No way and no how
"It's funny that the most hopeful, great movie of 2007 (based on the memoir by Jean-Dominique Bauby) centers on a man (played by Mathieu Amalric) whose massive stroke leaves everything paralyzed except one eye," notes New York critic David Edelstein in a 2007 wrap-up piece. "But his mind is unfettered, and so is the palette of Julian Schnabel -- who turns out to be a major filmmaker, an artist whose grasp of light and texture and camera movement is both visually inspired and fused with the characters' emotions. Somehow, the hero's plight becomes a metaphor for the human condition: It reminds us how submerged we all are, how distant from even the people we love."
Yup, an excellent film. Schnabel is a major-league visualist who took an unappealing solitary-confinement situation and made it into something gloriously imaginative, transcendent and universal. Why, then, was I praying for this impassioned film, beautifully made as it was, to end as quickly as possible? Why couldn't I submit to the metaphor and identify with a totally paralyzed man and go with the notion that we're all blinking our eyelashes (if only we could do more!) in order to convey our innermost whatever?
Because I'm not paralyzed, dammit, and I'd rather not be, not even by cinematic proxy. Because, thank fortune or fate or whatever or whomever, I'm alive and healthy and able to say and do, write and create, debate and engage...far from oblivion and delighted not to be bed-ridden or imprisoned or ruined in some godawful way, thank you. And not very interested in being a prisoner of any kind (even briefly) until I have no choice in the matter. No bars on my windows, no way and no how.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 10, 2007 at 6:59 AM
comment #1
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
You'll probably get lots of snarky shit about this-- and God knows you've beat unmercifully on people who failed to appreciate something dire you felt everyone needs to love (Elah-choo!)-- but I understand this perfectly. Sometimes the very idea of something just makes you scratch at the walls of the multiplex to get out, even when you can see that it's beautifully well made.
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at December 10, 2007 8:02 AM
comment #2
mmlobe
says ...
Recently, quite a few celebrities were said to appear on the millionaire luxury club "Meetrich.com". OMG!!! Are these famous guys fond of internet dating for now?? Maybe they are indeed so rich that they feel boring sometimes to need new things?
Posted by mmlobe
at December 10, 2007 8:11 AM
comment #3
p.Vice
says ...
God, Edelstein is a smug asshole.
Posted by p.Vice
at December 10, 2007 8:32 AM
comment #4
Gabriel
says ...
Yes, maybe.
Jeff, your apprehension on this film initially killed my interest in seeing it, but I eventually did and I couldn't disagree more. I thought it was an exhilarating cinematic experience. I understand why some people wouldn't exactly be hip to taking a chance on it based on the synopsis, but I can't imagine feeling the way you felt while actually watching it.
Posted by Gabriel
at December 10, 2007 8:33 AM
comment #5
T. Holly
says ...
It's a beautiful memoire and voicing of the mind. The aural voicing is the best editing since cutting news footage into "The Queen." In 2008, I hope you tap into your early childhood problems through movies that could use the light of day. Two birds, one stone.
Posted by T. Holly
at December 10, 2007 8:50 AM
comment #6
Luke Y. Thompson
says ...
EDELSTEIN, not Ehrenstein.
David Ehrenstein is the gay critic from L.A.
Posted by Luke Y. Thompson
at December 10, 2007 10:21 AM
comment #7
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
I know there's a difference, but I'm not sure there's that much of a difference. (Maybe on the late Cathy Seipp's comments, where Ehrenstein tended to accuse anyone who disagreed with him in the slightest of planning a Holocaust for gay people or something similarly calm and well-thought-through...)
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at December 10, 2007 10:46 AM
comment #8
jeffmcm
says ...
Well, at least Wells is being honest enough to admit that his reasoning on this movie is personal and idiosyncratic.
T. Holly: just making sure, it doesn't bother you that people don't know what you mean, right?
Posted by jeffmcm
at December 10, 2007 12:35 PM
comment #9
JW
says ...
Am I going crazy or is this playing NO WHERE in L.A.????
Posted by JW
at December 10, 2007 1:00 PM
comment #10
gruver1
says ...
Wells to LYT: Acck-acck....fixed. Fuck.
Posted by gruver1
at December 10, 2007 1:11 PM
comment #11
buckzollo
says ...
Awesome flick. Schnabel makes every frame count. I hear you, but I was transfixed by the cinematography. One of the year's best.
Posted by buckzollo
at December 10, 2007 1:18 PM
comment #12
actionman
says ...
"Because I'm not paralyzed, dammit, and I'd rather not be, not even by cinematic proxy. Because, thank fortune or fate or whatever or whomever, I'm alive and healthy and able to say and do, write and create, debate and engage...far from oblivion and delighted not to be bed-ridden or imprisoned or ruined in some godawful way, thank you. And not very interested in being a prisoner of any kind (even briefly) until I have no choice in the matter. No bars on my windows, no way and no how."
Wow...what a shallow thing to say Wells...this movie re-affirms life (first and foremost) and beyond being the best picture of 2007, is a major work of art in terms of filmmaking and storytelling. It's the kind of film that shows you just how lucky you are to be in credit card debt, have only a few bucks in your pocket, and to have a broken computer. I was utterly blown away by this film and I look forward to watching it again. I expected more from you, Wells.
Posted by actionman
at December 10, 2007 5:15 PM
comment #13
actionman
says ...
"Am I going crazy or is this playing NO WHERE in L.A.????"
It's at the Landmark on Pico, and also in my living room courtesy of Academy Award screener season and people at my office who can't be fucking bothered to watch it once, let alone twice.
Posted by actionman
at December 10, 2007 5:20 PM