It was a pleasant evening at the cinema, but I cannot call this a good film. Several reviews have come up with many valid remarks, such as: - Norah Jones doesn't act very well (but more on that later), especially compared to her co- stars - The script is not only clichéd, but very uneven (also more on that) - The dialogue is god-awful and the accents aren't very well done
***SPOILERS***
THE IDEA. So, about Norah Jones' character. It's bland, completely flat, yes. But I think in a way that's the point. The whole point of the film is that, though she claims in the end to be someone different, she's about the *only* thing constant in the film. There's also a snippet of dialogue referring to that, as Jude Law says somewhere "I think you've changed, but maybe it's just me". And indeed, *he* has thrown away his keys, but *she* still wants her blueberry pie. WKW wrote the film around Norah Jones after hearing her songs, and I think we should take this literally: she *is* the eye of the storm. In the beginning she perceives herself as the storm, then she sees she's the eye... In the end, she doesn't change, it's the world around her. Note also how very often she's just *not* the main target of the scene.
This lack of actual change is a *very* good idea, as we've come to get used to films where characters go through all these hefty changes and developments - as if people change, ha! The first problem is: it was WKW's *only* good idea. The second problem: he doesn't pull it off.
THE ACTING. Another problem is, this is a tough one: you actually want an actress who is able to portray someone who feels they are changing, but who actually *aren't*! Someone who is the eye of the storm, but without being completely absent. Unfortunately, this is too much for Norah Jones, who depicts an eye of the storm that is so non-existent, that one wouldn't know what there is that can or cannot change. I mean, from zero to zero over zero, that's not much.
THE SCRIPT. But even so, I've seen much worse than Jones. The one to take the blame is the lame and clichéd script. Dialogue can be cliché, Tarantino makes it work. But this script! (a) It's next to non-existent (b) It's unbalanced, as you only get a road trip feeling once she's going to Vegas. This might be deliberate though, as seeing her take the bus would actually give viewers the impression she's taking initiative, but as WKW wants her to be the eye of the storm, she cannot be shown to take deliberate action. Interesting, and a real challenge for a script writer. Unfortunately, no good solution is found for this. In any case, the two stories (Memphis & Vegas) have too little movement to give a road movie feel, but still seem to pass too quickly to really stick. Though Archie's a fantastic character. (c) It's... well, I didn't think I was going to have to say this... a look at the west by an outsider.
WKW and GREAT WEST. What I mean by (c) is that, and I could be biased, but there it is: I have the impression that WKW took some classic American Movies images, and tried to piece his Great West film together. But he doesn't get beyond clichés, he doesn't seem to get what really drives the idea of road movies, meeting people & their stories... it's all part of the Big Romantic Illusion, of which he is no part, seemingly. Now, the turning inside-out of the person-is-changed-by-the-stuff-she-sees romantic idea is brilliant... but apparently they did not have what it takes to drive that point home. Maybe WKW had too much respect for the clichés of the West. Don't know, but I can't shake the feeling that he rubs his film style against these ideas he doesn't fully grasp and tries to make his point, which gets lost in the rubbing, as at no point you get the impression that one injects the other with something fresh.
Pity, WKW has three films in my top 20. Where's the time of Fallen Angels, when story and story telling were in complete osmosis.
----------
Per edit, I'll add a general remark. I fear that WKW "rubbing" his film style against the story is a bit the consequence of him being too evolved as a filmmaker, and he sticks to his screen language, where in fact he should've let go. When WKW got stuck in his crisis whilst filming Ashes Of Time, he chose to completely set the project aside and open himself up so anything that came. The result was Chunking Express and its brilliant side project Fallen Angels. Those were so brilliant because his perspective was *open* - you get the feeling that he lets the story dictate how to use the camera, and at the same time lets the way he uses his camera determine how the story is told. But over the course of his career, culminating in the Mood For Love/2046 diptych, he has sharpened that diamond to perfection where a certain way of filming fits a curtains story. Unfortunately, this means that you're up a cul-de-sac. He needs a new paradigm. And he didn't do/dare that here. PS: I had the same feeling with Lynch's Empire, where I felt like Lynch was onto something new in terms of filmic language, but just couldn't bring himself to completely abandon his old style.
***SPOILERS***
THE IDEA. So, about Norah Jones' character. It's bland, completely flat, yes. But I think in a way that's the point. The whole point of the film is that, though she claims in the end to be someone different, she's about the *only* thing constant in the film. There's also a snippet of dialogue referring to that, as Jude Law says somewhere "I think you've changed, but maybe it's just me". And indeed, *he* has thrown away his keys, but *she* still wants her blueberry pie. WKW wrote the film around Norah Jones after hearing her songs, and I think we should take this literally: she *is* the eye of the storm. In the beginning she perceives herself as the storm, then she sees she's the eye... In the end, she doesn't change, it's the world around her. Note also how very often she's just *not* the main target of the scene.
This lack of actual change is a *very* good idea, as we've come to get used to films where characters go through all these hefty changes and developments - as if people change, ha! The first problem is: it was WKW's *only* good idea. The second problem: he doesn't pull it off.
THE ACTING. Another problem is, this is a tough one: you actually want an actress who is able to portray someone who feels they are changing, but who actually *aren't*! Someone who is the eye of the storm, but without being completely absent. Unfortunately, this is too much for Norah Jones, who depicts an eye of the storm that is so non-existent, that one wouldn't know what there is that can or cannot change. I mean, from zero to zero over zero, that's not much.
THE SCRIPT. But even so, I've seen much worse than Jones. The one to take the blame is the lame and clichéd script. Dialogue can be cliché, Tarantino makes it work. But this script! (a) It's next to non-existent (b) It's unbalanced, as you only get a road trip feeling once she's going to Vegas. This might be deliberate though, as seeing her take the bus would actually give viewers the impression she's taking initiative, but as WKW wants her to be the eye of the storm, she cannot be shown to take deliberate action. Interesting, and a real challenge for a script writer. Unfortunately, no good solution is found for this. In any case, the two stories (Memphis & Vegas) have too little movement to give a road movie feel, but still seem to pass too quickly to really stick. Though Archie's a fantastic character. (c) It's... well, I didn't think I was going to have to say this... a look at the west by an outsider.
WKW and GREAT WEST. What I mean by (c) is that, and I could be biased, but there it is: I have the impression that WKW took some classic American Movies images, and tried to piece his Great West film together. But he doesn't get beyond clichés, he doesn't seem to get what really drives the idea of road movies, meeting people & their stories... it's all part of the Big Romantic Illusion, of which he is no part, seemingly. Now, the turning inside-out of the person-is-changed-by-the-stuff-she-sees romantic idea is brilliant... but apparently they did not have what it takes to drive that point home. Maybe WKW had too much respect for the clichés of the West. Don't know, but I can't shake the feeling that he rubs his film style against these ideas he doesn't fully grasp and tries to make his point, which gets lost in the rubbing, as at no point you get the impression that one injects the other with something fresh.
Pity, WKW has three films in my top 20. Where's the time of Fallen Angels, when story and story telling were in complete osmosis.
----------
Per edit, I'll add a general remark. I fear that WKW "rubbing" his film style against the story is a bit the consequence of him being too evolved as a filmmaker, and he sticks to his screen language, where in fact he should've let go. When WKW got stuck in his crisis whilst filming Ashes Of Time, he chose to completely set the project aside and open himself up so anything that came. The result was Chunking Express and its brilliant side project Fallen Angels. Those were so brilliant because his perspective was *open* - you get the feeling that he lets the story dictate how to use the camera, and at the same time lets the way he uses his camera determine how the story is told. But over the course of his career, culminating in the Mood For Love/2046 diptych, he has sharpened that diamond to perfection where a certain way of filming fits a curtains story. Unfortunately, this means that you're up a cul-de-sac. He needs a new paradigm. And he didn't do/dare that here. PS: I had the same feeling with Lynch's Empire, where I felt like Lynch was onto something new in terms of filmic language, but just couldn't bring himself to completely abandon his old style.