I had some really big expectations for The Milk of Sorrow. I mean, when was the last time a Peruvian motion picture, a movie made in my country by filmmakers from my country won such a prestigious award as the Golden Bear? I expected this film to be something really special, something that could make an impact in me and, fortunately, most members of the audience in the packed theatre I found myself in. The subject matter was undeniable interesting and full of possibilities, and director Claudia Llosa could undeniably use this movie to try to affect her audience both emotionally and intellectually.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. I went with three friends. None of us really enjoyed the film. The rest of the audience? The best description I have of the expressions in their faces when the end credits started to roll is the following: "wtf?" Some of them even left early or the moment the credits started, not even waiting to see how had directed or performed in the film. As much as it saddens me, The Milk of Sorrow is proof that not only "artsy", independent movies are masterpieces, and that one doesn't always have to agree with the members of a jury giving a supposedly prestigious award.
The thing about The Milk of Sorrow is that it's got a premise, but that's it. No story. No narrative. It almost seems as if Llosa wanted to start something but didn't know how, and instead preferred to chronicle the life of her young protagonist. This might seem all right, but all that we're doing is witnessing the way she lives and deals with her problems. The movie goes nowhere. We know she's afraid of going outside, of being alone; we know she's got a potato inside her vagina acting as some kind tampon, and that she believes in the "milk of sorrow" disease. We've got issues, but nothing else. The film almost seems like a documentary in that there's very little narrative to speak of, and that it seems more concerned in watching these characters instead of making the audience sympathize with them.
Magaly Solier is not a bad actress. Although I didn't enjoy Madeinusa that much either, she was pretty good in it, but here she's wasted. It's not that she gives a bad performance, it's that her character is poorly written. How can one sympathize with her and her situation when Fausta has virtually no personality? She almost seems like a zombie walking through the world, barely talking and barely expressing herself. I know there are people like that, and I know she's supposed to be traumatized and fearful, but that doesn't mean she's stopped being a human being. She is a woman, and Llosa is supposed to make the viewer believe in the fact that she's a real woman. But this doesn't happen. I liked when she sang – it's not only a great cultural thing, but it also gave a little characterization to Fausta – but I hated the way she was underwritten.
I know many people will say I didn't get the movie, and that's why I didn't like it. Well, I must say I actually got it, that's the point. Besides, there's not much to get. It's not a terribly complex film, which is good. It's a psychological and sociological analysis of the trauma that these people experienced due to Sendero Luminoso and the armed forces, and the beliefs they have. It's a very interesting cultural study and it all feels real because it is, but that doesn't mean it's a very good film. Maybe if it had been done in the form of a documentary it would have worked better, but as a supposed narrative, it doesn't really flow because there's no plot to speak of and characters are boring. There are themes and ideas, to be sure, but does that mean it's got to be an amazing picture? Technically, the film's really good, I guess. Unlike other Peruvian productions, it doesn't look as if the film was shot with a video-camera. The 35 mm film does the movie a lot of good, giving it a very dreamy, serious look. It's all very realistic, but at times it's very beautiful too. Llosa's slow-moving, sometimes very still camera is appropriate for the material, but the film's pacing is off. I have nothing against slow films (actually, some of my favorite movies are very slow ones) but The Milk of Sorrow is just too slow, and for no apparent reason. It definitely gives the movie a dreamy sort of quality, but the filmmakers also risk losing their audience. The movie is only 94 minutes long, but it surely feels a lot longer. Did the film need to be slow? I don't think so.
I really wanted to like The Milk of Sorrow. Technically, it's superior to other Peruvian productions, and performances are solid, but the movie's main problem is that it doesn't work at all as a narrative. There's very little plot to speak of and characters – especially Fausta, the protagonist – are zombies. I appreciate what Claudia Llosa tried to do – actually, I admire it, mainly because, from watching the film, it's apparent a lot of effort went into the making of the production. But the fact that I admire the filmmakers and what they were trying to do doesn't mean I have to like the movie. Unfortunately, although many independent and/or artsy movies are really, really good (a pleasant change from Hollywood's loud and noisy productions), not all of them are as good as one would want them to be. La Teta Asustada had lots of potential, but sadly it didn't fulfill them. Hopefully, Llosa's next film will be superior.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. I went with three friends. None of us really enjoyed the film. The rest of the audience? The best description I have of the expressions in their faces when the end credits started to roll is the following: "wtf?" Some of them even left early or the moment the credits started, not even waiting to see how had directed or performed in the film. As much as it saddens me, The Milk of Sorrow is proof that not only "artsy", independent movies are masterpieces, and that one doesn't always have to agree with the members of a jury giving a supposedly prestigious award.
The thing about The Milk of Sorrow is that it's got a premise, but that's it. No story. No narrative. It almost seems as if Llosa wanted to start something but didn't know how, and instead preferred to chronicle the life of her young protagonist. This might seem all right, but all that we're doing is witnessing the way she lives and deals with her problems. The movie goes nowhere. We know she's afraid of going outside, of being alone; we know she's got a potato inside her vagina acting as some kind tampon, and that she believes in the "milk of sorrow" disease. We've got issues, but nothing else. The film almost seems like a documentary in that there's very little narrative to speak of, and that it seems more concerned in watching these characters instead of making the audience sympathize with them.
Magaly Solier is not a bad actress. Although I didn't enjoy Madeinusa that much either, she was pretty good in it, but here she's wasted. It's not that she gives a bad performance, it's that her character is poorly written. How can one sympathize with her and her situation when Fausta has virtually no personality? She almost seems like a zombie walking through the world, barely talking and barely expressing herself. I know there are people like that, and I know she's supposed to be traumatized and fearful, but that doesn't mean she's stopped being a human being. She is a woman, and Llosa is supposed to make the viewer believe in the fact that she's a real woman. But this doesn't happen. I liked when she sang – it's not only a great cultural thing, but it also gave a little characterization to Fausta – but I hated the way she was underwritten.
I know many people will say I didn't get the movie, and that's why I didn't like it. Well, I must say I actually got it, that's the point. Besides, there's not much to get. It's not a terribly complex film, which is good. It's a psychological and sociological analysis of the trauma that these people experienced due to Sendero Luminoso and the armed forces, and the beliefs they have. It's a very interesting cultural study and it all feels real because it is, but that doesn't mean it's a very good film. Maybe if it had been done in the form of a documentary it would have worked better, but as a supposed narrative, it doesn't really flow because there's no plot to speak of and characters are boring. There are themes and ideas, to be sure, but does that mean it's got to be an amazing picture? Technically, the film's really good, I guess. Unlike other Peruvian productions, it doesn't look as if the film was shot with a video-camera. The 35 mm film does the movie a lot of good, giving it a very dreamy, serious look. It's all very realistic, but at times it's very beautiful too. Llosa's slow-moving, sometimes very still camera is appropriate for the material, but the film's pacing is off. I have nothing against slow films (actually, some of my favorite movies are very slow ones) but The Milk of Sorrow is just too slow, and for no apparent reason. It definitely gives the movie a dreamy sort of quality, but the filmmakers also risk losing their audience. The movie is only 94 minutes long, but it surely feels a lot longer. Did the film need to be slow? I don't think so.
I really wanted to like The Milk of Sorrow. Technically, it's superior to other Peruvian productions, and performances are solid, but the movie's main problem is that it doesn't work at all as a narrative. There's very little plot to speak of and characters – especially Fausta, the protagonist – are zombies. I appreciate what Claudia Llosa tried to do – actually, I admire it, mainly because, from watching the film, it's apparent a lot of effort went into the making of the production. But the fact that I admire the filmmakers and what they were trying to do doesn't mean I have to like the movie. Unfortunately, although many independent and/or artsy movies are really, really good (a pleasant change from Hollywood's loud and noisy productions), not all of them are as good as one would want them to be. La Teta Asustada had lots of potential, but sadly it didn't fulfill them. Hopefully, Llosa's next film will be superior.