Call me a Philistine if you must but. despite the praise being heaped on this film (French, subtitled) from all quarters, I found it as one so conscious of its own 'artiness' (slow-moving, long periods of silence, lingering shots of faces, spare dialogue, many candle-lit scenes) that I was alternately either losing patience with it or falling asleep. With an 18th century story of, to me, little more than moderate interest, (admittedly unusual), and set on a wild and windy Britanny island, it's effectively an entirely female cast of four characters revolving around an unexpectedly developing and furtively expressed Lesbian relationship between a portrait painter (Noemie Merlant) commissioned by a mother to do a painting of her daughter (Adele Haenel) to present to a prospective Milanese husband, a previous daughter having committed suicide rather than accept a similarly arranged marriage. The present daughter is no less reluctant - leading to a 'twist' being that the artist is not to let the young woman know she is being painted and for that same purpose, she being introduced as a companion for the young lady on her regular walks out to the cliffside.
Even now I'm already feeling exasperated at having to write more about the film. I know I ought to have found it more involving, but the fact is I didn't. There are no explicit sex scenes and what nudity there is brief and somewhat coy, though that made not one jot of difference either way to me.
Direction (by Celine Sciamma who also wrote the screenplay) and camera-work is assured and efficient enough, and scenery is as impressive as one might expect, but I'd turn down any request to sit through this again, unless I was handsomely recompensed for doing so - but note below what other sites are scoring, so there must be an awful lot who've gone all gaga over it. My own rating in terms of the 'enjoyment' I derived is a temperate............5.
(IMDb................8.6 -
yes, really! - Rott.Toms...........4.3 / 5 -
yes, really! )
Oh dear! This sounds just plain dull.
ReplyDeleteI think the truth, Carol, is closer to it being that what merits it's purported to have just missed me, though they are actually there and which more discerning viewers will readily recognise. So don't rely on my verdict alone - please!
DeletePretty, but no substance?
ReplyDeleteClose. I think 'attenuated' might be near the mark.
DeleteThe reviewer for the Hollywood Reporter said, "It's so good you'll want to watch again in slow-motion immediately afterwards just to see how she does it." I tend to believe your review more. I also watched the preview and that was all I could take. Thanks for the warning.
ReplyDeleteIf it's watched again in slo-mo, Mark, you'll think that it's stopped! However I'm quite aware that there's a level of appreciation for the film which has by-passed me completely, and so, to be quite honest, I just MIGHT want to watch it again to see if I can find it, though I rather think it'd be futile. Can tell you though that's quite frustrating not to be part of that clear and large majority who are coo-ing over it.
DeleteSounds like a no then Ray. I have recently found Netflix. I am not sure what to make of it at present. lol
ReplyDelete'No' only from me, Sol. By far most reviews have gone into paroxysms of praise, foremost among them being Radio 5's Mark Kermode, so do take that into account.
ReplyDeleteAre cinemas all shut in the UK?
ReplyDeleteNo - or should that be 'Not yet'? I can see it coming before too long, and am very apprehensive that when they are forced to close, even if for only a couple of months, it's going to send a lot of our smaller, independent cinemas - AND theatres - to the wall. Worrying times, in some ways more than ever before.
Delete