skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Man, I keep thinking I'm kind of making headway, and then I remember a title I watched and forgot to make a note of in my list, and never wrote up, and find myself back at the beginning. Every time I get one ahead of myself, this happens. At this rate, I'll be twenty-odd films behind forever.
I watched The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things
a loooong time ago. Really. I think it was around the same time as I watched The Brown Bunny, which would place it many months ago. So, I don't really remember thaat much about it.
It's a really cool title (taken, as it is, from the bible), which is probably why I have been drawn to it again and again over the years. Like books such as A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius and Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close, or films like Me And You And Everyone We Know, the title has stuck in my head and always made me want to watch it (or read it, whatever), which is probably the primary reason I picked it up.
Now, I remember very little of it, except that I didn't think it was a particularly great film. There were good elements, sure, some good moments and interesting themes, and quite a noteworthy cast when you include Jeremy Renner, Ben Foster, Michael Pitt, Peter Fonda and even Marilyn Manson in a role in which you would miss him if you didn't know he was in the film. Asia Argento directed herself from her own screenplay based on the shorts of JT LeRoy.
Because she wrote it and directed it, I feel that it's fair to say that I didn't really feel any sympathy for her character. Yes, it could be that the character was entirely unsympathetic, but I think you needed some sympathy for her in order to truly feel for her son, but you didn't. No sympathy for her, and I then struggled to consistently find sympathy for the kid either. He was far too passive. Yes, I know he was, like, six and eleven for the whole film, but still.
I think that might be a big problem. The two primary characters were either unsympathetic or passive. And the film was entirely too dour for the duration. I actually think it picked up and gained some edge, became a little more interesting and dynamic, towards the end when Argento's character was withdrawing and going a little nuts, but then the film ended, and that was it.
Really, I'm clutching at straws here. I don't really remember that much about it. I'm sorry. I don't. I remember what I felt about it after, and what I felt was 2 stars. So there you go.
In the midst of Gus Van Sant's Death trilogy (here and here) Vincent Gallo made a film that was, by many, derided as the worst film to ever play in competition at Cannes. Granted, the version of Gallo's The Brown Bunny that premiered at Cannes was almost 30% longer than the final theatrical release, but I don't know what all the fuss is about. Sure, it's not a terrific film, but I've seen worse from the Cannes competition - much worse. And there were many similarities to Van Sant's death trilogy (hence the opening): moody following shots; silence; long stretches of apparent nothingness speaking much more than the lack of words would attest. My main curiosity is how the hell this film cost US$10mil to make (quoting the estimate on imdb.com here...)
Gallo (writer, director, lead actor, cinematographer... anything else? Oh yes, camera operator, producer, editor, art director, production designer, makeup, blah blah you get the point) is Bud, a motorcycle racer who has just finished up a race in New Hampshire and is apparently heading over the California for the next one. He stops at a gas station and hits on the young female attendant, Violet (Anna Vareschi), somehow convincing her to come with him. He drops her at her house, she goes in to pack, she comes back out, he is gone.
His next stop is at Daisy's parents' house, a girl we do not know. He says he lived next door when he was growing up and chats to the parents about Daisy, about how the parents visited Bud and Daisy when they lived in California together (they don't remember), and about her pet bunny rabbit, sitting there in the same room, according to the parents the same rabbit she had when Bud was growing up next door. He stops at a pet store after he leaves and is told that rabbits don't live longer than five or six years - his repeated request for confirmation makes you assume that Daisy's rabbit must be somewhat older than that, or that the memory of her parents is somewhat... lacking. He continues to a highway rest shelter where he sees a woman (Cheryl Tiegs) sitting on her own, sipping a cup of coffee. He walks over to her and they begin to kiss, passionately, before he leaves again. Barely a word is spoken between them.
Stopping to get his bike checked on the way, he arrives in California and returns to the house he shared with Daisy, leaving her a note letting her know where he is staying. Daisy (Chloë Sevigny) turns up and the two talk about old times, argue, and then the infamous unsimulated fellatio scene appears. But does it?
Like I said, it's not terrible. It's a rambling melancholic memory-trip, bringing up emotions in Bud and with a great kick at the end that does probably save the film from being below-average. Gallo was pretty poor in his lead role, not really lending anything to the film that many other actors could have, and have in similar films in the past. Stumbling through without allowing any real glimpses into what is behind those eyes of his, he is saved by the naivety of Violet, the strength of despair in the woman at the rest stop, and the power of Sevigny's Daisy. Sevigny really is the saving grace of the film - she's a terrific actress, and brings to Daisy a sorrow and pain that manages to show you as much about Bud as it does about herself.
It's a 3 star film. Middling, really. Not terrible, not great. Just... there.
