barkingechoacrosswaves

I went into this film knowing nothing about the plot. I didn't even know it was based on a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel. When films are as acclaimed as this one, I like going in with zero knowledge if possible.

As someone who hadn't read the book, I found the movie's handling of the plot to be very confusing. It was difficult to follow the narrative because of the aggressively fragmented technique and the camera work, which was usually POV and sometimes duplicative. The ending, in particular, made little sense to this uninitiated viewer. I entertained several theories about exactly what happened during those crucial 60 seconds or so and had to resort to the Internet when I got home to learn the implication of what I'd just seen. Maybe engendering that level of confusion was the filmmaker's intention...but for me it was problematic.

Beyond feeling confused, I was also not so taken with what I'll call the film's going-for-broke artsiness. There were frequent intrusions of extraneous footage, some historical...some "atmospheric"... some indecipherable. Ordinary activities like picking oranges were heavily labored, as if just showing simple actions in a straightforward manner was somehow unseemly.

Basically I'd say the film is attempting to give the viewer as much of a taste of the direct experience as it was lived by the characters as is possible in a movie. It's kind of an immersion technique, but I didn't feel it was overly successful. Certainly I felt very uncomfortable watching the brutality and racism highlighted here, but I'm not sure the way the brutality and racism were actually handled in terms of the story fragmentation and camera work strengthened the point the film was trying to make or diluted that point.

In sum, this is a highly ambitious, thought- (and gut-) provoking film that did not reach the heights to which it aspired. I recommend it highly for its subject matter but not so much for its technique.

I was quite curious to see this latest film by the maker of "Call Me By Your Name." Although interesting as a literary adaptation and rare "gay theme" movie with a big-name star, the film was problematic for me in a number of ways.

First the good: the carefully crafted visuals, both sets and backgrounds; the fearless portrayals of people with desperation always nipping at their heels; Daniel Craig's total commitment to his very unpalatable role; the incandescent hotness of Drew Starkey.

Next the not-so-good: the main defect here is that the film is too long. It overstays its welcome mainly through the accumulation of small excesses, the most prominent of which is the 5-minute scene devoted to Lee shooting up (should have been handled far more economically). The use of music is also problematic -- there are some weird choices and juxtapositions, and there is a tendency for the film to lean too hard on the music for support in certain portions, a sign that the underlying material could have been cut.

In between: Daniel Craig, as mentioned, gives his all to his role. But his role is exceedingly uncomfortable to watch... probably because it is so spot on. The intellectual posturing (often to impress a younger male), the arrogance of (at least some) wealth, the weird need to seem congenial in a transparently forced way, and of course his complete absorption in self destruction through drugs and booze. I'm reminded of James Fox's Tony in Joseph Losey's "The Servant" except here the addict only circles the drain and doesn't fall in.

In sum, I found this movie rather painful on several levels, but I'm glad I satisfied my curiosity and saw it through to the not-so-bitter end.

As a big fan of Charles Chaplin and Marie Dressler, I was eager to see this film. Unfortunately, it did not live up to my expectations at all. At first I thought "Oh, I'm just not suited to slapstick comedies." But after watching "The Tramp" which was made only one year later, I realized that Chaplin only needed to be liberated from Mack Sennett's direction to produce far better work in the slapstick genre.

I found the handful of gags used in "Tillie" to be weak the first time they happened, and these gags were used over and over and over again. In fact, there wouldn't be much of this film left if you took out all the scenes where someone was either (a) kicked in the butt, (b) knocked over by someone else's butt, (c) slapped or (d) thrown to the floor by someone sticking their arms who then falls backwards. That's much of the action, and it wears thin very quickly. This is an unbelievably repetitive movie.

Both Chaplin and Dressler were so much better in later movies than what's on offer here. "The Tramp" is only a small taste of the genius that would be manifested in such Chaplin films as "The Gold Rush," "The Kid" and "Modern Times." As for Dressler, her work in "Min and Bill" and "Dinner at Eight" leaves Tillie in the dust.