely no fiddling will produce a sensible outcome. Here, that risk did not pay off.
The whole of the story has been played a thousand times, and this just devolves into tripe. My impression is that it was originally written for the stage, and perhaps a very small stage. (Note: see Koch's work)
The only, yes, the only grace in this film was Fontaine's character in the beginning - I thought it might hold! But alas, that too was torn from the story and once again, another story drops into the turd bucket. Oh well.
ACTING: As mentioned above, Fontaine's character (initially) was the highlight of the film - nothing else piqued my interest. While she played it well, that's about it. As the character "matured," she (actor) resorted to her usual tenor of being uptight, shy, submissive. No doubt, the "adult" version of her character was written in, but it showed how shallow the writing (or directing) was here.
TEMPO: OK
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Blah
DIRECTING / WRITING: I've said time and time again ... when director's write it's usually a dud, and this film just reinforces my stance. Ophuls (director / writer) spend a lot of time doing both, and it appears he wasn't terribly good at either. I don't care for Koch's work either - that's right, I thought "Casablanca" was absolutely boring.
Is it a good film? No.
Should you watch this once? Yes, if you're painfully bored.
Rating: 5.5.