I'm not normally one to be the critic...I prefer to TRY and be the "BETTER TO LIGHT A CANDLE THAN CURSE THE DARK" kinda guy....BUT...
I just saw THE BROTHERS BLOOM and am concerned that we are facing the rise of a whole sub-genre of film here...who's ranks seem to be growing (Wes Anderson, etc.)...and disturbing me....
It kinda feels like an advertiser decided to try and SELL the "WEIRD KID" at school and make him look hip...(okay, I was sort of one of those "weird" kids....but this ain't no axe-grind...). Or better yet, THE JOCK trying to sell the WEIRD KID...and making a lil cash doing so...
THE BROTHERS BLOOM is just that: JOCK ART: let's make it really big because I don't have much to say...so we gotta magnify it so it's loud and clear. All the elements are there for a good story to be made possible: a good cast of actors....some exotic locals....quirky visual chapter headings (like we're trying for cool grown-up kids book look...), and OF COURSE lots of eccentric characters with all sorts of weird goodies, masquerading as hobbies. Granted, I love all that stuff....great...BUT I am feeling the way I felt after the last few M. Night Shyamalan movies: This guy needs to get himself some REAL friends who know how to say "NO!" to their friend Mr. Night....who seems to have surrounded himself with a bunch of YES MEN instead: "...yah, and that part where the monster/animal thing chases the LADY in the water? The thing with the REALLY DUMB name..? That's SO COOL!!!..."....etc....
It's worse with the Wes Anderson effect, because, like the BROTHERS, there are all sorts of indications of the possibilities of a good, entertaining film in the works. Lots of beauty beauty beauty- and NOT the WB kind of beauty...it's the ugly duckling beauty, prettied up so brain-washed people can SEE it....The sensitive character with the puppy-dog eyes, the broken (sexy) nose, and the palpably yearning heart...the crazy around-the-world trek on some folly or other...and then the carpet getting yanked out from under you at the end when you realize there's nothing behind it. Though, actually, you have this growing feeling of unease that there isn't going to be a pay-off...and you are left feeling disappointed. The only thing that would make it a little better is if PEGGY LEE singing "IS THAT ALL THERE IS?" started playing as the wacky credits rolled....THEN you would get to let out a bitter snort at least...
It's hard to know for me just WHERE these films go wrong, but I suspect it's in the fact that the director is also the writer...Even actors-turned-director (and after a lengthy time spent acting in other peoples films at that...) don't make this mistake too often. I read some comments by Mr. Johnson regarding falling into directing which seem to express a disregard for all the talent that goes into it...using the obvious metaphore of THE CON in his winging it and just "pretending" to be a director in order to become one...How can you expect to put out anything worthy, if you think you can just bluff your way through it...? (And this guy went to film school...). It's almost like responding to a painting by saying "I could do that...", though no, not everyone CAN.
Perhaps if this strain of directors were to put their visual packaging skills to better use tackling other people's stories they might be more successful?
But this brings me to ANOTHER point: All these movies seem to have another trait in common: Someone REALLY likes J. D. Salinger. Those quirky siblings who are super smart without really knowing just how smart they are...or how cool....
Salinger is really good at sucking you into these stories and making you relate to these characters...so much so that you start to suspect that you might be really smart and really cool too- because you GET IT.
Salinger is good at selling the story to you: whenever someone reads Catcher in the Rye- don't they always say how they "totally relate to the Holden character.."?
And while we're on it: all those references hinting to how well read the writer is....feel like nothing more than an attempt to "lend credibility" to his own work by inviting older and wiser folks to the party...
This is not all to say how we all ARE NOT UNIQUE..(come on, hands across the world everyone...), but it doesn't mean it would be something you should invest millions in turning into a film...
The BROTHERS BLOOM reminds me of The Emperors New Clothes story: everyone standing around, saying how beautiful the clothes are because they are afraid to say: "huh?".
Rachel Weisz's character SHOULD fall for Adrian Brody's- he's interesting, and he's vulnerable, and he doesn't spend all his time talking about himself...(and he's got those puppy-dog eyes that are ready to tear up, and the schnozz...), so why does he have to take her on this chase around the globe to do so...I am a romantic like anyone, but I do not see it.
Or "THE CURATOR" (Robbie Coltrane-whom I love..)...who just shows up and turns out to be "in on it"...Let's just leave it all vague so that we don't have to tell a story.... NOTE: If you are making a movie: CON MEN as a theme is a really great way to go if you have lots of gaps in a story or unresolved issues...because you can just fall back on "Oh, they were in on it too...it was part of the scam".
So back we go to the problem: lots of great visuals, not enough heart or soul...This movie really feels like it was made by a rich kid who never has gotten his hands dirty, never struggled...everthing seems effortless and elegant...nothing FEELS important because nothing worth having is gained easily. I kept WANTING to care about these characters, but I never did.
Also, usually in a truly good performance, you forget an actor is who they are. And while the acting was completely competent (it's a character actor movie let's not forget...), I didn't stop thinking "That's my man Adrian..." or "Go Mark!!!"....not a good sign.
A budget is nice for a film, but The Lord of the Rings this is NOT. So, ask yourself this: Do you think Mr. Johnson could have made this an absorbing film if he didn't have the budget or the big names? Maybe... alot of times it is the Lack of resources that make you work harder...pushes you to make things happen like they wouldn't have otherwise. The lack of a cushion beneath you forces you to really THINK about what you're saying....
As a fellow artist, I feel for Mr. Johnson...it takes alot of courage to set out on the journey of honing your craft, and making your art....of putting yourself on the chopping block for all to scrutinize....But this film indicates to me that he has a long way to go. And that's okay....as long as he can accept that.
2 comments:
Holden Caulfield was a self-righteous little prick. Hope he ended up teaching English lit to entitled rich brats.
Unfortunately, I think a LOT of people look at paintings (of certain genres) and think 'I could do that.' Luckily, painting is, I think, a harder skill to master than shmoozing your way thru Hollywood to make a "film." You have to make art on your own. It seems that if you can play the social game well enough (or have the $ to start with), you can pay people to produce you a 'shell' of a movie. Luckily, once it's out there in the world, a film, like a painting, is subject to review. Let's just hope we're not the only ones that see through the facade.
Post a Comment