Comic-Con coverage on Spout
Advertisement

laraemeadows Blog

  • proves my long held belief that most movies generally should not have a writer-slash-director.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Wondrous Oblivion proves my long held belief that most movies generally should not have a writer-slash-director.   While it attempts to tell us a story about love, race, intolerance and desperation; the real attempt was in Wondrous Oblivion was telling a story at all.

     

    Little David Wiseman (Sam Smith) wants nothing more than to be a great cricket player.  As holocaust survivors, his parents desire something different from their son.  Luck presents itself when a Jamaican family moves in next door.  Dennis (Delroy Lindo), the father of the family, installs a cricket net.  David doesn’t see the color of his Dennis’ skin, but his parents do.  Their neighbors, who just barely tolerate the Wiseman’s jewishness, have open distain for Dennis and his family.  Things get interesting when David goes over to play with Dennis and his mother, Ruth (Emily Woof), finds much needed companionship by their new neighbor.

     

    Wondrous Oblivion is a frustrating movie because it has such an interesting story to tell but they way they told it left me to physically hold my eyelids up.  There are dozens of unnecessary scenes that clog the pacing and stretch the story too thin.  Paul Morrison, the writer and director, is mind-blowingly wrong about the amount of elementary school level cricket games any one person can sit through before suicide becomes a perfectly rational option.    I actually had to stand up and move around during the movie to keep from committing a movie faux pas (snoring).  I beg of you, Paul Morrison, re-release this with a better editor.  The pacing is a shame because it destroys a movie with an important story and delightful acting.

     

    Delroy Lindo makes Dennis subtle, complex and mysterious.  He surprised me with his ability to relate to children and still be a little creepy.  You get the feeling that he has some kind of past; one sprinkled with darkness, but not a horrifying one.  The quality of his acting really shines in the relationship he has with Ruth.  Their relationship is complicated and you can tell he is thinking about everything when she is around; race, class, their spouses and children.   He doesn’t have to say anything but you know exactly what is on his mind when she’s around. 

     

    Ruth is my favorite character.  Emily Woof is tragic and sad as Ruth.  Ruth married too young and now is unsure about the path of her life but feels trapped by her religious traditions and the circumstances of her family.  She adores her son but the audience gets the feeling that she has no adoration for her husband.  Woof gives Ruth such an undercurrent of fear that even when she is happy, Woof restrains Ruth’s joy.  Every smile is natural but more complex than just an expression of joy.  It is the overcoming of an invisible restraint.  When she is interacting with her son, you can tell she feels soft and a little more open.

     

    David is a rumpus youngster with cricket fame dreams.  Sam Smith gives David such a youthful ideology and ignorance.  David doesn’t cognitively know that his grandparents were killed by Hitler.  He says they were killed in the war.  Smith plays the scenes about his grandparents with the emotional significance of a grain of sand, which gives the character such an innocence.

     

    One of my frustrations with this movie is the story could have been powerful.  While the Wisemans are experiencing painful acts of racism from their neighbors, they perform acts of racism against their neighbors.  The words “those people” often stream from the mouths of the Wiseman parents.  David can’t understand why it matters and he just wants to play cricket.  David is the white background to which, each shade of gray is compared.  His ignorance to race relations, history or religion shows the adults’ intolerance with blinding clarity.  I think we need more stories about how “minorities” discriminate against each other because it opens a door to a truth that people have been ignoring for years.  Racism is not a white versus minority thing.  Racism can be committed by people who have been victims of it, it lives on through those who were oppressed and may be more than just a social circumstance.

     

    Wondrous Oblivion made me feel like the mother a genius who became a drug addict.  It had all the elements of success and yet failed dreadfully.  If you have a high tolerance for boredom or a very long attention span, Wondrous Oblivion may be the movie for you.


  • Ick

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Clean  (2004)

    Clean is a dirty rotten mess.   When Nick Nolte is the best actor in a movie, you know you have real problems. 

    When drug using, music singing, music producing mother Yoko Ono,…no, that isn’t right, …Emily Wang (Maggie Cheung) loses her husband in a drug overdose, she also loses her son to his grandparents Albrecht ( Nick Nolte) and Rosemary (Martha Henry).  All of her friends abandon her.  Shocked by everything she has lost, she decides that she must get clean.  She has to work real jobs, fight her addiction and let go of music.  A bumpy road unfurls in front of her as she attempts to get Clean. 

    What a waste of time.  I am so tired of seeing movies where an actor’s interpretation of acting is to stand stone faced and refuse to act.  Maggie Cheung acts as little as possible in Clean.  Seeing your son for the first time in years; give hug, close eyes.  Arrested for the murder of your husband; scream, wiggle about but don’t bother to show emotion in your face.  Get fired, do nothing.  Hey, Maggie Cheung, if I wanted to see a movie where no one bothers to act, I’d watch something like Jackass.  While it is utter crap, at least no one is trying to pass themselves off as an actor.

    I don’t exactly know what the point of the movie was either.  I don’t know if the point is a drug addicted mother will do anything that she is forced to do for her son.  Maybe it was that drug addicts think only of themselves.  Maybe it is about a child who can never really trust his mother.  It could be as simple as a tale about the dangers of drugs.  Whatever the purpose or meaning, it just feels like an attempt to make drug use seedy without abandoning the glamorous stereotype around drug use and music. 

    A true attempt at showing the truth about drug abuse would involve someone with piss and crap in her pants because she couldn’t be bothered to get up and go in the toilet.  It would show the sale of the family food stamps to get a fix.  It would show the quality parents that drug addicts come from.  Drug abuse, even when done by rock stars, is anything but posh.

    The director, Olivier Assayas, says “Society tells us relentlessly to live for today, and offers instant gratification through the consumer goods that it puts at our disposal.  Drugs are the best way of achieving that aim.  They give us the peace that we ache for, and give satisfactions, just like medicines, which treat the symptoms and leave the disease untouched.”  What Assayas fails to do, though, is to address the disease in his movie and decides to shine over the truths of drug abuse.   It has been my experience that drug addicts don’t change for their children.  They only change when the emotional cost of using is more than the cost of being sober.

    By the end of the movie, I wished her husband had lived, and pumped her with enough heroin that her heart jumped out of her chest, flopped around on the ground and stabbed it with a needle, before feeding it to undernourished druggies. 

    Maggie and Olivier:  I’ve got a needle for you!


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<July 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
24252627282930
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930311234


Categories
 


Advertisement