Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread III

[kihei]

The Thing (1982) Directed by John Carpenter

I prefer the original. There. But that being said, I really think this is an excellent re-envisioning of three fine horror/suspense movies: Howard Hawk's original The Thing; the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and, to a less obvious extent, Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, a murder mystery about ten suspects, their number slowly shrinking, on an isolated island. The movie combines the first two mentioned films seamlessly--they're DNA melding together much more successfully than the gory attempts between human, dog and alien that occur in the actual movie. I forgot how 80's movies really got in to gore in a big way--and this one is right at the head of the class. That's enjoyable, but I was most impressed by Carpenter's direction. He did several things that I really liked:

1) The pace of the movie is never rushed. Carpenter provides some long tracking shots that remind us of the isolation and danger of the setting and also create just the right atmosphere for a movie about increasing paranoia in confined indoor setting. Freedom isn't just outside the door--a freezing death is the only thing that awaits the characters. But that doesn't make shelter feel safe, only more compromised.

2) Except for right at the end, Carpenter hardly uses music at all in this movie to hype the emotions. He lets the plot and the images do all the work and I think that is praiseworthy, even a little brave. There are a couple of times he uses a kind of drum sequence of double heart beats, but the rest of the time he relies on his ability as a story teller. Once I noticed this, I was amazed by some of the scenes in which he chose not to use music because I am so used to other director's taking that easy short cut. If a director's scenes can't do their job without music, then they probably aren't all that great to begin with. Major kudos for Carpenter for this.

3) Kurt Russell: The Thing was the second of five movies in which Carpenter and Russell collaborated and it seems like a perfect match. Russell is the guy you wanted to hate in high school because he was so good looking, terrific in all sports and always got the girl. But you couldn't because he was just too damn likable anyway. He and Carpenter always seem exactly on the same page. Carpenter's giving Russell a sombrero to wear when he is piloting helicopters is such a shrewd move--helping establishing Russell's streak of quirky independence but at the cost of almost no actual screen time. Russell gives a no muss and no fuss performance that is consistent and enjoyable right down to the final scene, a great ending in my book.

4) A good script--I mean we are not talking Edward Albee or Sam Shepherd here, but the script is perfect for what it does. We have interesting, mostly believable characters with intelligent, occasionally funny things to say. The script allows for even the eventual cannon fodder to do a good job of disguising the fact that they are cannon fodder. This seems like science fiction for adults, not for some scraggly ass kid living in his parents' basement. (Apologies to all scraggly-ass types--no offense intended)

All in all, a very fun ride.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Next pick: Sacha Guitry's The Story of a Cheat (1936)

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Watching The Thing tonight!

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Next pick: Sacha Guitry's The Story of a Cheat (1936)

Amazing film.

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

The Thing (1982) Directed by John Carpenter

I prefer the original. There. But that being said, I really think this is an excellent re-envisioning of three fine horror/suspense movies: Howard Hawk's original The Thing; the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and, to a less obvious extent, Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, a murder mystery about ten suspects, their number slowly shrinking, on an isolated island. The movie combines the first two mentioned films seamlessly--they're DNA melding together much more successfully than the gory attempts between human, dog and alien that occur in the actual movie. I forgot how 80's movies really got in to gore in a big way--and this one is right at the head of the class. That's enjoyable, but I was most impressed by Carpenter's direction. He did several things that I really liked:

1) The pace of the movie is never rushed. Carpenter provides some long tracking shots that remind us of the isolation and danger of the setting and also create just the right atmosphere for a movie about increasing paranoia in confined indoor setting. Freedom isn't just outside the door--a freezing death is the only thing that awaits the characters. But that doesn't make shelter feel safe, only more compromised.

2) Except for right at the end, Carpenter hardly uses music at all in this movie to hype the emotions. He lets the plot and the images do all the work and I think that is praiseworthy, even a little brave. There are a couple of times he uses a kind of drum sequence of double heart beats, but the rest of the time he relies on his ability as a story teller. Once I noticed this, I was amazed by some of the scenes in which he chose not to use music because I am so used to other director's taking that easy short cut. If a director's scenes can't do their job without music, then they probably aren't all that great to begin with. Major kudos for Carpenter for this.

3) Kurt Russell: The Thing was the second of five movies in which Carpenter and Russell collaborated and it seems like a perfect match. Russell is the guy you wanted to hate in high school because he was so good looking, terrific in all sports and always got the girl. But you couldn't because he was just too damn likable anyway. He and Carpenter always seem exactly on the same page. Carpenter's giving Russell a sombrero to wear when he is piloting helicopters is such a shrewd move--helping establishing Russell's streak of quirky independence but at the cost of almost no actual screen time. Russell gives a no muss and no fuss performance that is consistent and enjoyable right down to the final scene, a great ending in my book.

4) A good script--I mean we are not talking Edward Albee or Sam Shepherd here, but the script is perfect for what it does. We have interesting, mostly believable characters with intelligent, occasionally funny things to say. The script allows for even the eventual cannon fodder to do a good job of disguising the fact that they are cannon fodder. This seems like science fiction for adults, not for some scraggly ass kid living in his parents' basement. (Apologies to all scraggly-ass types--no offense intended)

All in all, a very fun ride.

Super review, as always, but most of all--cool pic choice! Love it!

 

[Jevo]

The Devils (1971) dir. Ken Russell

In early 17th century France in a time of religious turmoil as tensions between catholics and protestants still loomed under the surface after the French Wars of Religion, Urban Grandier (Oliver Reed) is the priest in the small fortified town of Loudon which is mainly inhabited by protestants. Cardinal Richelieu tries to get the fortifications torn down on order of the crown, but he doesn't have the kings backing, and Grandier uses this to stop the demolition for now. Richelieu then uses the ramblings of a sexually frustrated nun (Venessa Redgrave) in a nearby monastery, to accuse Grandier of witchcraft as a means of removing.

The Devils is almost like an X-rated version of The Passion of Joan of Arc. A hero (if you can call Grandier that, he certainly isn't as pure as Joan) burned at the stake, after a sham trial proving witchcraft based on dubious evidence not far removed from seeing whether or not they can float. Of course all the sex isn't the only difference between the movies. While The Passion of Joan of Arc is a very personal story about Joan's struggles. The Devils is downright political, with the central government imposing it's will on the people without proper authority or legal right to do so. And when opposed the government makes sure to take care of those who stand up to them, making up their own rules in the process, enabling them to both remove the "obstacle" and to impose their will uncontested. More prominent is the ever hot theme of sexuality and religion. Grandier does not live in celibacy despite being a catholic priest. He enjoys women fully. He is also perhaps the most rational man in the movie. The nuns and others who associated with the Church who probably live life more like a "proper" catholic are the crazy deranged people with wild sexual fantasies of which they have trouble discerning fantasy from reality. The movie isn't a denouncement of catholicism or religion. But probably rather a denouncement of the abstinence of anything good in life in the name of religion, which is sure to drive any person insane with desire, when that desire can never be realised. And probably most importantly it's about how the state can use religion to control the population .

All the orgies become a bit long in the uncut version of this film. But the sex is luckily not the most interesting thing in The Devils. It's fun to participate in, but not quite as fun to watch others do. Unlike witch trials, which can be fun to watch, but you don't want to be in one yourself. There's a lot of really interesting things to pick up on in The Devils, and it's really well made all the way round. From direction, to acting, to set design and so on.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

The Thing (1982) - I don't have a bad word to say about it, besides the fact that maybe it's a little slow to get to an interesting narrative. With that said, it didn't do too much for me either, which is funny, because everything seemed tastefully executed. I just didn't get that tingle. I don't understand why this received negative reviews at the time of release. The designs look very good and creative without delving into the campy. The writing, while unspectacular, is serviceable and inoffensive. The performances are all solid and there isn't anyone who stands out in a bad way. The special effects are grossly amusing without taking the piss out of the entire story. I'll say that even towards the end of the film, where the number of survivors dwindle and the stakes heighten, the movie had a solid sense of suspense going with a fine ending that doesn't put a bow on everything for the sake of its viewer. I didn't notice a clunk in the pacing. The entire film is well-planned and executed with a sensibility that you don't always get in genre cinema. I don't think it pandered to its audience. But again, nothing stuck with me. I wouldn't even call it a mainstream, commercial film, but I think The Thing is an example that modern commercial films could aspire to. An accessible, well-executed (if only a little bland) story that doesn't pander to its audience without being overly self-indulgent (something I don't personally have a problem with. Knock yourself out. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, then it's bad.) or requiring attuned tastes on the part of the viewer.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Any way I can get access to the reviews from previous threads?

 

[Jevo]

Any way I can get access to the reviews from previous threads?

Thread II is here: Movies: - The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread II

The first edition sadly seems to have been lost.

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Okay, so The Devils wasn't as Halloweenish as I thought it might be. There are no actual devils here, Satan does not make a personal appearance. But there is plenty of medieval justice instead which is plenty scary enough. Who needs Satan when we see the evil that men do to one another?

The time is 1634 and the place is Loudon, one of the last walled towns in France. The cardinal fears walled cities may be bastions of Protestantism, so he sends a henchman and crew to destroy the walls. But the interim governor, a charismatic and popular local priest, is standing in his way. But the padre is also a playboy, and there's nothing like a sex scandal to bring a politician's enemies out of the woodwork. Accusations of demonic possession are made and soon we see who the real devils are--those who would use piety as a political weapon.

This may be the ultimate corruption but it is underscored by numerous supporting examples. We could make a drinking game of The Devils; a shot for every occurrence of corruption, perversion or deceit. The King turns out to be a queen. The confidentiality of the confessional is betrayed. Vows of celibacy are enthusiastically abandoned. The crucifix is used as a sex toy. A holy relic believed to have healing powers is exposed as a sham. Even the public execution (a burning at the stake) goes wrong, as the innocent victim--promised a quick death by strangulation before the flames are lit--is robbed of this last act of mercy. But don't pass out before the end or you'll miss the most wicked perversion, when the sexually repressed nun--whose jealous accusations against the priest help set all the chaos spinning out of control--is given a souvenir to remember him by. It's both kinky and horrific.

Not surprisingly, The Devils has a visual style that is excessive and disorderly, maybe taking a cue from Performance from a few years before and adding a few new tricks--at times I swear the zoom lens was being operated by an eight-year old. The Caligari-like sets are worth mentioning too, and the atonal music score is just perfect--seek out the soundtrack album for your haunted house.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

There are no actual devils here

Made me laugh quite a bit

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Made me laugh quite a bit

Wasn't trying to be funny, but...ok, I'll take it!

I really thought we might see The Goat of Mendes, like in Hammer studio's The Devil Rides Out



Or maybe this guy...who can forget Zulawski's Devil:

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Devils
Russell (1971)
“There’s a man well worth going to hell for.”

Father Grandier has got some problems. The Catholic Church wants to tear down his city’s walls and further their influence throughout France. He’s bold and well intentioned (sort of...), but his passion and charisma, is a bit to his own detriment. He’s impregnated the daughter of a powerful townsman and doesn’t seem to care much for the consequences. While he’s away on another affair and getting married, the evil creeps into his town. Sister Jeanne, a bit of a wretched creature overseeing the local nunnery, doesn’t like the way her charges view this striking man. It’s unbecoming. She’d clearly rather him becoming unto her. But woe is her humped back. What’s a gal to do? Oh, how about drop some casual charges of demonic possession, claims the church is all too willing to entertain given the potential political gain. When Grandier returns he walks into a chaotic mix of vengeful priests, horny nuns and a town all too ready to turn on him with just the easiest of nudges. It’s based on a real incident to boot. The cheap shorthand would be: It’s like The Crucible. But French. And with much larger stakes.

This is a nasty, but effective bit of business from Ken Russell. The political machinations of the all the characters beneath the religious sheen is an always relevant and effective slam on organized belief. The goals of most characters are very of the earth, very banal. Jeanne’s not quite sympathetic, but she’s certainly a sad creature and well played by Vanessa Redgrave. The church is never very subtle throughout in its endgame and its execution, nor is Grandier’s scorned lover and her family. Of course it’s all framed as being a much grander and nobler proceeding. God help them all.

Give these folks an inch and they’ll take an enema. Russell’s never shied away from provocation and perversion. Visions of a Christ-like Grandier coming off the cross to, um, serve the masses? Yeah I see the controversy. Torture, abuse, trauma. Enough blurring of the pain-pleasure line to make Clive Barker blush. This is horror for sure. But Russell cannot resist the little dashes of humor. The charlatan “doctors” make a fine if gross comedic pair who in a couple of small moments almost feel lifted from Monty Python (“What’s that? That’s a carrot!”). Grandier has a brief fight where he wields a stuffed alligator. If Redgrave cooing “Take away my hump!” before defying her vows in a most un-nunly way ISN’T an intentional double entendre, well then dammit, it should be!

Reed is a rock. I’m sure he has some duds in his filmography, but I haven’t seen them. He’s walking gravitas. I’ve seen this a couple of times now and I enjoy Michael Gothard’s bug-eyed turn as a bit of a rock-n-roll-exorcist priest. Something about him feels way more 1960s than 1660s, but I dig it.

I mentioned this a week ago in the “Last movie you watched ...” thread, but this was part one of a two part Ken Russell double feature I treated myself to. The second half was Lair of the White Worm, which made for a nice pairing. Worm is far less serious, bordering on camp, but his visual verve is fully on display (albeit a bit 1980s-ized) as is his cheekiness. A few dream sequences in that feel almost like repurposed bits of The Devils (albeit it very 80s-ized, again). But a fun and fitting accompaniment to the much more serious The Devils.

 

[kihei]

The Devils (1971) Directed by Ken Russell

Oh, my god, how I loathed this movie when I was young, hated Ken Russell on principle, too. I tend to be a sucker for visually stylish films whose directors bring a bit of elegance to the proceedings: Resnais, Godard, Kieslowski, S. Ray, Antonioni, Truffaut, Kubrick, Wong Kar-wai, those types. Russell's works, many of which are defined by wretched excess, infuriated me. It is hard looking back and realizing how passionate I could get about bad movie directors. Then again, I used to live or die with the Green Bay Packers, and now all that is just a distant memory. Moral to the story: the passions of youth are often fleeting and ephemeral, and how in the world did they ever seem so all important and consuming in the first place. The only time I think of Russell these days is when I see a Darren Aronofsky movie.

So I was sort of looking forward to The Devils to see what I thought all these years later. This tale of sexual repression, torture, religious fanaticism, and love seemed much more larky this time around. Basically, Russell seems to be taking the piss out of his critics and not really giving a damn whether they like The Devils or not. It is the movie of an obnoxious brat showing off, throwing shit at the wall because he is so full of the stuff. Ken's a larger-than-life character who seemed to feel that he has to live up to his bad-boy reputation. I got the feeling, though, that this time around, he was having a lot of fun. I must admit I hadn't seen significant parts of the film before--anything that involved nudity, depravity or sexual frenzy was cut from the movie by the Ontario Censorship Board, which in the early '70s was the most conservative such board in North America, more conservative than Alberta, Utah, Mississippi, and Alabama. (When Bertolucci's Luna came out, I had to ride a bus, sponsored by the NDP, to Buffalo to see the film because it was banned entirely in Ontario). These risque bits in The Devils actually made sense--gave substance to the perversion of religion that Russell was trying to establish in the rest of the movie. The Devils is still not my cup of tea, but I decided to sit back and have fun with it which I am sure the director may not have necessarily intended but would heartily approve of anyway. The work sort of took on a playful dimension--yeah, Russell was a show-off but what might he dream up next?

He certainly had the courage of his convictions. And he is very good at creating frenzy, which after all is suited to extremes. Poor Vanessa Redgrave, with twisted spine, tilted neck and perfect eye make-up. She gives the most egregiously awful performance in her long and distinguished career, but it fits the tone of the movie perfectly. So almost certainly it was exactly what the director wanted. Oliver Reed is an actor who sometimes seems to take up all of the screen and more, an imposing presence. He plays his deeply flawed, highly horny priest perfectly (sex craved nuns, yay. What Catholic boy can't get behind that?) He's pretty much larger than life to begin with, no stranger to wretched excess himself, so he doesn't need to overact, something which he is highly capable of doing in other films. (My favourite story about Reed concerns him late in his relatively short life challenging someone in a bar to do a handstand on a stool. Reed was in his late fifties and weighed about 240 pounds, and was, as usual, drunk. The other guy, forget who, declined but Reed did it anyway. And successfully--but he broke the stool. He and Russell must have shared many, many pints together).

So all in all I had an amiable good time watching The Devils this time around. I've never seen Lair of the White Worm because I feared the worst. but maybe I will pick it up now. Did the Packers even play on Sunday?

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

So all in all I had an amiable good time watching The Devils this time around. I've never seen Lair of the White Worm because I feared the worst. but maybe I will pick it up now. Did the Packers even play on Sunday?

One lingering thought on Worm ... I think it almost plays like Russell parodying himself. Not sure if that would push you toward seeing it or away from seeing it.

 

[kihei]

One lingering thought on Worm ... I think it almost plays like Russell parodying himself. Not sure if that would push you toward seeing it or away from seeing it.

Not sure, either.

 

[kihei]

Three Colours: Blue (1993) Directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski

The premise is so simple and so basic that it is a wonder more movies haven't dealt with it: Julie (Juliette Binoche) is in a car crash that kills her husband and her little daughter. What happens next? What do you do with the rest of your life once the worst possible nightmare has actually happened? Blue is a perfectly composed examination of how one woman might react to such a fate. Having tried suicide and not been able to go through with it, Julie attempts to cope with this tragedy by abandoning her old life entirely. Her intent is not to reinvent herself, but to simply escape from a past that is now and ever will be unbearable to think about in many important respects. The movie simply follows her slow progression back to life, or something more approaching life than the limbo in which she has been existing. Blue is above all a superb collaboration between two remarkable artists, director Krzysztof Kielowski and actress Juliette Binoche. Basically the movie is what is going on in Julie's head, which Binoche must communicate while Kielowski deals with the externals: where she is; what she does; who gets involved; how she reacts; and so on. Most of all there is the delicacy of the setting, the proper atmosphere (which is beyond mere verbal description), and countless close ups of Binoche that all must be realized perfectly for the film to work. It is a gorgeous work of art to observe, but Binoche gives the movie both intelligence and heart. She is a great actress and she gives a jewel of a performance here to which Kieslowski provides the perfect setting.

If themes related to coping with the unbearable are not enough, Blue has another dimension being part of a tribute to France and her national motto of liberty, equality and fraternity. Blue being the first movie released in the Three Colour Trilogy, liberty is the guiding theme. Kieslowski is not a literal type, though, as evidenced by his masterwork The Decalogue which presents a series of hour-long films each relating to a different Ten Commandment. Part of the fun there is trying to figure out Kieslowski's oblique references because, in a few cases, at first glance there is little connection between a given Commandment and the film that he makes in response to it. Here he sames to be saying that there is no liberty if it is devoid of other people, that to paraphrase Kris Kristofferson, liberty, like freedom, is just another word for nothing left to lose. If life is free from connection of any kind a person is not liberated but trapped in a hell of their own design even if it is through no fault of their own (a brilliant coda gently reinforces this point and the need for connection). But the movie also shows that the life force has a pull that eventually, even for the most aggrieved, is difficult to resist. Blue associates art, in this case, the composition of a piano concerto that her husband was working on, as the driving force that reignites as least part of Julie's reason for living. To compose is metaphorically to give birth, to recognize life, to accept that something outside you matters to you. It allows Judy to eventually begin to surface and to feel the loss that she has been trying not to think about. The Julie who emerges is not much different than the pre-accident Julie. But she is in a different universe now. However her generosity of spirit remains, perhaps her saving grace.

subtitles

 

[kihei]

My next pick is Alfred Hitchcok's The Lady Vanishes (1938)

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Blue being the first movie released in the Three Colour Trilogy, liberty is the guiding theme.

I liked the other two, and I have a soft spot for Blanc (Rouge is on a lower tier IMO), but Bleu remains the best of the three.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

The Devils (1971) - Very bombastic. Recounting an over-the-top tale of political intrigue and sexual jealousy, the story follows an unorthodox and swaggering priest who is set-up by a nun while also being plotted against by the Cardinal Richelieu and an underling to take control of his independant town. I'm not too sure what to make of it. The movie isn't presented as a comedy, but I found myself laughing at the proceedings more than once. I'm not sure whether I was laughing at the movie or with it. Probably a mixture of both. The acting is overdone to the point of ridicule - Oliver Reed playing the role of a priest in a bro-y way, the goofy, demented nun, the overzealous and geeky devil-hunter - and whatever point was attempted by the story and decent dialogue was distracted by its non-sensical execution, such as all the nuns eventually becoming demented and going out in a blaze of glory through a torrid orgy right after being awkwardly saved from execution by the same witch-hunter who had led them to their deaths. Too often the admitedly creative story seemed to go for edge for edge's sake, which is rarely a good look. Going for shock tends to have the opposite effect for me, creating a sense of dread, ennui and a desire for mockery. Gave the impression of trying a little too hard to stand out which subsequently takes away from genuine style. I had fun with the film, but I don't think it left the impression that the director was aiming for. Certainly not a work of genius, although not many works are, but it's worth mentioning when the director seems to overtly aim for precisely that, rubbing the viewer's face in it, critics be damned. Don't prove your artistry. Just do it.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Three Colours: Blue
Kieslowski (1993)
“Now I have one thing left to do... Nothing.”

In an instant a car crash takes the lives of Julie’s husband and daughter and leaves her broken in a hospital. She contemplates suicide, but cannot do it. Slowly we learn more and more about her life. Her husband was a famed composer working on a grand concert for the unification of Europe. But did he work alone? A snooping reporter raises the rumor that Julie either wrote or significantly contributed to her husband’s work. She can’t kill herself, but she can cut ties from her old life. She destroys the leftover music, plans to sell their home and arranges a single night of passion for her and her husband’s collaborator, Olivier, who’s long had eyes for her. Her alzheimers riddled mother makes it easy on that front — she doesn’t recognize her daughter. She finds an apartment and tries to live a hermetic life. But she can’t. She finds herself drawn into the drama of her neighbors and gradually back into her old life as the plans for the concert go on, pulling her back to Olivier and to the revelation that her husband was having an affair and that mistress is pregnant with his child. She chooses not to run any more, but rather to embrace it all — Olivier, the music, her past and even her new tangential family. It ends beautifully.

One of the greatest feats of Blue is that it’s completely and totally affecting without ever being maudlin. Read that list of things that happens to Julie again — death, alzheimers, lack of professional credit, an affair, a child out of wedlock — that’s a whole season of soap operatic shenaningans crammed into this film. There is tragedy. But there is freedom (or liberty, more accurately). There is loss. But there is love. Life is complex like that. Paths move forward no matter how much we might wish they didn’t.

This is one of Juliette Binoche’s greatest performances. There is pain and rage but it isn’t shouted. It’s softly spoken. It’s kept below a placid surface. It’s expressed in actions, like the very business-like rainy night transaction with Olivier (who keeps the mattress, the big softie). She forces herself to eat candy to keep her self from screaming. She drags her knuckles on a rocky wall until they bleed. The transformation is every bit as contained. There’s no grand declaration or speech. She’s just inherently good and thus is pulled back from her depths to a well-earned peace.

Visually? Well the name of the movie sure as hell ain’t Red.

Couldn’t help but notice that, like Tetro, we also have a story here where one character takes on a forgotten/lost/abandoned work of art with the purpose of spurring another character into action/out of a funk. Just a fluke of timing, but wanted to note.

 

[Jevo]

Blue (1993) dir. Krzyzstof Kieslowski

Julie (Juliette Binoche) is the wife of famous composer Patrice de Courcy. Together with their young daughter they are in a fatal automobile accident which kills Patrice and the daughter. In the hospital Julie attempts suicide by overdose, but fails to go through with it. Grief stricken Julie sells almost everything she and her husband owned, and moves to Paris under her maiden name, without telling anyone where she has moved. She attempts to start a new life, but finds that she can't escape her old life. Sometimes she has to face it in real life. But mostly she has to face it in her mind, where escaping memories is almost impossible. Julie has to find a way to find a way to live with being the survivor, instead of trying to forget that she's the survivor.

Juliette Binoche is a fantastic actress, and this is one of her best performances. She's incredibly natural, and shows an amazing range of emotion that Julie goes through. But the amazing thing about her performance her is how you don't need to do anything but watch Binoche for the entire movie to know what's going on. You don't need to understand what's being said, you don't need to read the subtitles. If you watch Binoche you get the entire emotional core of the movie. Sure you might miss a few story primers like how Julie actually wrote or co-wrote her husbands music, and how the her neighbours wants to kick out the promiscuous young woman downstairs. The first one is a little bit important in regards to how the Julie copes with grief throughout the movie. But it is not entirely vital to know this fact exactly. The movie doesn't get worse from knowing what is being said in the dialogue. But this isn't four hours of post-coital philosophical talks, and thank god for that (looking at you Jean Eustanche). The dialogue isn't what's driving the movie, it's Julie's inner troubles, and Juliette Binoche is fantastic at showing that. Kieslowski is not without a part of the honour here. He puts Binoche in a position to succeed, and gets a fantastic performance out of her. He's also great a using small visual or audio cues to Julie's emotional state, that often come several times throughout the movie as well. He's not holding the audiences hand, but he makes it very easy for the audience to understand the very complex emotions that Julie goes through in the movie. He's not using a string orchestra to cue the audience into what they should feel. He makes genuine emotions easily accessible, and that's one of his greatest qualities as a director.

There's a lot for both the heart and the mind in Blue. It's perhaps the strongest instalment in one of the best trilogies ever made.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

one of the best trilogies ever made.

Hmmm... I can't think of anything right now, but I'm sure there's something... Are Passion - Prénom Carmen - Je vous Salue Marie officially considered a trilogy? The 3 Avengers films perhaps? ;-)

 

[Spring in Fialta]

As someone who thinks Dekalog 1 is one of the greatest cinematic films ever made, I simply wasn't moved all that much by Blue even if I thought it was well-done. I'll put up my review within the next couple of days. Just a work without any serious flaw that didn't hit me.

 

[kihei]

Hmmm... I can't think of anything right now, but I'm sure there's something... Are Passion - Prénom Carmen - Je vous Salue Marie officially considered a trilogy? The 3 Avengers films perhaps? ;-)

Satyajit Ray's The Apu Trilogy tops my list of trilogies, followed by Pedro Costa's Fontainhas Trilogy.