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.
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.
I'm writing for Slant Magazine now, so check out my list of reviews.
Hopefully I'll have the energy to update my signature soon.
[youtube]_1psGbks3gI[/youtube]
Kind of a crappy trailer. But I don't think this is a movie you can make a good trailer to.
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.
I'm writing for Slant Magazine now, so check out my list of reviews.
Hopefully I'll have the energy to update my signature soon.
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.
Sure why not?
STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI (Rian Johnson) - 9
STRONGER (David Gordon Green) - 6
THE DISASTER ARTIST (James Franco) - 7
THE FLORIDA PROJECT (Sean Baker) - 9
LADY BIRD (Greta Gerwig) - 8
"Hitchcock is really bad at suspense."
- Stay Puft
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.Quoting Watashi (view post)
I like the intention--I just wish he wasn't referring to Shame, for the reasons I mention above.
I'm writing for Slant Magazine now, so check out my list of reviews.
Hopefully I'll have the energy to update my signature soon.
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?
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.
False!
This one is a great trailer:
[youtube]9GUUE4nf4Vo[/youtube]
Movie Theater Diary
Ha. It is, if you just let the movie play out and then splice in some random shots and quotes. :lol:
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.
BLOG
And everybody wants to be special here
They call your name out loud and clear
Here comes a regular
Call out your name
Here comes a regular
Am I the only one here today?
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.
I'm writing for Slant Magazine now, so check out my list of reviews.
Hopefully I'll have the energy to update my signature soon.
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.
Movie Theater Diary
Oh boy. I'm very curious to see your reaction--based upon your level-headedness, understanding of sexuality, and your comment I just quoted.
I'm writing for Slant Magazine now, so check out my list of reviews.
Hopefully I'll have the energy to update my signature soon.
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
[]
Well, fine. Then I'll go see it.
Movie Theater Diary
Part of the fun of the movie is the game of spotting the moments where it doesn't moralise it's subjects' addiction.
Damn, disappoint. Basically, what Nick said. Shallloooowwwwww.
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.
[]
Ratings on a 1-10 scale for your pleasure:
Top Gun: Maverick - 8
Top Gun - 7
McCabe & Mrs. Miller - 8
Crimes of the Future - 8
Videodrome - 9
Valley Girl - 8
Summer of '42 - 7
In the Line of Fire - 8
Passenger 57 - 7
Everything Everywhere All at Once - 6
Am I the only one that thinks the entire sequence near the end [] 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.
Last Five Films I've Seen (Out of 5)
The Boy, The Mole, The Fox and the Horse (Mackesy, 2022) 4.5
Puss In Boots: The Last Wish (Crawford, 2022) 4
Confess, Fletch (Mottola, 2022) 3.5
M3GAN (Johnstone, 2023) 3.5
Turning Red (Shi, 2022) 4.5
Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953) 5
615 Film
Letterboxd
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
forum
Reply With Quote