The Story of Adele H. - Review 02

Oh, look, another review:

"I’m your wife. Forever. We’ll stay together until we die."

L’histoire d’Adèle H. (The Story of Adele H.) (1975); Dir: François Truffaut

When we see the name “François Truffaut”, we sort of expect something: maybe a modern film, a more of a nouvelle vague aspect about it – and when we doesn’t see what we expect, it’s kind of disappointing. But that’s hardly a point to take note when we’re reviewing a film, but I thought it was important enough just to leave it written my frustration. But Truffaut was always a little too fond of the classic narrative, and as though he made the film that defined the French New Wave back in 1959, he didn’t spent too much time on it’s, so called, tiring aesthetic. And, although interesting, 1975’s L’histoire d’Adèle H. is not a very nice surprise.

As all other films, all the cinematographic aspects of it work around one theme, and in this particular case, it is obsession – about everything: love, family, work, writing, etc. And, although the director chooses a countless number of clichés resources to give continuity for the story – like reading letters with voice over and repetitive nightmares –, the evolution that he gives for the main character, beautifully portrayed by the gorgeous Isabelle Adjani, it’s wonderfully done. We observe Adèle getting crazier and crazier: her way of gesticulating becomes more aggressive, as for her way of talking, she starts using little by little less make up to give her face’s flaw – if any – amplification, and, by last, starts using darker tones of red. And, let us not forget the reading glasses that she starts using for no apparent reason.

I guess one other thing that’s interesting about this film is the fact the Truffaut kind of hides the fact that the main character is the daughter of Victor Hugo, and for the people who doesn’t know nothing about anything – like myself – were really shocked by the revelation, and started to understand a little bit more of the character’s conflict. But, that’s as good as it gets. Because, for more than half of the film, we do not identify with the main character – we just want her to leave the poor bastard alone.

And, if we really want to make ourselves like this film, we can take that “no identification” aspect as a modern aesthetic and, all of the sudden, everything kind of seems a little bit more understandable. But, unfortunately, I’m not in the mood of really wanting to like this picture.

★★★☆☆ (3 out of 5 stars)

Suggestions?!

Nine Queens - Review 01.

I’ve been busy. But here’s the first review/critic that I’ve made for this tumblr. Bye bye.

"I’m not the smartest but I’m street-wise and I know that nobody gives you anything for free, especially someone like you."

Nueve reinas (Nine Queens) (2000); Dir: Fabián Bielinsky

All the other times that I’ve re-watch and re-watch Nine Queens, I was even less sure of what it is that makes this film so likeable – for the critics and the public. There are, of course, the common reasons: the frenetic way that’s filmed; the way that the actors make the best desperations expressions I have ever seen; or, even, the way that all the pieces from the screenplay beautifully comes together. But, this last time that I’ve watched the 2000’s film by Argentinian filmmaker Fabián Bielinsky, I realized that that thing that makes it so wonderful is simply it’s even simpler story – this movie is the living proof that it’s the easiest films that works for the cinephiles and the “common” public.

We’re talking about a two-leading, con film, multiple characters with no clichés and lazy means to explain what’s what. And even though the film’s plot sounds extremely complicated with a “blow up your f***ing heads off” ending, it’s the sort of movie that you can show to anybody and be sure that he or she will like it – that’s how good it is. Not only it’s plot is easy to comprehend, but also all the other cinematographic aspects: because everything – the direction, the acting, the choice to film almost everything in location, the visual metaphors, everything – was thought to amplify only one thing, and it’s best thing: the story.

The art direction was made to not to be perceived, the acting – at most of the time – is used in a comic way to engage the audience, the raw cinematography, that amplify the commons color – the pastel palette –, the quick montage with an even more frenetic way of cutting through scenes. None of that would’ve made sense if it wasn’t for the story.

It sounds obvious to say that the best thing about a film is the story – there’s nothing I can do, it is that obvious. But, we’re talking a about an insane story with great other cinematography aspects. It is a joy to watch the – even back then – famous Ricardo Darín in his best acting form, or even how he interacts with the, then, unknown Gastón Pauls in the scenes where they talk about the frenetic Argentinian city and how it’s full of cons, thieves, and how, in it’s way, that world is kind of beautiful. This film deserves all of it’s praise.

★★★★★(5 out of 5 stars)

Feel free to make sugestions. Bye.