Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Uncomfortable but gratifying watch
21 July 2013
I wanted to leave this screening about halfway through, but not because it was a terrible film. On the contrary, it was because Dumont's impeccably observed production evokes the same sense of claustrophobia experienced by its titular character, who is yearning for release from the asylum to which she had been committed by her family.

For most of the film's duration, neither Camille nor the audience are entirely clear about why she was incarcerated, or at least, why she remains so. What little back story we are given is relayed principally by Camille herself, and in a manner that suggests more eccentricity than madness. I had not read up on Claudel prior to seeing this film, but having done so since, I absolutely endorse Dumont's rendering.

The direction is unhurried and the dialogue minimal. Long takes abound, soundtracked by repetitive noises like echoing footsteps, the crunching of gravel, and, most disconcertingly, the infantile howling of the asylum's residents. The sense of place and aesthetic is intelligently realised, and for all its oppressive qualities, this film is a beautiful thing to look at.

As Camille, Binoche shines like the genuine star she is - a genius artist playing a genius artist. The occasional closeup (and there are many) may reveal a composure running one or two shades too deep for this character, however whenever our heroine cracks, Binoche exemplifies her mastery at bridling and channeling female psychology. The other figure in the narrative equation - Camille's brother Paul - is played by Vincent in turns both tender and oblique.

Thematically, Dumont does not preach, but tantalisingly throws juxtaposition after juxtaposition before us, inviting manifold readings.

Rather than write a critical analysis here, it will suffice to say that there is much to be gleaned from this film, notwithstanding biography.

8.5/10
34 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Festival Class with Banal Execution
20 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The cast and creative team endow this film with the promise of greatness. And indeed, for the first 15 minutes or so, the crisp cinematography, coupled with Rush's authoritative characterization, keep this promise firmly viable. In the first instance we have an endearingly dour, (refreshingly heterosexual) dandy of an art and antiques dealer, who likes to dabble in a little illicit personal procurement every now and then.

So far so plausible. We'll even forgive that they called him Virgil.

His professional services are enlisted by an elusive 20-something year-old agoraphobe. She consents only to talk with him through a wall, while he systematically itemizes the vast array of antiques housed within her parents' decaying villa (in which she lives).

Okay.

But it's all downhill from there, in a series of clichés, 'not-quite' plot devices, and self-indulgent direction.

Virgil's trusted mechanician and confidant, Robert, for example, is an impossible combination of youth and exhaustive expertise, rendered even more irritating by his British soap-opera cad demeanor. The conversation between him and Virgil in which the latter explicates the significance of a particular 18th Century inventor, is a cringe-worthy exercise in obtuse Hollywoodised scripting.

Film, as a storytelling medium, has no excuse to lug theatrical economy around with it when trying to relay such information. That's just lazy direction and screen writing. Nor should it require such overt acts as Virgil accidentally dropping his phone while spying-up Miss Agoraphobia from behind a (conveniently erotic, as if we were dumb enough to require further reminding of the dynamics incurred when a lonely old man enters into fellowship with some young feminine eye candy) marble statue at the end of the room. It's the stuff of chick flicks.

While the twists and half-turns (because they weren't entirely unpredictable) at the end of the film make for interesting, potentially thrilling cinema-fodder, the pay-offs ultimately suffer from clunky set-up. Anomalies such as Claire - the girl-genius with a freakish propensity for remembering details, or the all-too-convincingly-played groundsman Lambert, beg more questions than they answer.

And not in a good way; rather, in a way that alludes to a director who, like Virgil, was rather too concerned with aesthetics, at the expense of something deeper and more gratifying.

Unless, of course, you get a kick out of characters called Virgil Oldham transpiring to *actually* be a Virginal Old Man. Then you'll likely consider this film an intellectual masterpiece.
105 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed