ÉVALUATION IMDb
6,5/10
12 k
MA NOTE
Emi, une institutrice, voit sa carrière et sa réputation menacées après la fuite d'une sex-tape personnelle sur Internet. Contrainte de rencontrer les parents exigeant son renvoi, Emi refuse... Tout lireEmi, une institutrice, voit sa carrière et sa réputation menacées après la fuite d'une sex-tape personnelle sur Internet. Contrainte de rencontrer les parents exigeant son renvoi, Emi refuse de céder à leur pression.Emi, une institutrice, voit sa carrière et sa réputation menacées après la fuite d'une sex-tape personnelle sur Internet. Contrainte de rencontrer les parents exigeant son renvoi, Emi refuse de céder à leur pression.
- Prix
- 8 victoires et 21 nominations au total
Avis en vedette
Because of a leaked sex tape, a teacher finds herself scrutinized and reviled by the system.
Rade Jude is an iconoclast but not a gratuitous director and writer. Halfway through he film he references Pasolini, and that makes perfect sense, the Bunuel from "le charme discret de la bourgeoisie", would have been at home too. This movie is an indictment of our moral hypocrisy, be it pertaining to sexual behavior, but also to social and political constructs, and in a very contemporary manner to all the lies and pretense surrounding our individual ways of handling the Covid pandemic.
This movie is graphic, VERY graphic! If you're easily shocked, see something else. But if you don't mind being provoked, being made uneasy, or even challenged in what you consider proper, as long as it is for a reason, go for it.
I don't want to go in spoiler mode, the movie deserves to be discovered as you see it. However it has three parts, each with its own cinematographic language and esthetics. Each part invites us to consider a different angle of the same issue: our relationship to images, their meaning, and the value, or infamy, we attach to them.
From the opening right in your face use of them, through a contemplative approach of the disconnect between what we see and what we're told we see or what we're told to watch, through an exploration of the lies or over-meaningfulness we create when we associate images and comments on these images, to the absolute hypocrisy of the morally woke and conservative puritans alike when it comes to confronting ourselves to the beyond the surface value of images.
And despite the content it is not at all a boring intellectual movie, it is fun, it is in your face, it is masterfully shot, and it solicits your eyes as much as your brain.
Rade Jude is an iconoclast but not a gratuitous director and writer. Halfway through he film he references Pasolini, and that makes perfect sense, the Bunuel from "le charme discret de la bourgeoisie", would have been at home too. This movie is an indictment of our moral hypocrisy, be it pertaining to sexual behavior, but also to social and political constructs, and in a very contemporary manner to all the lies and pretense surrounding our individual ways of handling the Covid pandemic.
This movie is graphic, VERY graphic! If you're easily shocked, see something else. But if you don't mind being provoked, being made uneasy, or even challenged in what you consider proper, as long as it is for a reason, go for it.
I don't want to go in spoiler mode, the movie deserves to be discovered as you see it. However it has three parts, each with its own cinematographic language and esthetics. Each part invites us to consider a different angle of the same issue: our relationship to images, their meaning, and the value, or infamy, we attach to them.
From the opening right in your face use of them, through a contemplative approach of the disconnect between what we see and what we're told we see or what we're told to watch, through an exploration of the lies or over-meaningfulness we create when we associate images and comments on these images, to the absolute hypocrisy of the morally woke and conservative puritans alike when it comes to confronting ourselves to the beyond the surface value of images.
And despite the content it is not at all a boring intellectual movie, it is fun, it is in your face, it is masterfully shot, and it solicits your eyes as much as your brain.
Awesome movie, but I don't think a person not familiar with Romanian culture and history will understand it properly. I generally don't like artsy films, but this was an example of one done right. It has kept me interested throughout, with minor exceptions. Sometimes you laugh, sometimes you get sad, ashamed, bored, confused. It cycles you through these emotions in a dynamic way.
I also liked the fact that they've advertised some of the sponsors straight on, without trying to hide it in any way.
I also liked the fact that they've advertised some of the sponsors straight on, without trying to hide it in any way.
Jude is the most experimental, controversial and radical romanian filmmaker: his films never cease to offer a poignant satire of society, irredentism, or his country.
His latest film is a prime example of his peculiarities. The subject is a leaked sextape of a teacher, and the scandal it rises among parents.
The opening of the film features the actual footage of an explicit, unsimulated sextape, not for the purposes of realism (as it could have been with any other Romanian New Wave director), but to force the viewer in the act of voyeurism that will be very blatantly shown in the third act: this chapter of the film features a sort of "trial", in which the teacher is forced to face the parents of her students. When one of the parents shows the video to the others with the purpose of "showing things for what they are", the other parents mock the teacher, laugh, or watch with perverse passion. Through this external sight, the viewer is thus confronted with the reaction they probably displayed at the beginning, a very clever way to involve the audience.
The previous two chapters of this three-chapter story each have their own purpose. The second chapter is a sort of glossary/collection of anecdotes, which introduces briefly all the notions that are later mentioned in the discussion of the third act: not only sex or equality related concepts, but domestic violence, history and romanian historical episodes (as that is the teacher's subject), philosophical concepts, even a metacinematic consideration, all with the goal of preparing the viewer for the final act. It is not only a way to put all viewers on the same page, but also to make explicit the thematic range of the film.
The first chapter features Emi (the teacher) walking around Bucharest doing chores. Through her journey, Jude shows the city as it is under the pandemic (the film was entirely shot last year) and its effects of distress on people, more and more nervous, without disdaining some subtle visual digressions.
While Jude makes very clear which side he supports in the debate of the third chapter, he chooses to give three different endings to the story, which I won't disclose, maybe to thus imply that the viewer has to judge for theirself.
His latest film is a prime example of his peculiarities. The subject is a leaked sextape of a teacher, and the scandal it rises among parents.
The opening of the film features the actual footage of an explicit, unsimulated sextape, not for the purposes of realism (as it could have been with any other Romanian New Wave director), but to force the viewer in the act of voyeurism that will be very blatantly shown in the third act: this chapter of the film features a sort of "trial", in which the teacher is forced to face the parents of her students. When one of the parents shows the video to the others with the purpose of "showing things for what they are", the other parents mock the teacher, laugh, or watch with perverse passion. Through this external sight, the viewer is thus confronted with the reaction they probably displayed at the beginning, a very clever way to involve the audience.
The previous two chapters of this three-chapter story each have their own purpose. The second chapter is a sort of glossary/collection of anecdotes, which introduces briefly all the notions that are later mentioned in the discussion of the third act: not only sex or equality related concepts, but domestic violence, history and romanian historical episodes (as that is the teacher's subject), philosophical concepts, even a metacinematic consideration, all with the goal of preparing the viewer for the final act. It is not only a way to put all viewers on the same page, but also to make explicit the thematic range of the film.
The first chapter features Emi (the teacher) walking around Bucharest doing chores. Through her journey, Jude shows the city as it is under the pandemic (the film was entirely shot last year) and its effects of distress on people, more and more nervous, without disdaining some subtle visual digressions.
While Jude makes very clear which side he supports in the debate of the third chapter, he chooses to give three different endings to the story, which I won't disclose, maybe to thus imply that the viewer has to judge for theirself.
'Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn' is an unorthodox, provocative, scathing piece of moviemaking that due to its low crowd-pleasing coefficient will likely not be for everyone. Since I have no problem with significant amounts of in-your-face-attitude on the director's side, I quite liked it.
Architecturally, the movies borrows from some examples of French Nouvelle Vague Cinema - if I had a better memory, I could tell you exactly which ones - in that the camera frequently and in its center piece completely deviates from the dealings of its protagonists. In this way, a film that starts off with a story about an instance of accidental pornography widens its scope dramatically to become nothing less than a satirical portrait of a pornographic (Romanian, but just Romanian?) society. Using 'pornography' as an abstract (anti-)moral topos reminded me of Samuel Maoz' 'Foxtrot'.
While I think that the dramaturgic fundamentals of the movie are well thought through, I also think the movie could have been even better. Especially in the third part, the discussion of the matter at hand meanders quite a bit, can be tedious, and will probably not escape all charges of weisenheimery.
Bottom line is, that most viewers will probably switch it off at one point in complacent disgust. If you make it to the end, though, you will not see its explosive, weapons-grade finale coming, which is again well in line with its subversive intentions.
Architecturally, the movies borrows from some examples of French Nouvelle Vague Cinema - if I had a better memory, I could tell you exactly which ones - in that the camera frequently and in its center piece completely deviates from the dealings of its protagonists. In this way, a film that starts off with a story about an instance of accidental pornography widens its scope dramatically to become nothing less than a satirical portrait of a pornographic (Romanian, but just Romanian?) society. Using 'pornography' as an abstract (anti-)moral topos reminded me of Samuel Maoz' 'Foxtrot'.
While I think that the dramaturgic fundamentals of the movie are well thought through, I also think the movie could have been even better. Especially in the third part, the discussion of the matter at hand meanders quite a bit, can be tedious, and will probably not escape all charges of weisenheimery.
Bottom line is, that most viewers will probably switch it off at one point in complacent disgust. If you make it to the end, though, you will not see its explosive, weapons-grade finale coming, which is again well in line with its subversive intentions.
There are two distinct categories of people who reviewed this film: those who awarded it high marks and those who didn't- at all. The director, Radu Jude- impressed me with his "Aferim!" - a film which gives food for thought by dealing with a very little known and uncomfortable subject in Romanian history: the slavery of gypsies from past centuries.
"Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn" is just as uncomfortable, but it is set in contemporary Romania. As contemporary as it gets: the pandemic year of 2020. The title itself is misleading; this film is not about sex, though it is the starting point of the plot. For that, one can search Pornhub. This is a film about how sick and ailing the Romanian society is in its entirety; the first chapter of the film takes us on a ride along with the protagonist through the Bucharest of our days: noisy, dirty, unkempt, unruly, impolite, careless, unappealing, selfish, vulgar. If some don't like it, well, why break the mirror if it shows you what you look like? A lot of the filming in this section reminded me of La Nouvelle Vague.
The second chapter has apparently no connection whatsoever with the first. Or has it? An ad libitum dictionary of contemporary notions translated into the Romanian realities of the moment; what can be more hilarious and heart wrenching at the same time?! Considering the way it is put together, Monty Python comes to mind.
As for the third chapter, well, this is Romanian society at its best. First of all, it is not for the parents to decide whether a teacher can be fired or not; it is a state school, hence free for the pupils, so the parents shouldn't have a say in who stays and who goes. This chapter of the film is so full of harsh satire directed at how the Romanians think they have a say in everything, thus displaying a wide range of all kinds of preconceptions, stereotypes and fake news distribution- racial, political, social, sexual- that one doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry.
Yes, this is us, whether we like it or not.
And the grand finale, well... you have to watch it in order to choose which one suits you best. I go for the third, full throttle.
Great job, Radu Jude and his team! A fully deserved Golden Bear!
"Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn" is just as uncomfortable, but it is set in contemporary Romania. As contemporary as it gets: the pandemic year of 2020. The title itself is misleading; this film is not about sex, though it is the starting point of the plot. For that, one can search Pornhub. This is a film about how sick and ailing the Romanian society is in its entirety; the first chapter of the film takes us on a ride along with the protagonist through the Bucharest of our days: noisy, dirty, unkempt, unruly, impolite, careless, unappealing, selfish, vulgar. If some don't like it, well, why break the mirror if it shows you what you look like? A lot of the filming in this section reminded me of La Nouvelle Vague.
The second chapter has apparently no connection whatsoever with the first. Or has it? An ad libitum dictionary of contemporary notions translated into the Romanian realities of the moment; what can be more hilarious and heart wrenching at the same time?! Considering the way it is put together, Monty Python comes to mind.
As for the third chapter, well, this is Romanian society at its best. First of all, it is not for the parents to decide whether a teacher can be fired or not; it is a state school, hence free for the pupils, so the parents shouldn't have a say in who stays and who goes. This chapter of the film is so full of harsh satire directed at how the Romanians think they have a say in everything, thus displaying a wide range of all kinds of preconceptions, stereotypes and fake news distribution- racial, political, social, sexual- that one doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry.
Yes, this is us, whether we like it or not.
And the grand finale, well... you have to watch it in order to choose which one suits you best. I go for the third, full throttle.
Great job, Radu Jude and his team! A fully deserved Golden Bear!
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesInternational distribution deals spiked after the film won the Golden Bear for best film at the 2021 Berlin International Film Festival, but producer Ads Solomon expressed concern that a U.S. deal could prove tricky, as the movie contains several scenes of hard-core sex. She said in an interview that the film's depictions of sex should be seen in context, especially given the often lax attitudes towards on-screen violence in U.S. movies. "It's happening more and more that violence is accepted [but] nudity is not," she said. "For me, violence affects me emotionally much more than nudity. I'm not saying we should censor this as well; we should consider [the sexual content], not through an algorithm. Things should be considered in their complexity -there is no complete black and complete white."
- GaffesThe film crew is reflected in the windows and doors of a bus that passes in front of Emilia.
- Bandes originalesThe Battle Hymn of the Republic (Glory, Hallelujah)
Music by William Steffe (1856)
Arranged by James E. Greenleaf, C.S. Hall and C. Marsh (1861)
Lyrics by Julia Ward Howe (1861)
Performed by Jura Ferina & Pavao Miholjevic
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Sexo desafortunado o Porno loco
- Lieux de tournage
- Palace of the Paliament, Strada Izvor 2-4, Bucarest, Roumanie(guided visit of Ceausescu's former palace)
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 930 000 € (estimation)
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 72 342 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 7 672 $ US
- 21 nov. 2021
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 476 347 $ US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant