irtisen Reviews

Inception (2010)

Bored to be conscious and lucid.

[1/10 · 31 August 2010]

The only reason I had not to stand up and leave was Joseph Gordon-Levitt, because my boots are made for walking. But his part, unfortunately, is neither long nor developed. Lukas Haas disappears in the beginning, which is also a waste of talent. Instead, we see Leonardo DiCaprio, just as he always is : not bad, not good. Ellen Page, here an actress in limbo. Cilian Murphy, in a character also unexploited. And Marion Cotillard in repeated appearances : love, murder, suicide. All the actors seem to think: "dont't be harsh, I know I am acting in a silly movie; I just do my best not to show." Alas! their idea of a nightmare goes to our consciousness (without stealing), and stays. The directing is nonexistent.

Too bad, I did not fall asleep on my chair, for maybe I would have woken up from this nightmare. The plot is of no interest : if you accept the stupid premises of those scientific dreams, you guess very quickly who will die and who will survive. Waiting for the end, 2 hours and a half are ten years long. The special effects are rather well done: they don't know they act in a mess, but the editing is loose in between.

Do not waste your time : take a good nap instead.

It's Gradiva Who Is Calling You (2006)

Beware of dreams

[9/10 · 13 October 2009]

Alain Robbe-Grillet's work is long, especially in the beginning. Whereas eternity is in the ending: Gradiva can't be that bad. A Robbe-Grillet's film is supposed to mix reality and dreams (no doubt!), hence Gradiva is no surprise. The actors do not necessarily understand their part (whether you decide they should or not), just as we do not understand what 'life' is, we players. Robbe-Grillet asks questions through stories, e.g. 'who is playing', 'who is being played', 'what is allowed', 'who is the director'... But he doesn't give definitive answers. He achieves his goal in the meantime. He just says that dreams can kill. So books and films can. All protect us from eternity. Can you hear Gradiva's call?

The Count of Monte Cristo (1998)

Times have changed... "Hard Times"? Not so simple.

[8/10 · 6 September 2009]

I won't discuss the faithfulness to the book at first. To me a matter of era.

(Honest warning: this section is seemingly off the point. Read or pass on it: what follows is a point of view, subject to much contradiction.

According to me, A. Dumas had genius for drama (fate, revenge, strong characters, breathtaking plots), but not as much for literature, writing. Exactly as V. Hugo. To me, the real genius was G. Flaubert. But his literature was not "romantic" at all. (Or read 'Sentimental Education', and you'll fully understand that he was a disappointed Romantic.) Thus, when you ask the French who is or was the best French-speaking writer of all times (they have read none in fact), they always choose Hugo, then Dumas or another, Verne, Chataubriand, Zola, Balzac... They always forget Flaubert, Maupassant, Stendhal, Proust, etc. A matter of opinion, you could say. Maybe a question of fame, too. More (and less…): as J.M.G. Le Clézio perfectly expresses (this is my translation, not his words), "Polls are so unfair. And to take first or last place in a poll is not what is important... What is serious is to be forgotten." (Sorry, IMDb does not accept (the original) French words, and I must delete...)... Who really read Dumas's novel(s)? - You watch a movie, and say: Dumas (whoever as a matter of fact) is a great writer. – I like Dumas indeed, but such ironic (and sad) limbo…)

Well, as to betrayal to novels, do you think "The Quiet American" (1958), which is a great Mankiewicz's movie, was faithful to the book? The thesis of G. Greene (I am very fond of his ambiguous books) is the absolute contrary to the thesis of the shameful script. Mankiewicz's film should have been called "The absolute betrayal of G. Greene's Quiet American". - I know the political background of 1958 could not permit any director to be faithful to Greene. The 'betrayal' of Josée Dayan is nothing compared to that. The problem is, in my mind, that the 'adaptation' is due to commercial reasons: the series were shot to be sold to foreign countries, to be financially viable, and profitable. Era of the market. And of lovable heroes. Producers cannot put up the money for an expected international success starring a character (Dantes) who would be too ambiguous. Political correctness. Sad time of money and "good against evil"... (Where is Welles, and the early Polanski, etc.?)

If I should vote for Depardieu's performance (you know he can be perfect, and sometimes appear in minor movies - nevertheless his huge talent cannot fade from those), I would vote 10, though he is not Dumas's Dantes - but he is not responsible for that, if you agree with my point of view. Another sad limbo for Dumas. His acting is so intense that he sucks the lifeblood out of the cast, which is very good. Thus, due to the 'adaptation', in spite of Dayan's great gifts for filming (plus she herself is quite a Dumas's heroine), my vote is 8. Polls are unfair. The result (the 'film') is more than worth seeing. Thanks. Debate: still open.

Seventeen Times Cécile Cassard (2002)

Mourning

[9/10 · 30 August 2009]

To be brief:

1. "17 fois Cécile Cassard" has a bad reputation. I do not feel comfortable about that. This is true: a) the names and characters appear in several Honoré's movies and novels (he is also a writer; he already used the name "Roland Cassard" in "Les Cahiers du Cinéma", name coming from - a Breton too - Jacques Demy's films: "Lola"... "Les Parapluies de Cherbourg" where Geneviève - Catherine Deneuve's part - pretends she is... 17); b) the construction and the pace may give trouble to viewers narrow-minded. To the others, what is the problem with those famous 17 times that bothered so many critics? Do they think the script is "literary", "intellectual", thus boring? Not at all. Mourning has swept through Cécile's life. And life, or living, slowly (slowly in the film's time, not in her lifetime) gains ground, step by step (17). And life indeed lives in the film from the very beginning, even in death, and does not quit. Plus: the shots are very beautiful, and sweet, especially at night-time.

2. So much life in it: due to Béatrice Dalle's astonishing performance. Think whatever you want of the maverick real Dalle - I love her (integrity, so rare, frightens the narrow-minded and the conservative). But you cannot say she is not perfect as an actress. That'd be hypocritical. Perfect is the word. So true. Directly to your heart. If you are fond of her acting, I may suggest (again for Arte!) Gaël Morel's "New Wave", in which her part (a 'borderline' mother at least) is not so long, but consuming: a really terrifying presence, so true that you didn't think it were possible to play. Thank you Mr. Honoré, thank you Ms. Dalle.

The Immortal Story (1968 TV Movie)

Abyme

[10/10 · 30 August 2009]

Some films are very long. For instance Antonioni's "La Notte", again with Jeanne Moreau - sorry for being in love with her. Hardly anything happens in that movie. Though you can't keep your eyes out of the screen. Fascinating (to me, at least).

The producers nowadays are afraid of "zapping". Films are stroboscopic. Add zoom and tracking. Mix the three together. You have TV's "CSI: Miami". Caruso is great fun, notably because of his caricatured acting (though he plays exactly what he is supposed to play, and he does it very well - his lines are so stupid... poor actor), but such obvious manipulation in filming is off-putting. And I get bored, so bored...

"The Immortal Story" is quite a short film. But the most beautiful I have ever seen in my whole life. I could watch it again and again 'till death do us part'. People call this "movie" literary, because of (the great great) K. Blixen - I. Dinesen. It is. It is nonetheless a move of the soul, a story of tale, legend, fate, and (un)achievement. It tells us you cannot be a link of the immortal story - the chain - unless you give your life to it, and die. So always did Welles, the greatest director of all times (to me). It is all about creation: genesis, generation, transmission and... your life.