Dan Warburton wrote:
Saw this last night for the first time and didn't like it much. Binoche is fine, if you like anguished facial close ups, but the rest of the cast is pretty wooden. Pace too slow, too many.. pregnant.. pauses.. - what was the reason for those occasional fade-to-blacks with "dramatic" music? didn't see the point - music awful (alas, if you want to watch Kieslowski, you' re stuck with Preisner as house composer), the whole affair seemed to be desperately trying to be symbolic of.. what? What's the Big Message here? Love thy neighbour? Overall, I found it heavy and lumpy, like late Penderecki. Tarkovsky this is not.
I dont understand the need to make KK into someone he's not. He's not Tarkovsky, Wenders, certainly not Haneke. If you want Tarkovsky, watch Tarkovsky. Kieslowski's (moreso in his later work) a hopeful artist, a humanist, one who has empathy for his characters (all of them), and sees a redeeming and transformative power in human relationships, and, yes, get out the barf bags, LOVE.
If you want a BIG MESSAGE, Dan, that's it.
But why the desire to boil it down to trite messages? Do we watch other movies like Andrei Rublev or Wings of Desire and wonder "Hmm, I wonder what the big message is here?" The answer to that question Dan for every movie ever made is, "Life's (short and)tough; some people can find something worthwhile in it, and some can't." There you go.
A more apt comparison at least in tone and subject, less so in technique, are the Dardennes Brothers, who at least in my opinion, are more within the lineage of KK. Both are experts at allowing the viewer to enter the protagonist's realm of vision (both literal and philosophical) and thus share his or her I." Compare "L'Enfant" with "Bleu" and you'll see they're "preaching" the same themes. Life's too short, love thy enemy. But that is such a reductionist and frankly insulting way of approaching these complex films.
Why the blackouts? to me they obviously symbolize the excruciating psychic pain Binoche's character is going through. But again i think you're asking the wrong questions. Its a stylistic choice, you either like it or you dont, it either works or it doesnt for you, there isnt a "point".
I'm not going to go through this point by point (but I guess I just did) but I thought the pacing is perfect, and the cinematic partnership of Preisner and Kieslowski (as well as KK with Piesiewicz) is one of the best and most identifiable since Fellini/Rota, imo.
Forgive the snippy tone of this post, KK is possibly my favorite director, and like Jon, I came to him very early in my cinematic education, and his movies have profoundly affected me since. Its hard not to take these criticisms personally, because I am very possessive of his extremely small output, and view them through a personal lens.
Its very easy, too easy, in this age to make cynical and depressing movies about the human condition. The human condition is depressing, there's no doubt. A guy like Haneke can make them in his sleep. Its much harder to make movies that are simultaneously complex, subtle, realistic, probing, painful, difficult, but also hopeful, and it took Haneke almost 15 years to reach that moment where he could do that.
"White" (a very funny, witty, and enjoyable movie) is a palate cleanser between "Blue" and "Red". Not sure what I can tell you about "Red" except it may be may favorite movie ever.
There is also several pre-Dekalog movies that are well worth seeking out, though nothing quite on the scale of what the later movies are: Blind Chance, and Camera Buff in particular. Blind Chance is a transitional work where you can begin to see KK wrestle with the themes he would crystalize in Trois Coleurs.
(I'll never forgive that copyist for making an extra copy.. the thing should have been left in the bin where Binoche threw it).
heh heh
god you're a bastard.
