In my beloved New York Times, Tarsem's The Fall was given ten lines, a mere one hundred words. That's because it's completely unmarketable and subscribes only to itself. It is pure sci-fi fantasy - the story is outlandish, as fairy tales usually are, it lacks a romance and, oddly, has no climax. I loved it.
The Fall is what I always wanted Pan's Labyrinth to be. I fawned all over the child actress Alexandria (Catinca Untaru), the interaction between her and Roy (Lee Pace) is positively enchanting, I loved the concept of the 'bandits' and it was able to recapture the fun of childhood tales that you can only find in Aesop's Fables or Hans Christian Anderson. This said, if you don't have an affinity for tall tales, you might not enjoy this movie. The cinematography is magical, alone it carried me through the film, and the colors are amazing, a slap in the face to those who control the look of a film through filters and CGI (don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that there aren't tricks involved, but this is not 300 or Stardust), but The Fall is a collection of cliches. I'm the kind of person who likes these cliches, and I think that there are many film viewers who will as well, but that doesn't make a movie for most. I think that people may be disappointed with this film, but we need to step back and marvel at how this movie came to fruition and how we might look at it in ten years. David Fincher and Spike Jones, who released and presented the film, are smart guys. Guys who we should be listening to.
Here's my main problem - this movie isn't perfect, but it got one paragraph in the New York Times, when Ironman and Indian Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull got full pages. Those movies aren't perfect either, but they have big stars and big directors. Apparently, even the NY Times has to cater to the drones. Okay, I'll be honest, I totally liked Ironman and I want to see Indiana Jones again since I feel like I missed a few things (I'll get back to you on that film later), but I don't understand how The Fall is any different than these two films besides the fact that it isn't considered a 'Blockbuster'. This means that a 'Blockbuster' isn't a type of film, it's a marketing tool. The Fall didn't get picked up because it was bad (this movie debuted in 2006), it didn't get picked up because somebody didn't think we would like it, i.e. spend money to see it. This creeps me out. This somebody is deciding that 'bad' movies shouldn't be seen (not distributing or marketing for them) while Drilbit Taylor and Made of Honor are given stamps of approval (by companies, not critics). Whatshisname reviewed The Fall in the NY Times, it never had a chance. What Happens in Vegas got a quarter of a page and was reviewed by Monohla Dargis. For Shame New York Times. Wanna see a summer blockbuster? Go see The Fall. At least it's pretty.
The Fall
2 comments:
Hey Crystal its Erik. How are things? Hope the new job is going well. Lurcat still sucks haha. So I saw The Fall, Reprise and Mr. Lonely recently. Wasn't a huge fan of the Fall. First of all the story was pretty weak and there wasn't any character development so I didn't really care if the guy was depressed or not. The visual aspect of the film wasn't as strong as I expected either. I could go on and on but bottom line was that I was bored. Although I am starting to think maybe I have lost my imagination because I have not enjoyed these kinds of films lately. Reprise I did like a lot. I did get the sense that it was trying a bit too hard to seem french new wavish at times but at least Trier is imitating something cool. I'm a sucker for any film that potrays the angst of upper middle class youth. I might just like it because i can relate to a lot of the themes in the movie and I don't know how broad of an audience this fim could reach. Mr Lonely was super crazy. I watched Gummo before and they are very different. First of all there are two totally seperate narratives going on that never get intertwined but it didn't seem to bother me. The film seemed very fantastical and daydream-like. Also this was one of the most visually beautiful films I have seen in a long time. Anyways keep up the blogging. I enjoy reading them. I had no interest in seeing reprise until I read your blog and I'm glad i did.
Shira and I just saw the Fall and I really really loved it. When I heard about the synopsis I was preparing for a fun-to-look-at "fantasy" film. Fantasy as in, not dealing with reality. It was quite the contrary: the fantasy dealt with the reality of depression and heartbreak (albeit superficial) in a very smart way. The fantasy was driven by despair and the characters became vehicles for Roy's inner conflict, much like Freud explains the choreography of characters in our dreams. Alexandria is his savior and that was the climax for me, Roy's realization [more like his acceptance] of that. Most of all, the film was fun.
Oh! And the list of locations this was filmed at. Had to be one for every continent. Wow, what a production.
Post a Comment