Sleeping Beauty

In over half a century of cinema-going, I've seen a (deliberately) wide range of movies, including some really strange and cryptic work, and I have to say that the Australian "Sleeping Beauty" falls firmly in the odd and opaque category. Coincidentally another film in the very unusual bracket is the similarly named "Sleeping Furiously" set in Wales. "Sleeping Beauty" is not quite as slow - although it is very measured indeed - but the obscure meaning of many scenes sets it apart. There is as much nudity as "Eyes Wide Shut" with which it bears (sorry for the pun) some comparison, but a much weaker storyline.

This is an adventurous selection for a first film from Julia Leigh who both directed and wrote this strange tale of a Sdyney student who is prepared to sell her body in a variety of circumstances in order to pay her bills. And it is a bold choice for Emily Browning who moves on from "Sucker Punch" to take the eponymous role, meaning that she is rarely off screen and has to appear totally nude. There is virtually no music and very little dialogue (especially from Browning) so there is an astonishing focus on her face - doll-like with high cheek bones and cupid lips - and her body - diminutive, pale and slight.

But this is far from being an erotic work; in fact, it is a depressing one. None of the characters elicits our sympathy or warmth and Browning's character Lucy seems to be sleep-walking and drugged when she is not actually sleeping and drugged.

Sleeping Beauty is a fanciful 'indie' movie about a girl, Sara, who has numerous mundane jobs as she attends an Australian university, but decides to take on some *ahem* nightwork as an inanimate object who sleeps alongside paying customers.

It's one of those films that leaves me wishing that I was smarter. I figure that way I'd like movies like this more.

Let's face it - it's different. It's different in the way it's shot, the way it tells it's story, the way the actors speak and are asked to perform and it's definitely not your average Hollywood output. It's an independent film which, if it's lucky, will achieve a cult following.

The dialogue is slow (if there is any at all), there is even less background music, it is filmed largely with one static camera shot per scene (scenes which tend to go on for longer than you might expect) and the actors all behave very aloof.

I have nothing against films that go against the 'classic Hollywood narrative.' The film industry needs them. And I'm no prude when it comes to tackling sensitive adult issues on film. However, sadly, I have to come down on the side of those who thought this film was just simply boring. I know it tries to be shocking and different. I just thought it was dull.

It's basically one of those love/hate films. I've read plenty of other reviews on it and about half side with me, while the others praise its artistic merits and depth of film-making. That's fine. Just expect to either turn it off after twenty minutes or sit riveted to the end in admiration.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm now off to watch Bruce Willis slapping bad guys and giant monsters trashing New York.

When you create a film and title it "Sleeping Beauty," you had better not make it boring. Otherwise, you'll get reviews utilizing every possible play on the word "sleep," but more importantly, word of mouth will spread using the same types of puns. When you use a title made famous by the Disney animation, you're going to have to guard against those comparisons as well. As you can see, this film is already on the defensive.

To put even more pressure on "Sleeping Beauty," before it has even begun, is the fact that it is the directorial debut of a novelist. Julia Leigh also wrote the screenplay, but it is her first time stepping behind the camera to helm a film production. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it means an even bigger risk was taken by the studios, and just as many debuts fall flat as they do flourish. Luckily, Leigh's is a success, even if her film isn't going to be something that many people are going to enjoy.

To start the film, we begin by watching the daily routine of a young woman named Lucy (Emily Browning). The first scene made me cringe, as we find out that one of her many jobs involves testing out medical equipment. We watch a tube being inserted down her throat. This is done in one unflinching shot that has the opposite effect on the viewer. Later on, we learn she also does office work and works at a restaurant, but the medical testing was by far her worst job.

Why does she need to work three jobs? That's really a good question. We learn that she's behind on her rent, and also goes to school. Maybe school is really expensive, but she only seems to have one class, which can't be too heavy a burden. She's renting a room from people she knows, and I wouldn't think that would be that expensive either. Why she doesn't pay her rent on time, I'll never know. This isn't a film that's going to lay things out for you.

Because working three jobs isn't enough for Lucy, she inquires about an ad in the paper that requires her to serve dinner to old rich men while wearing lingerie. It pays $250 an hour, although it's freelance work, we're told. She works once, and after she gets home, she burns a $20 bill. Why? Again, I don't know, and it's actions like this that make me think she isn't wanting for cash. Regardless, working multiple jobs, including the dinner-while-wearing-lingerie one, continues for most of the film, even as her performance gets so bad that she sometimes sleeps on the floor while working.

Sleeping is something she'll end up doing quite a bit as the film continues on. She was told when she took the server job that there were opportunities for promotion. She gets that chance later on, when she's told that she can take a drug, lay naked in bed while passed out, and sleep for a few hours. Oh, and an elderly man will come in and sleep with her while she's knocked out. "Sleep with" in the literal sense of the meaning, as actual intercourse is forbidden.

Not that Lucy really cares. She doesn't seem to care much about herself, and would probably have accepted the job without the binding rule. She's the type of nihilist that will do whatever anyone wants her to do at the flip of a coin. At a bar, she's approached and asked if she wants some cocaine. "Why not?" is her response. Later, two men she just met actually use a coin to decide which one would have sex with her that night. She doesn't care, although come to think of it, I can't remember her saying "no" once to anyone in the film. She's very polite, even if she has no regard for her own body.

There's a lot of symbolism in the film, and if you thought this was a film that's going to make it easy on you, you can look elsewhere. You're going to have to infer a great deal about the characters and their reason for doing what they do for most of the time you watch them. I can see this being seen by some as a lack of character depth and development, but I think it's all there and just hidden behind imagery and a classic fairy tale. The way I saw "Sleeping Beauty," it actually does steal a couple of things from Disney cartoon. Unfortunately, giving that away now might change the way you view the film, so instead, go in with as fresh a mind as you can. This is a movie that will reward subsequent viewings.

If there's a problem here, it's the character of Lucy. She's often difficult to like, and because she's such an apathetic person, not a lot goes on. She's little farther, for better or worse, when the film ends than when it began. None of the blame can go to Emily Browning, as she plays her without fear, but the way the character is written means that she's not exactly amiable or has a decent enough personality to build a film around. This is largely forgotten about once it gets going, but upon reflection, making her grow as the film progressed would have improved it as a whole.

Regardless, I was engaged by "Sleeping Beauty." Is it for everyone? Not at all. If you like artsy films that are there for you to figure out instead of being told everything about them, then it might work for you. It has a solid performance from Emily Browning in the lead role, and it has enough imagery and symbolism to keep you coming back for another watch. That is, if you don't fall asleep during the first time.

Featuring Australian actress Emily Browning in the titular role, this bizarre and uncomfortable art film is almost worth watching for her exquisitely pretty face alone; but alas, she plays an utterly depressed character completely devoid of feelings, emotions, and, well, character—a combination uncomfortable to watch whatever face is behind it.

Sleeping Beauty finds Emily Browning portray a college student who allows herself to be drugged into unconsciousness and played with by perverted old men for money—though in a bizarre turn of events it turns out she seems to care for the money as much as she does her maltreated body.

She also has a bizarre friend known as "Bird Man" who seems to be in love with her. Whatever the case—long periods of naked unconsciousness; old wrinkled men in the buff; and a seriously depressed, repressed, oppressed, and suppressed protagonist make this a very bizarre and uncomfortable art film.

(Disclaimer: The film features gorgeous cinematography and has an affecting plot, even if it isn't entirely discernible. Certainly worth watching)

An interesting choice. Prostitution amidst university students. Rich old men who spend their money on flesh. Modern 'dettachment'... separating the body from the heart, the soul, the mind. Most of the critics of this film seem to dwell on complaining that "our world is not like that! All the people here are horrible...!!!" Of course they are missing the point. We are watching crude realities, but also dreams, symbols, Freudian/Jungian fetishes... A woman is directing. Jane Campion is producing. This is also a 'clue' that MAYBE there is more to this film than meets the eye... Behind the veneer are MANY hidden truths.( Behind the Twin Towers, behind the choice of a black president after a guy like Bush jr.) Separation from the truth. We are all 'anaesthetised'... so Lisa is NOT so strange, after all. Money rules. Maybe we are victims of our society, of our times. We are 'dead', as T.S. Eliot wrote some years ago. Of course the world is full of wonderful, hearty, passionate and generous people. But this film aims elsewhere, and I myself feel grateful to its director, scriptwriter (and , why not, actress) for taking the plunge, and re-floating Pasolini's 'Salò' in a more digestible (maybe more intelligent?) guise. Kubrick? His last movie may still reveal something in the future (ALL his films age very well), but he was an elderly man, and this young director seems to have the upper-hand in as much as hitting the nail on the head with the 'ésprit-du-temps', the 'Zeitgeist' or, more plainly,(and painfully), the new age our youth are forced to grow up in. Somewhat puzzled at first, I gave this film a chance...let it 'breathe', in my conscience and intellect. I'm glad I did. It contains more than one morsel of food for thought.