Can I be objective about French films? Possibly no. That said, this is a very good film.
The photography is impeccable. It captures both the geography, the light and the story. Beautiful.
I have to say I didn't know much about the story, which helped. I didn't know it was based on a true story and what happened. I still thought it was well paced, it goes well with what it's talking about. Still, it's a 122 minutes film and it didn't feel long at all. I thought it kept going and moving on. I read a few reviews that say it can be slow at times. To me it wasn't. I saw it in one night, I didn't fall asleep even when I was tired.. that surely says something.
The cast is very good in their characters: they are monks, they don't play caricatures of monks. I think it's a film about determination and it's very well portrayed, not forced in any way. It's not a religious film, it's more a story about humanity and tolerance, and that's what makes it universal.
Sadly, there's not much to say about the sound. Correct. Fits the story. Nothing extraordinary.
What to say about this film. It's short and maybe it has an extra 10 mins. I have to confess it took me a few attempts to finish it (but I must have been tired).
The story is original... what I liked the most was that it is fiction but it looks like documentary and you aren't quite sure when it's being what. The photography is simple yet nicely done. Also, it's always nice when you get to see a film from a country you don't normally see films from.
But I didn't love it. Perhaps it needed a little more charm. I read things about it and most mentioned "Jim Jarmusch sense of humour". Perhaps that's what I didn't get.
I rewatched this one, because I had completely forgotten what I thought about it the firt time. I think I enjoyed it more.
I still think it's an interesting film. Geoffrey Rush is always good. Colin Firth was surprisingly good. I think he does manage to not make a caricature of a stammerer and portray a man who is suffering a lot with his condition. Helena Bonham Carter I think sounds a bit too Lady Tottington which is a bit too much in comparison with Firth's simple performance.
It is very much a film about a man who suffers. It should be a drama.. instead it's a little too sweetened. I blame the music. It's just all over the place, too 'regal', too... much of it. It's like when you have too much of a sweet thing until you can't taste it anymore and makes you sick. It needed more character, more dramaturgy. Possibly it's a fail in the overall sound design, rather than in the composer.
A film about a stammerer it's also perfect for sound. Yet, it's poor in that area. Except for a few moments (when he records his speech and doesn't listen until he gets home). The sound effects were technically very well done... they do help get the stammering effect (especially the first speech scene).
The editing. Some of the cuts bothered me, and that's never a good sign.
The photography is tidy. Correct. A bit too royal-drama-like, maybe? I disliked the use of great angulars, but that's a very personal mania.
So it's entertaining, I enjoyed it, I'd say it's good, but it's got little flaws that are a shame. Though to be fair you see the flaws in the second view, not the first. I engaged with his pain the first time, so that's always a positive thing.
Here's the original speech. He doesn't stammer as much, but let's say it's a cinematographic license to make the story flow better.
The label "indie" makes me itchy. Particularly because it's a pretentious one to push up products as if it was a quality warranty. This film is full of that. It is.. okay. It's not a great film, it's not terribly bad. I think it got promotion just from the labels "independent", "sundance", "oscar"...
It is done in a austere way. The cast is very natural (the girl is very good, that has to be said). The screenplay's... okay. Previsible? Maybe. It might be "indie" but it still has a "happy ending". What's very interesting about it is the way of showing yet another side of rural America.
It's often said that David Lynch is the bad side of the American dream. This can be related to that in the sense that the countryside in America is often portrayed as honourable, healthy, even naïve. This film shows that not everyone is like that, that the "real America" can also be sick and rotten. Drug addicts aren't just in urban areas and there are people in America that have to rely on hunting squirrels so they can have something to eat. I think that's the best I can rescue from this film. It tries to be a rough story that criticises something about society... with an upbeat ending.
I still have The Rain People in mind - or it has me, I don't know. Austere, simple, human film... yet superior in so many ways.
I enjoy both French and Russian films. So how can I be objective about this one?! It's a great mix of things I like. In any other film I would have not forgiven the fact that's full of stereotypes.
Le Concert is a nice feel-good film, bits of comedy, bits of drama... it's fun. It's not a major drama like Les Choristes, but it's not a cheesy comedy like Amélie... it's somewhere in the middle and I think it works well.
The photography is nicely done, that always helps. The sound is also well
done, not great when it comes to design but it does sound 5.1 and it's
full of music. (In this case it works, as it is part of the story).
Nothing bold but as I said, I am more tolerant with this film than I
would be with any other. The Russian cast is very charming and they are all good in their roles (some a bit too stereotyped, but still effective).
I am not sure what I was expecting from this film. I suppose I was hoping it'd be an interesting Irish drama... or just something about Ireland (I have a strange relationship with it).I'm still undecided what to make of it.
Positives:
I didn't hate it, it passes the time
It doesn't use the typical stereotypes. The way it shows Dublin is a very innovating one, not the touristy view that you'd normally find. I think that's what I enjoyed the most.
The children are very natural
The ending doesn't try to be uplifting
Not so positives:
The camera work is ok... but they tried to use a colour effect: from b/w to colour and back to b/w. It doesn't fit entirely right. Especially because the black and white isn't expressive or contrasted or anything. It just looks like a forced effect (which probably is)
The story... isn't strong enough. It had a lack of something... and it was too shallow at times. Perhaps it is a pre-teen story and nothing else, and that's what I didn't get.
The children are very natural but they don't feel the drama they are in. They have lovely faces that look pretty but don't convey feelings, if that makes sense. Again. Perhaps that's pre-teens. (But these are children who have lived a lot for their age).
The use of sound... is poor. It's got songs... that's about it.
Oh how much I love simple films! I agree with Mr. Murch when he says it can be simple to be complex, and complicated to be simple.
This film is so beautifully shot but in a very very austere way. It's just beautiful to look at. Now that I think about it, it can be considered the really independent experimental version of Little Miss Sunshine (with a much deeper story and no intention to be funny). I know it's a little cheeky to make such a comparison, but they are both road-movies and intended as an "indie" movie. The cast is strong in both.
In my entry on Sur Mes Lèvres I was saying how the use of sound was a bit wasted. This is a completely different thing. In The Rain People less is more.
The music. Such a lovely simple melody used in the right moments, to create an emotional state, it never bothered me. That's why it works so well. It proves that overusing music is sometimes counterproductive.
The story tells George Lucas, who was hired by Coppola to make the documentary of how the film was made, suggested Walter Murch was the best person to do the sound. So once it was edited he was left alone with his equipment waiting for Coppola. He went out and taped all of the additional sounds of the film- which is impressive. He then mixed it in three days and nights with a new German equipment they had bought. This is the film where the image was upside down so he refused to do mix that way, so Coppola turned the monitor upside down and that's how he mixed (just in time for the San Sebastian festival). He also uses the credit Sound Montage because he didn't belong to the union.
Anyway, the sound. I like how the memories have no sound in the film. Except two. At the beginning and at the end, because they are the most significant ones: Natalie's wedding and Killer's accident. Now there's a good sound design. And it's not over the top, on the contrary, it's almost bare.
My favourite scene.. well. The road images are beautiful. But as a sound nerd, my favourite scene is one where she's phoning her husband while Killer is at the parade. She is in the phone booth, with very little yet significant traffic noises. Then he's outside the phone booth, she's gone, but the conversation continues, with louder traffic noises coming from his scene. Then back to her and the conversation... Sound did all the continuity there, you can travel back and forth but the sounds keeps you informed of what you need to know. So subtle, so simple, so complex... great example of dense clarity-clear density ♥
It's technically perfect, but it's also makes you feel something. It's probably because it's a very human story about ordinary people. Moving you emotionally is something a good film should do too.
How young were all the actors! All of them. Robert Duvall, James Caan... I read a comment about how Shirley Knight being beautiful then but not having aged well, which I thought was cruel. All of the actors are old now!
I'm not sure where to begin with this film. First, I watched it over in a couple of nights. That means it's not a great film.
I had seen it before and enjoyed the French thriller thing. I still did. Though I do think it's not really strong all the time.
It's implied in the story that people don't shower. Ever.
I liked the cinematography. The cold colours and dark ambiences appeal a lot to me. The camera work is very good at making the story look unclean: dodgy characters in a grime situation... That is done very well. Very delicate in parts too.
I've seen De Battre Mon Coeur S'est Arrêtéand I can't remember much about it, but I thought he played with delicate parts too. Still at the time. I thought I liked Read My Lips better. Now I think it's because of the actors. I think they are dodgy and weird but very strong in their acting, particularly Emmanuelle Devos.
The Sound work. I decided to rewatch it because I was looking for how a deaf character is presented and how does her world sound. Hm. I was a little disappointed.
You'd think a deaf character is a good opportunity to play with sounds.
Does her world sound different with or without a hearing aid? Well. Yes... sort of. She continuously keep turning it on and off and things getting quieter. I like a scene where there's a fight and she can't hear much until she finds her hearing aid and then it is a fight in sound too.
There's a playing with delicate sounds and loud ones too. As if that was the way she sees the world. That I liked.
But she goes from hearing to not hearing, without anything in particular happening when she's deaf. No ringing in her ears, no nothing....
And the music. It's alright music. Delicate, again. But there's just too much of it, used indiscriminately. Personally, I would have left those music moments for when she's alone in her world, no hearing aid. It would have made it more about her, rather than being everywhere and taking the beauty out of it.
I thought the sound could have been bolder. Sure it's technically very good, but it could have been a lot better if they had pushed it only a little bit more. Shame.
The story develops okay... but the end is not very surprising. (Even if it's your first watch)
