'The Science of Sleep' is a stream-of-consciousness kaleidoscope of broken love and youthful longing. Michel Gondry has taken a few pages from his heartbroken diaries and brought them to the screen. I wouldn't doubt it. The love here is woven from thrift store fabric, it's falling apart before it even begins and as far as the film is concerned there may be no beginning or end. This time Charlie Kaufman isn't penning a Gondry movie and I think that's what makes this so good. This is the work of a true auteur, it's a conversation between Michel Gondry and us, a straightforward talk without convention or restraint. (Not that Kaufman isn't an artist himself)
Gael Garcia Bernal plays Stephane, a creative graphic artist that returns to Paris from Mexico to stay with his mother (Miou-Miou) after his father's death. Stephane runs into a romance with Stephanie (Charlotte Gainsborough), his timid neighbour, and her best friend Zoe (Emma de Caunes). Falling first for Zoe, he is rejected and then detours into troublesome infatuation with Stephanie. Stephane isn't in the best situation at work either since his mother had promised him a job as an artist at a calendar company and instead he got a simple nine to fiver. There he meets Guy who is played wonderfully by Alain Chabat. Guy is a lovable bully who enjoys stuffing co-workers down trashcans and yet manages to offer Stephane spots of advice.
Stephane's misadventures with friends and relationships brings memories of Godard's equally disjointed and liveley 'Masculin Feminin'. With this movie Gael Garcia Bernal has become the new Jean-Pierre Leaud. Stephane's pathology and awkwardness is equally balanced with Bernal's charm and romantic whim, not unlike Leaud did with 'Feminin's' Paul . Stephane may be a wreck but we can't help but sympathize with him. The guy sleeps in his childhood bedroom with gadgets, toys, and crafts. It's so adorable.
The love story has been seen before, guy wants girl but girl doesn't want him so guy chases after her. What story hasn't right? But I really liked the way it was told here, the disappointments and fuck ups were really authentic. I don't want to cite any specific scenes because it would spoil the surprises the movie has in store. I can just say that the way the dreams and real events are coordinated is fantastic. Okay, there's a scene where Stephane takes Stephanie's stuffed animal and gives it some repairs. In his dreams Stephane runs a t.v. show called (what else?) Stephane TV, on his show he has Stephanie act out the events that will happen when she sees her new toy. She reacts bitterly, she didn't like what he did to her toy. Stephane tells her not to do that, to act happy and grateful. Stephanie does so and he mutters, "Don't do that either, don't give me hope." I had a complete "I do that in my head too!" moment. Okay, I'm going off the film review format here but fuck it I can't review this movie any other way. I like it too much.
It's as if Gondry made a movie about my heart and many other hearts out there. Stephane's character was so close to me that it was like viewing myself through a looking glass. The way dreams and ideas float around his head are they way they float in mine. Jesus tap-dancing christ, I know that's how all our minds work. Perhaps not so paper-maché or stop motion-y but damn near close.
The movie turned out to be my "The Graduate", it really gets the pop angst mindset of the kids like me. It's like prog rock cinema in the way the rhythms are so wild and eccentric and flavorful! Hell I don't care if any of you don't like it. The ads say it nicely, "Michel Gondry invites you into his dreams". It may be a bad move as a commercial filmmaker to make a film that's so abstract and bizarre. But it's a great leap for Michel as an artist. One dude can really hate it but then some dudette might love the music and images and relate to the story so much that it changes her life. Goddamn, that's cinema! That's art man!
Seriously, the poetry of Michel Gondry's visuals will have you smiling all the way through. Gondry made a really sweet movie and his inventiveness never ceases to amaze. If you like his music videos, then you'll like this a lot if not more. Stephane's imagination is wonderful but the lesson here is that sometimes dreams can be taken too far and that perhaps not growing up just a bit can damage yourself and others. So you might leave Gondry's world a little sad. Hey, all the best love stories end with sadness don't they? It's like this, you're looking through a box and you find a raggedy picture of a young boy and a tricycle. This picture reminds you of your childhood with all the heartache and joy at once. It's as if you were the boy in that picture, it has tapped into your youth and your soul. That's what this movie does.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Monday, July 10, 2006
"Returns" is Pure Kryptonite
Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns” had the misfortune of riding the coattails of “Spider-man 2” and the first “Superman”. Those are two movies that are alive with danger, conflict, humanity, and romance. They work not only as live-action comic books but cinematically as well. Singer’s soulless movie is almost three hours LONG and all we see is Superman lift a plane, a boat, and a giant rock.
To say that the plot meanders is to suggest a plot. The way Singer and his screenwriters tell this story is through a series of vignettes that don’t connect to one another. The characters spout lines that have no real importance, like when Lex Luthor claims he has obtained advanced alien technology that he will use against Superman. Lex diabolically creates an island of kryptonite with his acquired technology and gets to punch Superman around in the most unexciting good vs. evil battle ever filmed. That’s the thing about this movie, everything is uninteresting and unoriginal: the monosyllabic characters, the direction, the effects (260 Million Dollars folks), and the story.
Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor is fun. Though the thrill of seeing Kaizer Sozak ham it up in a superhero movie soon wears off. Brandon Routh, who started out doing low-key soaps, does a fine job of looking like Christopher Reeves but does nothing else. He's a cardboard cutout of a comic book character, there's no charm in him however Superman was never the most fun to begin with. He's the good, clean-cut adoptive American boy that carries our burdens like the second coming. There should be a more compelling way to describe these characters, inlcuding Supes himself, yet I feel there's nothing much to say other than lines from a simple brochure character bio. There's just no chemistry or excitement on the screen. A superhero flick for the DVD set.
A part in the movie itself sums it up. There’s a scene where the boss man at the Daily Planet, Perry White, has photos of Superman spread out in front of Jimmy Olsen, the paper’s photographer. “Look at these shots, they’re iconic and they were taken by a kid with a camera phone!” He sets Jimmy’s picture on the table. It’s a blurry photo of Superman zipping by. What's said here works if you remember the original.
Richard Donner’s “Superman”, made with old-school wizardry and wit created something iconic. Mr. Singer with his big name and money just took a dumpy little photo.
To say that the plot meanders is to suggest a plot. The way Singer and his screenwriters tell this story is through a series of vignettes that don’t connect to one another. The characters spout lines that have no real importance, like when Lex Luthor claims he has obtained advanced alien technology that he will use against Superman. Lex diabolically creates an island of kryptonite with his acquired technology and gets to punch Superman around in the most unexciting good vs. evil battle ever filmed. That’s the thing about this movie, everything is uninteresting and unoriginal: the monosyllabic characters, the direction, the effects (260 Million Dollars folks), and the story.
Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor is fun. Though the thrill of seeing Kaizer Sozak ham it up in a superhero movie soon wears off. Brandon Routh, who started out doing low-key soaps, does a fine job of looking like Christopher Reeves but does nothing else. He's a cardboard cutout of a comic book character, there's no charm in him however Superman was never the most fun to begin with. He's the good, clean-cut adoptive American boy that carries our burdens like the second coming. There should be a more compelling way to describe these characters, inlcuding Supes himself, yet I feel there's nothing much to say other than lines from a simple brochure character bio. There's just no chemistry or excitement on the screen. A superhero flick for the DVD set.
A part in the movie itself sums it up. There’s a scene where the boss man at the Daily Planet, Perry White, has photos of Superman spread out in front of Jimmy Olsen, the paper’s photographer. “Look at these shots, they’re iconic and they were taken by a kid with a camera phone!” He sets Jimmy’s picture on the table. It’s a blurry photo of Superman zipping by. What's said here works if you remember the original.
Richard Donner’s “Superman”, made with old-school wizardry and wit created something iconic. Mr. Singer with his big name and money just took a dumpy little photo.