tigerlily1221 Reviews

Shame (2011)

the Distancing Effect as Technique; a film aptly titled

[7/10 · 23 January 2012]

Many reviews here struggle with motive, a seemingly absent backstory on Brandon and Cissy, comparisons between the two main characters' use and misuse of intimacy. Further critical reviews either praise this film as 100% character study or they also write that it fails 100% at character study, owed largely to the lack of backstory. Critics 'vent their spleen' in anger that the film is too painterly, too pretense and posture, contributing no sense of empathy with Brandon or Cissy. Well folks, I put it to you that this is not narrative, not a character study, not a film about sex, not a film like any that we've been presented in a long time. In my opinion, this is the Verfremdungseffekt from Brecht (google or wiki this, translation often presents it as "alienation" or "distancing" effect) and I believe that this is the byproduct of this film, to a tee. Our director McQueen has created something of an experiment in which the viewer is an unwitting accomplice, similar to Hanneke, in which we are given views into our character in his natural environment. He is not completely likable, nor is his condition. We are watching Brandon at his most vulnerable moments, doing things that (from the visual signals written on his face) he does not enjoy as pleasure but performs continually in the quest for satisfaction. And we're watching him, in his bed, in his bathroom, in thrall to these physical drives, and we watch him again struggling, we're starting to think that it's a little uncomfortable to see this man, who is meant to be a success in our society, as he betrays our expectations of him over and over again. Does this sound like how you view an alcoholic or drug addict? Why are we watching, as in the theatre seat one thinks to oneself, 'yes, this is not a good movie for a first date.' I don't even know if I'd tell my mother I'd watched this. I'd be too ashamed: there. You were accomplice, you viewed passively and felt repulsion for your anti-hero.

Wikipedia writes of the Verfremdungseffekt: "being thus 'distanced' emotionally from the characters... the audience could be able to reach ... a level of understanding... while alienated emotionally from the action and the characters.. and empowered on an intellectual level both to analyze and perhaps even to try to change the world."

So perhaps McQueen has created Shame, to induce shame, to charge you with doing something about it. Not a character study, not at all.

Drive (I) (2011)

There's Something About You, It's Hard to Explain

[10/10 · 23 September 2011]

Had I been asked prior to viewing "Drive" who my favourite directors were, I'd have said, Michael Hanneke and Gaspar Noe. I'm considering adding Nicolas Winding Refn, but confess I've yet to view his other works. This film, Drive, was a delicious and engaging surprise for me, as I went to the movie at the suggestion of my husband and was not prepared for anything more than a car-chase laden hour and a half plus of predictable storyline replete with chest-thumping bravado and *yawn* you get the point. Drive manages much more, as you've inferred, if you've sifted through all 150+ reviews as I now have. Please go see it. The naysayers are viewing this through the wrong lens. So two camps it is, then. I come from the Loved-It Tribe.

We left the theatre and I immediately saw the parallel to Gaspar Noe "Irreversible," which shall (and should) always be controversial for film-goers. Drive has that ultra-violence and will meet with the same response as any other film that posits the question for the viewer as to the nature of man: is s/he inherently violent and, as a second correlating query, the Machiavellian, "do the ends justify the means?" Is Irene and her child (and their innocence) worth preserving, via any means? If we say that Driver is a 'real hero,' as the lyric's suggest as a backdrop at film's conclusion, then the movie has stated its position. A good film sometimes (or piece of music, or art) has a life in that it asks you to provide an answer to a question it asks. For a piece of art to come to life that way - and its actors to create that life - speaks to its success and the strength of the director.

Aesthetically the film is a modern take on the electric 80s and transported me back in a palpable sense. The L.A. night once again is a living beast, like a tiger in the dark: Something in the night with the power to pounce, a Something exciting and demonstrably erotic. I appreciated the long glances inwards we were given at times (hallway of Standard's welcome home, the elevator, Gosling walking into the strip club, the interior of Irene's apartment) to notice details that built the theme. The walls of the strip club entryway, a champagne-coloured light, mirrored Driver's satiny-jacket. Irene's wallpaper in the apartment, patterned and ordered, feminine and muted, agreed with her character to a degree. It's the little details like this that make me want to watch this again, as I want to know more about them (him in particular) so I can answer for myself that question, "what was his true nature?" The scorpion. Of course the film provides us the familiar fable and several people have groaned about hearing it again. But I want to look back and note the shadow on the pavement (can I see a stinger on the end of its tail, pictured there?) or when he raises the hammer in the strip club, is that the tail about to strike? In still shots Refn has rendered Gosling (especially) into a piece of art.

It's not over-thinking the film, I don't think. It is just that there's so much to capture your thoughts. Anyone claiming the film is boring/static/etc had no thoughts to capture. It's just this good!