This is a mix of brilliant, energetic filmmaking and forced, cartoonish acting which yields a highly entertaining dose of unreality. The film is essentially a set of embedded stories, with a character in one story beginning another story, so on and so on, like an onion. The stories are connected in a variety of ways, as mysterious plot points in one story are explained in others, and as actors and locations in some stories reappear over and over in many of the stories (which certainly saved the filmmakers time and money, and which adds much confusion). What really matters in the film, though, is the art of storytelling, the art of creating a myth or legend. This is a movie ABOUT telling stories, about the supernatural, about faith, sin, and punishment, about comedy and tragedy, about all those tricks of storytelling. Watching this movie is like seeing a bedtime story come to life, like a Canterbury Tale or a Brothers Grimm fairy tale. The pace of the movie is quick, but it has a lot of material to cover, so pray for an intermission. The bottom line, though, is that this movie is unlike anything else, creating some truly unforgettable moments, and is definitely worth seeing.
Reviews
5 Reviews
driven by strong performances
3 June 2000
This is a series of short stories, each with one or two women as the central characters. The film relies on subtlety to make its point, the only problem being that the point is not terribly original. However, the cast is truly an impressive one, with confident and heartfelt performances all around. The movie is not romance, not comedy, not tragedy, but a whisper-like mixture of the three. The stories are related by, again this word, subtle coincidences of plot and less-than-subtle coincidences of theme, the theme of caretaking (of a dying or handicapped loved one) being the most common. In short, the film is warm, gentle, and enjoyable, but unfortunately has nothing new to say, and is ultimately forgettable.
Rosetta
(1999)
Lots of waffles and lots of hand-held
29 January 2000
Rosetta is a young woman obsessed with finding a job. She is relentless, hostile, aggressive, and violent, and thus often acts in ways counterproductive to her goal. She is fiercely committed to self-sufficiency, so much so that she uniformly, blindly refuses any from of charity (whether from a friend or from the state, in the form of welfare) and, in a survival-of-the-fittest kind of way, commits moral crimes in the name of employment. Certainly, this could be called "realist cinema": The entire film was shot hand-held (whoever was lugging that camera around, pulling focus all the while, deserves some praise), with several long takes, creating a jerky, eye-level world meant to place us in Rosetta's perspective. Rosetta is usually only visible from behind, so we see what she sees. However, we almost never have access to her emotions or motivations.
The film fails to answer, say, WHY she is so rigidly determined, WHY she is the way she is. How did she get this way? Only an implied naturalistic explanation is given. The origin of Rosetta is sketched but not drawn fully, perhaps because we are meant to see from Rosetta's perspective, and maybe she doesn't know why she is the way she is, or what her motivations are? In any case, the film leaves some questions unanswered. It's up to you to decide if that's good or bad.
Rosetta is admittedly not "fun" to watch, but it is an honest account. Accepting the main character for what she is, this is likely how she would act and how events would play out. The realism here may not be in the character (the filmmakers admit a real Rosetta would likely turn to welfare) but in the "what if?" What if a young girl like this really lived? This is how things would go for her.
The film has been criticized for having a one-dimensional main character and for having blatantly socialist/leftist overtones. Those charges are understandable and supported by elements of the film, but most people respond most strongly to the story of an individual, not of an archetype or symbol. Rosetta is less "the disenfranchised" and more just "Rosetta," whose life is presented unflinchingly, flaws and all. (Dequenne does somehow make Rosetta more than single-minded. I can't put my finger on it, but she manages to give us a sense that quite a bit is going on in Rosetta, even if we never see it explicitly.) "Rosetta" produces a few truly indelible images, truly unforgettable moments, which is more than most films can claim.
In sum, this film has internal conflicts, but is original enough and gripping enough to be worth watching.
The film fails to answer, say, WHY she is so rigidly determined, WHY she is the way she is. How did she get this way? Only an implied naturalistic explanation is given. The origin of Rosetta is sketched but not drawn fully, perhaps because we are meant to see from Rosetta's perspective, and maybe she doesn't know why she is the way she is, or what her motivations are? In any case, the film leaves some questions unanswered. It's up to you to decide if that's good or bad.
Rosetta is admittedly not "fun" to watch, but it is an honest account. Accepting the main character for what she is, this is likely how she would act and how events would play out. The realism here may not be in the character (the filmmakers admit a real Rosetta would likely turn to welfare) but in the "what if?" What if a young girl like this really lived? This is how things would go for her.
The film has been criticized for having a one-dimensional main character and for having blatantly socialist/leftist overtones. Those charges are understandable and supported by elements of the film, but most people respond most strongly to the story of an individual, not of an archetype or symbol. Rosetta is less "the disenfranchised" and more just "Rosetta," whose life is presented unflinchingly, flaws and all. (Dequenne does somehow make Rosetta more than single-minded. I can't put my finger on it, but she manages to give us a sense that quite a bit is going on in Rosetta, even if we never see it explicitly.) "Rosetta" produces a few truly indelible images, truly unforgettable moments, which is more than most films can claim.
In sum, this film has internal conflicts, but is original enough and gripping enough to be worth watching.
Julien Donkey-Boy
(1999)
drifts but has its moments
9 January 2000
As far as content goes, the story really only begins in the last ten minutes, and the film ends at the exact moment when things get interesting. The film wanders, but occasionally has some humorous or engaging moments, due mainly to oddball characters captured in a documentary style. As for form, the movie seems to be an exercise in making Digital Video look like something other than Digital Video, and the filmmakers actually pull it off most of the time, usually through lighting. It's worth seeing once, even if only for Warner Herzog's performance as the Dad- he gets the best lines.
Zeisters
(1986)
quite possibly the worst thing ever made
10 September 1999
This is easily my vote for the worst movie ever. Everything about it is uniformly bad. The acting, pacing, lighting, sound, and "plot" were all mindless and reprehensible to a disgusting degree. The film is so bad I was angry with myself for watching it and wasting precious time. It is a whole new plane of badness. See it only to boast that you saw the best evidence for mankind being doomed to stupidity.
Tell Your Friends