Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Smooth_J Blog

  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

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

    Forrest Gump  (1994)

    After reading the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, it is simple to figure out the reasons why they changed it so much to make an Oscar worthy, mainstream film.  The story is wonderful, very satirical and beautifully written, but it would not translate well into a film, even if they had kept the general plot devices; yes, the only resemblance the film holds to the story is the arch, a man born a septuagenarian (what a useless word) aging backwards into eventual nothingness.  The short story has a whimsical, detached feel, a meandering narrative structure despite its compact length.  The movie maintains the structure and the arch, but nothing else.

    That said, I loved the film.

    David Fincher will undoubtedly be criticised for going soft, for appealing to the pathos of a mainstream audience.  I unjustly made this assumption at first glance; there's a doomed romance, and a misplaced focus on realism in some of the scenes despite the mystical possibilities of the premise.  However, after re-reading the short story, I came to realize that there was no way to successfully adapt the tone of the piece into a film; it focuses almost expressly on generational conflict, and the aging of a person making them even more naive than when they arrived on earth.  The film needed to elaborate; and it did, into a well-deserved 159 minutes.

    The opening sequence, beginning in a New Orleans hospital at the onset of Hurricane Katrina, is quite possibly the most beautiful of the entire film.  A dying Daisy describes the efforts of a blind clock-maker to build a clock fit for a new train station.  He makes it work in reverse, for reasons that I will not disclose in this review; it will suffice to say that what ensues, set to a poetic voiceover, is the most beautiful reverse-motion sequence I have yet seen (out of lots of reverse-motion sequences, believe me...).  It serves to draw the viewer into the mysticism, to lose their sense of logical time--and to affect them emotionally from the onset.

    The film is, however, a slave of consequence.  This is where the inevitable comparisons to Forrest Gump will most likely be drawn.  Some of the historical throw-ins are magical, such as Daisy and Benjamin witnessing a space-shuttle launch whilst sailing in the Gulf of Mexico.  Others feel very forced, such as Benjamin's encounter with the woman who swam the English channel (although even that occurrence works in the context that it is used).  An outright strange reference is the recurring joke of a man in a retirement home claiming to have been struck by lightning 7 times, a likely allusion to Roy Sullivan, the Virginia park ranger.  (I looked him up on Wikipedia.  This is slightly anachronistic, though strangely relevant to the short story; Roy Sullivan lived in Virginia, and the film takes place mostly in New Orleans, but the short story is in Baltimore.)  The general premise of the film is reliant upon eventuality--evidenced by the fact that the revelation of the story is related with the climactic backdrop of Hurricane Katrina.

    No matter how forced the film feels at times, it is genuinely moving.  It is conveying a message that needs to be taken into account by all; life is fleeting, but don't take it for granted.


  • Belle de Jour

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

    Belle de jour  (1967)

    I try and make it a habit to write something about every Bunuel film I see, if only to organize my thoughts and somehow make sense of what I just watched.

    Belle de Jour is a particularly difficult one to figure out.  A sexually frustrated housewife, Severine (Catherine Deneuve), hears that one of her friends is working as a prostitute in a Paris whorehouse.  Her husband's creepy friend Husson (a briliant Michel Piccoli) gives her the address of a whorehouse that he knows of, and she is soon working afternoons, given the stage-name "Belle de Jour," or, a flower that blooms in the afternoon (because she can only work until 3, or else her husband will come home and find that she has been boning random high-class tourists).

    Severine is haunted by sadomasochistic desires, and some of which include whips, bells, and gang-rape--Bunuel tastefully displays her visions with his trademark minimalist efficiency, only showing what needs to be shown to get his point across.  It is these desires that lead Severine to the brothel, despite the fact that she cannot even bring herself to have sex with her husband.

    It is difficult to decipher Severine's dreams and her reality, as they become increasingly intertwined in her new double-life, in which lustful abandon leads her to an affair with a young, brooding gangster.  She is often shown being willingly punished for her decadence, although it is usually only her depraved imagination rendering such events on screen; however, in an early whorehouse scene, she submits to a client only after being forced upon the bed and held down ("Ah, you like it rough...").  Bunuel never delves very deep into the reality of Belle's apparent sadomasochism, but the tension she displays in sexual advances makes it obvious (along with her increasingly surreal dreams).

    What's interesting about the film is the fact that Bunuel does not merely focus on sexual degeneracy, but on the liberty and subsequent guilt that Severine feels in her actions.  Bunuel seems to be advocating prostitution in many ways; Belle de Jour loves her work, has fun, and is increasingly upbeat as she delves deeper and deeper into the profession.  He almost seems to be suggesting that sexual connection between two people can be felt vicariously; Severine says she feels "closer than ever" to her husband Pierre, even though she denies his repeated advances and then proceeds to fornicate with the next man that strolls into the whorehouse.  He loves to focus on this...on the look of intense pleasure on her face after an encounter, or on her impatience to return to her work.  She says that she can't help but go back, and Bunuel seems to smile and say "But is that such a bad thing?"

    Obviously, things go wrong--the guilt relieves her of her dreams, and she no longer feels the need to fulfill her sadistic desires.  However, there is much more to the film than that; every nuance of meaning that Bunuel can throw in is used in surreal, minimalist fashion.  His movies are a film-lover's joy, if they are willing to sift through the story to find the cynical, smiling auteur behind it, beckoning us to see life through his eyes.

    Belle de jour (1967)


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<December 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
30123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031123
45678910


Categories
 


Advertisement