Today's film isn't technically a 2012
release, at least not where overseas places are concerned, but hey,
since I couldn't see it when it came out late last year, it counts
for this year. So, let's get into the latest from Lars von Trier,
Melancholia.
The film is split into two sections,
dealing with two sisters. Part one is called “Justine” and deals
with the titular character of the part (played by Kirsten Dunst), at
her wedding. Justine becomes distant from her family and husband
(Alexander Skarsgard), after a series of events at the wedding
itself.
Part two is called “Claire”, and
follows up on what happened to Justine after the wedding, while
Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her husband, John (Kiefer
Sutherland), face the idea that the world is coming to an end.
Since this is the first thing we see in
the movie, I'm going to outright say it: yes, the world does end.
Melancholia is the name of the planet that collides with Earth in the
opening. And if you didn't know the end was nigh, the movie will
remind you. For ten bloody minutes. Slow motion shot of people
doing... nothing particularly interesting, mixed with some admittedly
wonderful music, while the planet crashes with ours.
So, already things aren't off to a good
start. And I have to be honest, it really doesn't get much better
from there.
This will probably be the shortest
review I've done so far, mostly because... well, the movie's so
disappointing and dull that there isn't much to say that I can't
cover in a few paragraphs.
Acting-wise... well, no one does a bad
job, but they just seem so lifeless. OK, that might be the point,
that people are so despondent they just walk through life, but
considering how the supporting cast has a decent amount of people,
you'd think SOMEONE would care. Hell, Alex's father, Stellan
Skarsgard is in this, and he's great! Yet here, he's under-utilized.
Charlotte Gainsbourg actually attempts emoting during the second half
of the movie, but by that time, I'm just waiting for the damn planet
to actually hit, that's how little I care for these people.
It doesn't help that large sections of
the film lack dialogue or music. Again, it's probably symbolic, but
when the most common feeling I get from these scenes is “I am so
bored, I wish something would happen”, you're really not keeping me
engaged, movie.
The musical accompaniment is one of the
redeeming features of this movie, such a lovely soundtrack. In spite
of my complaints about the long scenes with no dialogue, the scenery
in combination with the music would make for great music clips. Maybe
Lars should look into it.
I guess it's my fault I can't get into
this movie, for two reasons: I guess I'm not smart enough (scratch
that, I'm a complete idiot) but the second reason is that it doesn't
help that I wasn't impressed by another of Lars' films, Antichrist.
For the same reasons, too. So, maybe his movies aren't for me.
Or quite possibly, he's just
pretentious. Or both, even. It's one thing to go for a while without
dialogue so that the actors can use their body language and the
atmosphere around them to keep the story going (Hell, how else would
silent films work?), it's another to get people to look bored as if
to say “I can do whatever the Hell I want, because it's MY movie
and if you don't understand it, you're an idiot.” Those are the
people who make short films in which a clown flips a pancake with a
solemn look on his face, while a beatnik clicks his fingers in the
background. If you don't have anything to say, don't hide behind a
wall of nonsense and pretentiousness and claim we don't get it. Maybe
we do, but you don't like us calling you out.
In spite of the pretentious nature and
slow, SLOOOOW movement of the story, it's not a total write-off. I
just wish it lived up to my very simple expectations. 2.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment