Still absorbing but fairly certain it will end up in the ***1/2 eschelon. This is a movie that entranced me, although let it be said that as I'm newly relocated back in Los Angeles, suffering from locked-in syndrome in France and staring at French women all day is a preferable state of existence.
I have no idea what the fuck Jean-Do is writing in 'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly'. Is it his childhood? His memoirs? What is the man writing? Amidst his pretentious whirligig snapshots that lightning storm in his brain, I have no idea what he is writing. I know who this man is and for all these complaints that we are stuck with a self-absorbed man who isn't terribly likeable, I tell you that you've no need to go out drinking with me. I don't go drinking with saints and I don't know anybody who does, and if I'm to be stuck inside a man's brain, I'd prefer he not be out of a Bresson movie. Jean-Do is just fine with me. The idea that a man must be righteous to wish him a better existence is absurd.
That being said, 'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: The Film' is more about Julian Schnabel than Jean-Do, I'd imagine, if only because he's somehow managed in his visual flights of fancy (of which I couldn't tell you how much were lifted from the book or plucked from his brain) to miss what it is that Jean-Do is actually writing about. The film is indulgent but often times as beautiful a movie as I've seen in years and I was tremendously moved enough to understand that Schnabel is caffeinated enough a smoking artist-monkey to forget such a tiny detail such as that, and I can allow myself to just float about in the damn thing like Jean-Do in his suit amidst the detrietus of niggling issues.
Had I seen this film before Oscar time, there is no way I would have predicted it for a nomination over something as innocuous as 'Juno'.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: The Poll
I saw TDBTB over the weekend, and it really has taken the last few days to let the film sink in. I left the movie theater feeling peculiar - both very sad and yet uplifted by the story. I had so much respect for actor Mathieu Almaric to convey so many emotions through ONE EYE. (I wish he had been nominated over Johnny Depp, actually.)
I cried several times, and the visual images were truly striking. I hope the film at least wins for cinematography if nothing else. I gave it ***1/2.
I cried several times, and the visual images were truly striking. I hope the film at least wins for cinematography if nothing else. I gave it ***1/2.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
This has been a very Diving Bell-filled morning: right before reading this post I had a long conversation with a co-worker about the film. He thought it was the best film of the year; I tend to side with Mister Tee. My co-worker's main point was that the film was like absolutely nothing he had ever seen -- interesting, because I thought this movie was EXACTLY like a lot of movies I had seen. That's not to say I didn't like it -- in fact, I think it's a very artful film, compelling, imaginatively directed (a likely director nomination for Schnabel wouldn't bother me), gorgeously visualized (as one would expect from Kaminski), and filled with enough humor to offset the more maudlin aspects of the script.
But, as Tee says, the film doesn't go anywhere that I didn't expect. Furthermore, I didn't really feel like I KNEW our protagonist by film's end. We get inside his head almost literally, but as the film went on, I'm not sure I learned very much ABOUT him (either before or after his hospitalization). Diving Bell strikes me as a visually striking film, but ultimately a hollow one, for this very reason.
For this I fault the screenplay, and I have to admit I'm not thrilled about another Harwood screenplay nomination (though better for this solid piece of work than that mess Love in the Time of Cholera). I understand why people like The Pianist (and I think it's a worthy effort), but I can't fathom what anyone thought was so astonishing about the script (particularly given some of the other contenders that year). And that's how I feel about Diving Bell this year -- this has been a wonderful year for adapted scripts, and while Diving Bell wouldn't be a bad nomination, I can think of a handful of more astonishing pieces of writing that are likely to be left on the sidelines.
As for Max von Sydow, I don't really get it. (Not him as an actor -- he's wonderful -- but the Oscar buzz for this role.) My co-worker said that he thought von Sydow should WIN Best Supporting Actor; I can think of plenty of supporting men who contributed far more to their films than von Sydow did to his. I'm even puzzled at some of the press's confusion over his Globe omission: isn't it obvious that someone with so tiny a role is facing an uphill battle at awards time?
So, overall, a worthy effort. Not one I'd really rally behind, but not one anyone should be embarrassed to have on their shortlists.
But, as Tee says, the film doesn't go anywhere that I didn't expect. Furthermore, I didn't really feel like I KNEW our protagonist by film's end. We get inside his head almost literally, but as the film went on, I'm not sure I learned very much ABOUT him (either before or after his hospitalization). Diving Bell strikes me as a visually striking film, but ultimately a hollow one, for this very reason.
For this I fault the screenplay, and I have to admit I'm not thrilled about another Harwood screenplay nomination (though better for this solid piece of work than that mess Love in the Time of Cholera). I understand why people like The Pianist (and I think it's a worthy effort), but I can't fathom what anyone thought was so astonishing about the script (particularly given some of the other contenders that year). And that's how I feel about Diving Bell this year -- this has been a wonderful year for adapted scripts, and while Diving Bell wouldn't be a bad nomination, I can think of a handful of more astonishing pieces of writing that are likely to be left on the sidelines.
As for Max von Sydow, I don't really get it. (Not him as an actor -- he's wonderful -- but the Oscar buzz for this role.) My co-worker said that he thought von Sydow should WIN Best Supporting Actor; I can think of plenty of supporting men who contributed far more to their films than von Sydow did to his. I'm even puzzled at some of the press's confusion over his Globe omission: isn't it obvious that someone with so tiny a role is facing an uphill battle at awards time?
So, overall, a worthy effort. Not one I'd really rally behind, but not one anyone should be embarrassed to have on their shortlists.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
There's pretty much nothing wrong with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. It's very intelligently and tightly written, and filmed with some imagination. Its characters have a genuine sort of imperfection about them, and the actors do well playing them across the board. It's an engrossing, solid effort.
But...(I assume you could hear a "but" coming)...there's not a thing in it I haven't seen somewhere before. The basic situation calls up Whose Life Is It Anyway?; the therapy process suggests The Miracle Worker; the skeptical-bordering-on-caddish main character is reminiscent of My Left Foot; and even the early realizing-you've-had-a-stroke sequences are familiar from a theatrical equivalent in Arthur Kopit's Wings (and maybe there's some movie that's flirted with the techniques as well -- I had a nagging feeling I'd seen it before, but couldn't come up with a title).
None of this is to dismiss the film; simply to suggest that, when a movie gets raves like this one has, I expect it to show me something I hadn't expected, or to move/enlighten me in some greater way than anticipated. I didn't find that; I got almost to a T what I'd imagined in advance. I had a similar reaction to an earlier Ron Harwood piece of work, The Pianist, which of course many held in more high regard than I. Glenn Kenny, in Premiere, suggested that, because of its subject matter, there was something vile about people calling The Pianist over-familiar; some may feel the same about a movie dealing with a paralysis victim. All I can do is give my honest reaction. I suspect that Ron Harwood is drawn to semi-familiar subjects. He does his best with them - and its a creditable best -- but, despite having linked up with solid directors working in top form, he's not found a way to truly excite me. (Though Schnabel might well be nominated for this, I preferred his Before Night Falls)
To be clear: I'm not saying I'll groan if (likely when) this gets major Oscar nominations. Of the films appealing to the no-surpises-please caucus, this is the one whose honoring would annoy me by far the least. But I can't get excited about it, either.
As for those pesky Oscar prospects questions: Amalric hasn't been benefiting from the film's success because he's TOO handicapped -- the facts of the story leave him unable to do the sort of showy acting that gets actor handicap-nods (and in the flashbacks, he doesn't do anything that special). The film will likely help his career, but he's personally seen to better advantage in Kings and Queen, Alice et Martin, or Munich.
As for von Sydow -- he has two very good scenes, but they only add up to about ten minutes of screen time; I'm not sure that'll be enough to overcome Academy resistance to supporting nods for foreign films. Probably the best analogy is Rosemary Harris in Tom and Viv: if he's nominated, you'll know the scenes that did it for him, but if he's not, you won't be shocked.
But...(I assume you could hear a "but" coming)...there's not a thing in it I haven't seen somewhere before. The basic situation calls up Whose Life Is It Anyway?; the therapy process suggests The Miracle Worker; the skeptical-bordering-on-caddish main character is reminiscent of My Left Foot; and even the early realizing-you've-had-a-stroke sequences are familiar from a theatrical equivalent in Arthur Kopit's Wings (and maybe there's some movie that's flirted with the techniques as well -- I had a nagging feeling I'd seen it before, but couldn't come up with a title).
None of this is to dismiss the film; simply to suggest that, when a movie gets raves like this one has, I expect it to show me something I hadn't expected, or to move/enlighten me in some greater way than anticipated. I didn't find that; I got almost to a T what I'd imagined in advance. I had a similar reaction to an earlier Ron Harwood piece of work, The Pianist, which of course many held in more high regard than I. Glenn Kenny, in Premiere, suggested that, because of its subject matter, there was something vile about people calling The Pianist over-familiar; some may feel the same about a movie dealing with a paralysis victim. All I can do is give my honest reaction. I suspect that Ron Harwood is drawn to semi-familiar subjects. He does his best with them - and its a creditable best -- but, despite having linked up with solid directors working in top form, he's not found a way to truly excite me. (Though Schnabel might well be nominated for this, I preferred his Before Night Falls)
To be clear: I'm not saying I'll groan if (likely when) this gets major Oscar nominations. Of the films appealing to the no-surpises-please caucus, this is the one whose honoring would annoy me by far the least. But I can't get excited about it, either.
As for those pesky Oscar prospects questions: Amalric hasn't been benefiting from the film's success because he's TOO handicapped -- the facts of the story leave him unable to do the sort of showy acting that gets actor handicap-nods (and in the flashbacks, he doesn't do anything that special). The film will likely help his career, but he's personally seen to better advantage in Kings and Queen, Alice et Martin, or Munich.
As for von Sydow -- he has two very good scenes, but they only add up to about ten minutes of screen time; I'm not sure that'll be enough to overcome Academy resistance to supporting nods for foreign films. Probably the best analogy is Rosemary Harris in Tom and Viv: if he's nominated, you'll know the scenes that did it for him, but if he's not, you won't be shocked.