Shame (Steve McQueen)

[MacGuffin]

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1586-stay-hungry

Seems like it will be quite different from Hunger. I wonder if a) his visual style will carry over unscathed, b) he's still working on that musical biopic that actually sounded kinda interesting.

[NickGlass]

I planned to come here and type up a quasi-formal review since I was terribly, terribly disappointed by the film. Despite McQueen's obvious skills (which were on display in Hunger), Shame is vacuous and has multiple problems--protracted and unearned "poignant" moments, on-the-nose affectations masquerading as inspired details, and a trite exploration of the centralized psychology.

Then I stumbled upon Jaime Christley's review, and it's so aligned with my opinion that I figured I'd save some time and simply post it:

http://www.fandor.com/blog/?p=7298

Oh, except Jaime gives McQueen much more credit for the "authentic" depiction of NYC, whereas I find it to be a terribly obvious stab at an outsider looking in--which is a problem since McQueen tries to make NYC the third lead and fails. Then again, none of the characters are very well thought through.

[Ezee E]

_1psGbks3gI

Kind of a crappy trailer. But I don't think this is a movie you can make a good trailer to.

[NickGlass]

So, Shame did officially get the NC-17 rating a couple days ago, and Fox Searchlight is wielding it as a badge of honor. I'm glad that studios are trying to break down their barriers of the NC-17 stigma, but I'm disappointed that it had to be this film since I find it so simplistic and flagrant in its "look at sexy things, but look how sad they can beeeee."

Obviously, since I don't find the film very psychologically probing, I'm a bit disappointed that this moralistic slice-of-dressed-up-tragedy is becoming the film that is using its NC-17 rating as a stamp of artistic legitimacy. McQueen is quite the artist, and he can aestheticize even the ugliest ideas to near compelling beauty, but he is unable to dig beneath his surface of clever composition and glossy lighting. Oddly enough--the film is simply a pretty thing with a vacuous, transparently flawed core--the exact same problem that the film pressures its protagonist to confront. This leaves us hanging in all the moments we're supposed to be devstated by Fassbender staring into the distance after doing something sexually aberrant--the tracking shot remains still, but the emotional payoff is not there.

I would say that the film is actually quite welcoming of a general audience; in terms of structure and exposition, it's a brutally conventional film. Not to sound cynical, but that will likely appeals to audiences hoping to get their kicks off in a "depressive" story of psychosexuality will likely find the film effective. Shame is hardly challenging or complex--as long as you're patient enough to sit through a 4 minute tracking shot, the film has all its cards facing up on the table. And those cards are not aces.

[Watashi]

Shame is not the first to get a NC-17 and play at "wide" release. Focus released Lust, Caution fairly wide that even my local Regal got it and it was rated NC-17.

I doubt Shame will even do anything if it gets a wide release. People won't see it just because it's NC-17.

[NickGlass]

Shame is not the first to get a NC-17 and play at "wide" release. Focus released Lust, Caution fairly wide that even my local Regal got it and it was rated NC-17.

I doubt Shame will even do anything if it gets a wide release. People won't see it just because it's NC-17.

Yeah, but I believe the rating for Lust, Caution was not taken well, and Focus/Ang Lee tried to get it down to R with no avail. What's new about the situation with Shame is that Fox Searchlight (namely, president Steve Gilula) is embracing the rating and gunning for Oscars.


"I think NC-17 is a badge of honor, not a scarlet letter. We believe it is time for the rating to become usable in a serious manner. The sheer talent of the actors and the vision of the filmmaker are extraordinary. It’s not a film that everyone will take easily, but it certainly breaks through the clutter and is distinctive and original. It’s a game changer."

I like the intention--I just wish he wasn't referring to Shame, for the reasons I mention above.

[Ezee E]

I like Shame and all, but I'd be shocked if it got Oscar nods.

Should get plenty of the IFC ones though.

NC-17 is kind of the new way to get buzz though. WOuld Blue Valentine have been noticed if it weren't for its NC-17 possible rating?

[DavidSeven]

WOuld Blue Valentine have been noticed if it weren't for its NC-17 possible rating?

I think so. It's not like it was a breakout hit. The film geeks who ended up seeing it would have seen it for the positive marks on Gosling, Williams, and the film in general anyway. It sort of struck out during awards season, too.

Fassbender doesn't have quite the indie notoriety of a Gosling or Williams, so maybe the rating helps this film more.

[Ezee E]

I think so. It's not like it was a breakout hit. The film geeks who ended up seeing it would have seen it for the positive marks on Gosling, Williams, and the film in general anyway. It sort of struck out during awards season, too.

Fassbender doesn't have quite the indie notoriety of a Gosling or Williams, so maybe the rating helps this film more.
Fair enough. I agree with your point.

[number8]

But I don't think this is a movie you can make a good trailer to.

False!

This one is a great trailer:

9GUUE4nf4Vo

[Ezee E]

False!

This one is a great trailer:

9GUUE4nf4Vo
Ha. It is, if you just let the movie play out and then splice in some random shots and quotes. :lol:

[MadMan]

That trailer was literally sex.

This is the first time I've actually heard of this movie, but that's only because I often don't bother checking out or getting too excited about movies that will never show where I live. Although I suppose it wouldn't surprise me too much if an Iowa City or Des Moines theater tried to get a copy anyways.

[D_Davis]

I watched that first trailer.

It looked like a trailer for a spoof movie kind of like Scary Movie, but instead called Important Movie, or This is a Film, Not a Movie. Lots of leaves around quotes to make the awards look important; it's very ambiguous; it's got some driving, important sounding music...

[NickGlass]

I watched that first trailer.

It looked like a trailer for a spoof movie kind of like Scary Movie, but instead called Important Movie, or This is a Film, Not a Movie. Lots of leaves around quotes to make the awards look important; it's very ambiguous; it's got some driving, important sounding music...

Then it's a pretty apt trailer. The film is, occasionally, just as risible--not the craft, per se, as much as the writing.

[number8]

I still really want to see it, but I'm cautious about it because I always find movie portrayals of sexual addiction to be artificially, uh, shameful. More often than not it devolves into "Oh no, I'm having not-vanilla sex! How aberrant!" or "I have sexual urges and I'm fulfilling them! I must be crazy!" or "I'm banging so many beautiful people... Why can't I just find one to love?" In other words, nothing at all to do with sex addiction.

[NickGlass]

I still really want to see it, but I'm cautious about it because I always find movie portrayals of sexual addiction to be artificially, uh, shameful. More often than not it devolves into "Oh no, I'm having not-vanilla sex! How aberrant!" or "I have sexual urges and I'm fulfilling them! I must be crazy!" or "I'm banging so many beautiful people... Why can't I just find one to love?" In other words, nothing at all to do with sex addiction.

Oh boy. I'm very curious to see your reaction--based upon your level-headedness, understanding of sexuality, and your comment I just quoted.

[Ezee E]

I still really want to see it, but I'm cautious about it because I always find movie portrayals of sexual addiction to be artificially, uh, shameful. More often than not it devolves into "Oh no, I'm having not-vanilla sex! How aberrant!" or "I have sexual urges and I'm fulfilling them! I must be crazy!" or "I'm banging so many beautiful people... Why can't I just find one to love?" In other words, nothing at all to do with sex addiction.
Curious to see your thoughts as well.

He definitely has no regrets or thinks of himself as being crazy though.

Yes and no as far as the movie goes. Think a lot of the problem
as far as finding the one to love, is not necessary his addiction, but the dysfunctional family that simply terrifies him into possibly loving anyone.

[number8]

Well, fine. Then I'll go see it.

[Boner M]

Part of the fun of the movie is the game of spotting the moments where it doesn't moralise it's subjects' addiction.

[Mal]

Damn, disappoint. Basically, what Nick said. Shallloooowwwwww.

[Pop Trash]

I found this intriguing for the first half, and the gratuitous nudity/sex scenes from both Fassbender and Carey Mulligan didn't hurt either, but the ending pretty much sunk it for me.

I mean first there is the threesome set to something similar to Barber's Adagio for Strings (AKA the music from Platoon) which kept making me think this is his "Vietnam" moment or something (OK?) then there is the whole trite/Reagan era conservatism of sex=death (OK fine NEAR death) that was much more interesting in trashy 80s slasher movies. I guess I'll give McQueen points for the restraint of not cross cutting between Fassbender cumming and Mulligan slashing her wrists, but still...pretty eye rolling. I got the feeling that during Fassbender's tearful scene at the waterfront I was supposed to be really moved, but I didn't feel much at all.

[Ivan Drago]

Am I the only one that thinks the entire sequence near the end from Brandon going to the bar and hitting on another man's girlfriend, to getting his dick sucked by a man, to the massive orgy, explained the trauma from Brandon's past?

It's been a couple weeks since I saw it, but I'm possibly seeing it again tomorrow. However, since my first viewing, that sequence has stuck with me.

[Irish]

I liked that line from the review, Nick, about Paul Schrader being some sort of guardian angel for McQueen.

A lot of this plays like Light Sleeper meets Wild Orchid, and it's just as boring.

There's maybe 3-4 scenes that mean anything, and the rest just feels like filler. It's filler with a helluva artistic flair, but still ... In a different kind of market this could have been half the length and lost, really, nothing of consequence.

I thought McQueen went off the rails at the end. The on-the-nose V/O, the cheap misdirect, that incessant classical piano drowning out any dialogue or foley effects .. It was just too much. It felt too carefully constructed, too visually contrived, and absent of any real emotion. (The soundtrack drove me nuts. All that classical piano is such a cheap way to evoke sophistication, meaning and intelligence and it plays over every other goddamn scene.)

There were parts of it I did like. I thought it was pretty ballsy to land the camera on Mulligan and keep it there for almost her entire solo. I liked all the static shots; they're a nice change of pace from the usual fare these days but by the end I couldn't tell if they were a bold artistic choice or the decision of a novice moviemaker.

I also appreciated he doesn't push the sibling relationship or push easy explanations on the audience for the bulk of the film. They're obviously screwed up, have an unhealthy, weird relationship, and can push each other's buttons at will. The only problem with that approach is that, since none of the dialogue is meaningfully in and of itself, I found I really had to read into it to get anything back at all.

But the biggest problems are that slow, slow pace, and a movie that doesn't say anything about addiction we haven't seen or read in 10,000 other movies and novels.

[Boner M]

Light Sleeper is excellent.

[Irish]

Light Sleeper is excellent.

I loved it on first view, then revisited it again recently. It's deeper and carries more weight than Shame does, but suffers a lot of the same problems -- passive protagonist, glacier pacing, and a message that's well communicated in the first 20 minutes and then retold over and over again until it finally runs out of steam.

[dreamdead]

This film is just so damn emotionally inert that it's actually depressing. The subject matter warrants a careful study, but too often the characters are one-note. Brandon's discussion with the African-American over dinner is the first exchange of dialogue that truly reveals layers, but that moment is basically an hour into the film. McQueen is just way too invested in tricks and mirrors here (or, more accurately, reflections and all of their attendant shallowness). The score seems to mimic Malick's The Thin Red Line in the opening few scenes, trying to become an additional character in how it augments the narrative, but it's too direct and demanding, rather than supplementary.

Just a bummer to think about the myriad ways this film screws up.

[Izzy Black]

Interesting how routinely this movie is panned by cinephiles but seemed to get good reviews from critics.

Anyways, I like the New York angle. It's not the best film I've ever seen, but I thought the way the film evoked a certain Manhatten sheen was compelling. I don't think the film is something to ponder. It's a very simple film, but there's something effective about it on my end. In particular, it's effort to expose a shallow identity and empty inner life by aesthetisizing the material. It's a film that's all about style, indicting a city that's all about style, about a man that's all about style, where excessive aesthetic style or material surface obsession is a corruption or an eclipse of the soul. I think it works because it's so hard to look away. You can't help marvel at the rigor and allure of the visuals, of beautiful faces, bodies, voices, city lights, and spacious views from highrises, constantly pulled in by the luster, waiting and looking for something deeper, some stronger felt emotional sentiment or gesture, but constantly denied this result.

I can see how it's an alienating film, but I think it's capacity to let me down (in terms of expectations), in some ways, is part of why it's effective for me. Most people scoff at (like those at Slant) a film that goes no deeper than its subject. I think it depends on how you do it and what the subject is.

That's me. I wouldn't give it a ringing endorsement, but I do find it a rather interesting and effective effort.

[baby doll]

I saw this a while ago and wasn't overly impressed with it, but then, maybe my expectations were too high given how much I liked Hunger. For me, the plot only became interesting towards the very end when his sister (spoiler alert!) tries to kill herself. Up till then, it's essentially a movie about a guy with White People Problems. I mean, I'm sure sex addiction is a real thing, and it does terrible damage to people afflicted with it, but the movie needed much more terrible damage. Not inside "I've walled myself in completely and can't make emotional contact with anyone because of my weird sexual hang-ups involving my sister" terrible damage, but getting AIDS and living in excruciating pain and having sores all over my body terrible damage--you know, entertainment. (For this sort of thing, I prefer Auto Focus, I Am a Sex Addict, and Somewhere.)

[Ezee E]

Somebody actually liked Somewhere besides Tarantino?

[Pop Trash]

Somebody actually liked Somewhere besides Tarantino?

Seriously. I mean, I didn't hate Somewhere by any means, but I can't think of a more recent movie that's simply Problems of the Idle Rich and Boring. I'd say "White People Problems" but that phrase is becoming very trite lately. AV Club even wrote an article about what a lame critique that is.

[Bosco B Thug]

I mean, I'm sure sex addiction is a real thing, and it does terrible damage to people afflicted with it, but the movie needed much more terrible damage. Not inside "I've walled myself in completely and can't make emotional contact with anyone because of my weird sexual hang-ups involving my sister" terrible damage This. Although I disagree with what you said before this, I liked the film more towards the beginning when Brandon was a complete superficial being and it really seemed like a picture about sex addiction. Then he starts growing as a character and zzzzz...

[NickGlass]

Somebody actually liked Somewhere besides Tarantino?

*raises hand*

Yes, it's about whiny white people. Is it purely a critique of them? Not exactly, but if it is, it's very evocative and rhythmic nonetheless.

[Izzy Black]

I loved Somewhere.

And what's with the casual dismissal of films about the idle rich? I mean, most of cinema's greatest filmmakers made movies about the idle rich, often involving, presumably, "white people problems" or so-called 'First World Problems.'

Movies about the struggling working class from the likes of Ken Loach or documentaries about third-world poverty hardly fare any better just for content alone. Especially since most of these films are made by rich white people. It often comes off as white guilt, self-righteous, and preachy. Woody Allen makes movies about rich white people not because he's vain but because it's what he knows.

It's not so much the subject matter that's important, but what you do with it. I'm not necessarily saying Shame succeeds in this respect, but I'm not sure it carries a bigger burden than the next film just because of what it's about. Either it's effective or it's not.

[Pop Trash]

I loved Somewhere.

And what's with the casual dismissal of films about the idle rich? I mean, most of cinema's greatest filmmakers made movies about the idle rich, often involving, presumably, "white people problems" or so-called 'First World Problems.'

It's not so much the subject matter that's important, but what you do with it.

This is all true. And your man Antonioni made his first big splash with the idle rich (although I do think L'Aventura is *OH NOZ!* a wee bit overrated).

I just found Brad Dourif's character to be a snore. Esp. compared to Bill Murray basically playing himself in Lost in Translation. Elle Fanning, per always, is great tho.

EDIT: haha I mean Stephen Dorff...but this did need way more Brad Dourif in it.

[Izzy Black]

This is all true. And your man Antonioni made his first big splash with the idle rich (although I do think L'Aventura is *OH NOZ!* a wee bit overrated).

I just found Brad Dourif's character to be a snore. Esp. compared to Bill Murray basically playing himself in Lost in Translation. Elle Fanning, per always, is great tho.

That's kewl. In Sofia's case, though, she's an autobiographical filmmaker. She makes things about what she knows. The awkwardness and personal exposure of celebrity, the pressures of unearned admiration and expectation, the loneliness, boredom, and abandonment of growing up young rich and famous. It's not because she's vain or superficial. It's just what she knows. And she doesn't tell it without a sense of humor, without a playful awareness that evinces both scorn and appreciation of the spoils, rewards, and privileges of her class and experience. She doesn't mock so much as she jests, she doesn't analyze and interrogate so much as she reflects and ponders. She's not a critical filmmaker but a curious one. Maybe all of these things, and her stylistic approach, make her uninteresting. Not to me though, and I imagine for many people, it's just a matter of being effective sometimes (Lost in Translation) and not others (Somewhere).

Anyways, this wasn't really either a defense of Somewhere or a response to you in particular. Just riffing.

[baby doll]

Seriously. I mean, I didn't hate Somewhere by any means, but I can't think of a more recent movie that's simply Problems of the Idle Rich and Boring. I'd say "White People Problems" but that phrase is becoming very trite lately. AV Club even wrote an article about what a lame critique that is.As a movie about the problems of the idle rich and boring, I think Somewhere is a much more interesting film than Shame, which doesn't have an adorable little girl to keep things lively.

[Pop Trash]

As a movie about the problems of the idle rich and boring, I think Somewhere is a much more interesting film than Shame, which doesn't have an adorable little girl to keep things lively.

They are both kinda "meh" for me. Somewhere might grow on me though, who knows? I'd probably be more inclined to rewatch it at this point than Shame.

[baby doll]

They are both kinda "meh" for me. Somewhere might grow on me though, who knows? I'd probably be more inclined to rewatch it at this point than Shame.Just to elaborate somewhat on my previous comment, Coppola's movie only kicks into high gear when Elle Fanning turns up to rouse the protagonist (and by extension, the film as a whole) from the funk of masculine self-pity into which he'd fallen. Shame is macho self-pity all the way through.

[Qrazy]

I thought this was very good. The film is at it's best when you can feel the cold heart empty city imposing itself upon the proceedings. A shot from outside a restaurant as a man yells gruffly for a cab. The harsh lights of the subway system. Beaten down against rock hard asphalt. I thought it really captured that sense of alienation and isolation that city life can engender.

That said Mcqueen still needs to reign in a few mistaken directorial impulses. There are at least three sequences where he cuts out all sound except for the music. This was a mistake and these scenes feel too melodramatic and over the top as a result. These are minor quibbles though, all in all a compelling work. In terms of films that wish to make grand statements on sexuality it's much better than Eyes Wide Shut for my money. I also thought it was much assured and over all more accomplished than Hunger.

[MadMan]

Heh I never bothered to post my review of this here. Needless to say I found it to be a great film. Maybe I'm just easily manipulated. Probably. Mmm white people problems.

[eternity]

I found this to be toothless, if not embarrassing. The "unspeakably filthy" porn referred to by the guy at his work is depicted as your run-of-the-mill stuff, and "rock bottom" for him is getting a blowjob from a guy? Really? Really.

The obvious foreshadowing of the sister's suicide, and the way it actually happens, is also HILARIOUS.

[Qrazy]

Yeah I do find the whole demonization of homosexual culture both here and in Irreversible a bit distasteful.

[DavidSeven]

Strangely engrossing but far from earth-shattering. The film owes a lot to Fassbender and Mulligan. I'm not sure this would be too compelling with lesser actors. The casting is probably McQueen's best contribution. The script is a little light, except towards the end where it awkwardly veers into bad melodrama. The mise-en-scene is often just a step above functional, but I sort of respected the film's unique combination of minimized style and non-typical compositions. Ultimately, I still found it more engaging than your standard aimless-indie-stylistic-moralistic-exercise -- but maybe it was just all the sex.