Guernsey

For me every piece of art is to be judged by these criteria: Form, Function and Meaning. Guernsey seems to be dedicated to forms: nice shots and sometimes interesting acting. The long close ups suggest a function that the viewer may fill in by himself. Because of lacking texts the story becomes a quiz. An introvert person suggests to have depth, but sometimes it turns out he has nothing to say. This film acts like an introvert person. If you have not read the synopsis you cannot see that it was the suicide (and the unanswered question Why?) that changes Anna's view on life and makes her suspicious. 'Why don't you speak to me?' asks Sebastiaan. Anna doesn't answer, she only starts looking a long time at him without saying a word. What is the function of that shot? What does it mean? My question is like Sebastiaans: What has this film to say? What is meant by this movie? The answer for me: It shows us a handful of persons with the passion of a glass of water. The story of their lives is simple and boring. Motives behind their actions are not shown. The rest is: skins, residences, landscapes. Nice and artistic done, but meaningless without having disposal of 'instructions for use'. In my opinion this film is made for fellow artists, not for the common viewer.

GUERNSEY (Maria Kraakman - Belgium/Netherlands 2005).

The mousy Maria Kraakman plays Anna, a woman in her thirties, who finds out her husband (Fedja van Huet) is cheating on her but she doesn't dare to confront him. She painfully avoids any confrontation with human beings, her parents as well as her sister, so we have a main character in a feature film that doesn't do much at all. We barely know anything about her background or her motivations. Just a woman who seems to be stuck in a blind alley, not just during this difficult episode of her life. She obviously suffers from something, but why do we in the audience have to suffer as well?

I almost gave up on cinema after seeing this unwatchable mess. These were a very dull and painful 90 minutes. Normally I try to avoid wasting energy on bad film making. I'll take the beating and roll with the punches, but in this case a fair warning is in place. How on earth did Nanouk Leopold get funding (in large part from publicly financed funds) for this turkey? Obviously, there was no script to speak off. It could be compensated by an ingenious filmmaker with cinematographic ideas or a cast with only a little more appeal. None whatsoever, just a vaguely defined concept, "I want to do something from a woman's point of view". The result is an insult rather than a tribute to a female perspective on life.

To make things worse, there's not an interesting shot to be found in the entire film. I cannot think of a cast who could have spiced this one up, but Johanna ter Steege is a (small) light in the dark, if possible with this dire lack of material. I'm trying to imagine how Leopold tried directing Maria Kraakman: "Maria, look at the horizon, we'll film you for three minutes, just express sadness". A perfect cure for insomnia. Get a copy and watch this late at night, guaranteed too put you to sleep.

Camera Obscura --- 1/10

This is one of the movies that seem promising at the start, stay so until the end but don't go anywhere. The plot is poor, with no clear storyline, apart from a girl who doesn't talk much, finds a dead body in her bathroom and starts getting paranoid with her husband. "Guernsey" is characterized by many (too) long, silent shots, which do give a pretty good atmosphere, but clearly lack some action. Everything Anna (the main character) does, has unclear reasons, and she therefore soon becomes a bit annoying ("Talk, girl, talk!"). All the intrigues and relationships between the main characters remain superficial, where some surprising turn in the plot could (and should) have mattered a lot. In summary, the movie is worth watching when you like a grisly ambiance created by silent scenes, but you'll need a real lot of patience if you're waiting for some action, or any at all.

This movie was long and boring. Surprising that it was selected for Cannes, although they tend to like pretentiousness. Point is that contrary to other Dutch stars of the arty genre like Kerkhof and Kruishoop, Guernsey feels utterly empty. Even more so it has no cinematic quality whatsoever. A long opening shot doesn't mean cinematic depth, it's just a long boring shot. The story wasn't interesting and the characters had problems I couldn't identify with at all. The actors didn't shine under her direction and seemed lost at times. Leopold tried, but she is not the talent I hoped she would be. Where are Kerkhof and Kruishoop? They really made some waves in Dutch cinema. Leopold just made another attempt.

What talent, what brilliance! And of course, I'm not talking about Fedja van Huet now. We already knew he's one of the most talented actors in Holland. I'm talking about the brilliant and beautiful leading actress Maria Kraakman, who does everything right in this film. But most of all I'm talking about Nanouk Leopold, an amazingly talented filmmaker who wrote an impeccable script and did everything right in directing the film. Every shot is exactly right, its length, its point of view, its framing, the sound, or the lack of it. The most beautiful film about silence, about not speaking, that I have ever seen. Every scene can be interpreted in different ways, is full of tender nuance without getting boring a single moment. A highlight in Dutch film history, maybe the best Dutch picture ever made.