Yo puta

Many of the previous comments were close-minded. I haven't seen this film in several months, but it's ingrained in my mind. "The Life" was not about supporting prostitution, but more about the reasons/situations that lead to and exist, in such a "profession" world-wide. The element of documentary and fiction was a different take on the subject. If the fictional part of the story was just as candid and raw as the documentary portion, then the film would've been better. The subtitles were somewhat distracting due to speed. But overall, the film accomplished it's task. The theme holds, "Prostitution shouldn't be glorified, but accepted as reality. Knowing reality illuminates the real world."-shav

This was a complete waste of eventually useful ideas. I enjoy a filmmaker who tries to get out of the preconceived canons and ways to tell a story. Nowadays, the best cinematic essays one can find is on how to reformulate narrative devices and story telling, and in a second plan, visual renewed ideas. If the eye narrative is in conformity with the storytelling device, that's when we have great films.

Here we have a work by someone who probably agrees with what i told above, but, at least in this try (second try, according to IMDb) was completely clumsy, useless, bad tasted. This is a terrible work, it pretended much, it tried to do things in an imaginative way, but the final work is a disaster, originated, i believe, in the lack of sensitivity of who worked this.

So, we're being told a fictionalized narrative, multi layered. This means we have a great number of threads to follow (here associated with different prostitutes). The device used is the false documentary. In the middle of that assumed fakery, we have a fiction line, with Richards, Hannah and Almeida.The problem is how rigidly this construction is made, and how little imaginative it becomes in its development. I mean, the actresses playing prostitutes (i really suppose they were all actresses, i just had a doubt on one or two) are a complete cliché, someone sit down and thought "how many kinds of prostitutes, and prostitution motivations, and prostitutes social conditions ca i think of?". And that's it. We have the African black nymphomaniac, we have the Brazilian hot "sexual available" lookalike prostitute, we have the Latin American Indian descendant prostitute, we have the high class escort (who is french!), we have the male prostitute. We have those who like what they do, those who do it for money, and those who don't have other choice. So useless, so superficial, so boring, such a waste of time. There are such great examples on fake documentaries about half real realities ('F for Fake' being at the top of this list) that it is terrible that someone could do this like we see here. What's the point of portraying people that look like prostitutes, talk like several stereotypes of prostitution would talk, act like prostitutes, live like prostitutes, but are in fact actors? The question is: why not place real prostitutes and make a real documentary if there is no manipulation, no intention at all behind the fake documentary?

Than, to conclude, the fiction story. An anthropology student, virgin, who is studying prostitution. Her neighbour is a prostitute and due to financial trouble, she comes to enter the job as well. What was the point? In the end, this developed as those common documentaries made for TV channels, History, Biography, Odisseia, etc. With an exception: with those documentaries, one can at least take valuable facts, if you don't know them, and if you like being distracted (i don't) you can rely on the awful fictional bits.

The visual resolution of this is made in accordance to the uselessness of the story choices. Most of the way we have women detached from whatever the environment was where they were speaking, and pasted above the photograph of a cheap hotel where prostitution happens. Other times we have useless visual tricks, of deforming images, and highly saturated colours.

My opinion: 1/5 avoid it.

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

Maria Lidon is given credit for directing this documentary. It's funny because in the credits someone by the name of Luna appears to be its director, and frankly, we were under the impression that Spanish director, Bigas Luna, a man that loves to shock his audience, was the actual man directing.

What makes a woman turn into prostitution? The obvious answers would be poverty, desperation, sexual abuse, and having been deceived. But the writers of the documentary take the approach to the way some of these women have ended working in the world's oldest profession because the allure of the money that can be made, or just because they honestly like the idea of selling sex for a living. There are only a couple of males that talk frankly about the way they sell their bodies.

"The Life" might be deceiving for the casual viewer since in the credits we see some familiar names like Daryl Hannah, Denise Richards and Joaquim de Almeida, but their presence in the film is merely decorative. After seeing and listening to all the women interviewed speak openly about how they view their chosen 'career', these actors seem to be in the wrong picture.

Other than being curious about what "The Life" is about, nothing new is learned from the people being interviewed.

A pointless movie about the world of prostitution, even though all we see are prostitutes and gigolos being interviewed for 90 min or so, without much interest, without showing something new, there also a story in the middle involving Daryl Hannah, Denise Richards, and Joaquim de Almeida's characters, that doesn't make much sense either. A very very boring movie, the mix between documentary and fiction didn't really work and also the dubbed dialog gives this picture a very cheap look. Why? I mean if this is supposed to be a movie featuring real people talking about their lives why dubbing it? some "actors" are dubbed and some others are not, it just felt weird. Also, the cinematography is poor.

I didn't understand what the director intended to do, but she failed at doing a good movie. My vote is 3

Title (Portugal)- Not available

Many things could be said about this film - misleading, clichéd, style over substance, but in the end the most important aspect plays the decisive role: this film is boring.

The authors decided to present the film as a pseudo-documentary, but instead the viewer is subjected to seeing poorly acted commentary dialogue about prostitution over and over again. Maybe that would be interesting if the commentary itself had at least a spark of originality, alas... Person after person, every participant in this unwatchable boring mess says nothing but stereotypical b.s. It is almost as if the filmmakers made their product for someone from Mars - someone who has never seen or even heard of a prostitute in their entire life!

Oh, there is also Denise Richards in this movie. Yes. We all know that Denise Richards adds credibility to any movie! Seriously though, Richards and Daryl Hannah are in this film, but why they are here is anyone's guess. Their scenes could be easily taken out - they are not important. Well, in fact, the whole film is not important - just skip it altogether and watch something else.