Last film to date that has produced the once so
remarkable and appreciable Polish Roman Polanski, a film that continues
sticking to the guidelines showed in his latest works. This time Polanski
adapts a work that has multiple origins, having its primal root in the novel written by Austrian Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, sordid work composed in several sections
that gives the name to the masochism stream. Later, David Ives would take one
of those sections to adapt the novel into a play, and finally this yankee would
work with Polanski himself to develop the script of the film. Minimalist film, another one of this kind of exercise from the Polish throughout his career, the picture displays a simple story, the brief episode of a theater director who makes auditions for a
new female role, obtaining only deceptions of applicants to the part. Until a
singular female appears, resolute and determined to get the role, but in that track, director and actress find themselves in the midst of a peculiar situation, when the
part to interpret is extending beyond the fiction and both artists suddenly
inadvertently bring the work to plane of real life. New sort of psychological
study by Polanski, and new adaptation of a play, like the immediately preceding
Carnage (2011), setting a decent, discreet but decent film in what is already
eying as the final stretch of the career of this great filmmaker.
A somewhat uncertain music, somewhat dark
takes us to the interior of a theater, on a night where we see the director Thomas (Mathieu Amalric), who is having hard times not getting the actress he needs
to play the role of Vanda in his new play. Then, arrives late an actress who has the
same name (Emmanuelle Seigner), dressed very appropriately to sadomasochistic
role she wants to represent. Reluctant at first, Thomas gives in the momentum of Vanda,
she displays the audition, and he is shocked to see the strength and naturalness of Vanda
to play the role. The lines of the role played are advancing, as well as the admiration of
Thomas for his new aspirant, to the level that pays homage, not only
artistically. Like the male character of the literary work, the director
submits completely to the will of Vanda, although in the play that submission is
extended for a year. Various situations will happen, the director shares some
events of his personal life, always with her in command and control of what
happens, even managing the woman the lighting of the theatrical precinct, being Thomas unable to control the changing roles in the reality. As the director assumes the
role of a slave, she dominates more and more, crossdresses him into Vanda, and
finally leaves him alone and tied inside the theater.
The bizarreness of the picture is seen from the
beginning, with the musical accompaniment that has shades of dark, of bizarre
atmospheres, according to the nature and subject of the film, while, with a traveling
advance both lens and viewer in the shady night by the street, enters the as well dark theater, we get prepared for the show to witness. The music is rather scarce for the film, appears in dribs and drabs, but appears to generate certain
environments, especially in times like successive approaches between director
and directed. Aesthetically there will be pleasant surprises, attractive
moments: when seeing over a painting, more than one painting, especially at the end
of the tape with many historical images by painters such as Botticelli,
among others, representing famous females, real and mythological. There are sequences -few, but there are- where we actually appreciate a chromatic domain, a powerful light-and-shadows game that almost seem to have drawn these principles from the paintings, the effect of
colors and contrasts, which definitely enhances these sequences, and enriches
the aesthetics of the film. So we observe the domineering and unbridled Vanda coming almost out of nowhere, out of darkness, moving toward the light and displaying a
colorful costume at the theater, in a nice resource within austerity and
economy of resources of the film. Good atmosphere for the environment to create, the environment where reality and fiction line breaks, and where those two only
players interact.
We never left that pairing of actors, in this
sense, is the most minimalist picture of Polanski, the one which fewer resources needed to be produced, because although is too well known to the connoisseur of the
polanskian work
his minimalist inclination, his taste to make films with minimal resources, this is the
opportunity where that proclivity gets to climax point. Thus, we saw his lineament in
Knife in the Water (1962), continuing in
Repulsion (1965) and
Cul-de-sac (1966),
his early films, where two or three characters, even a single character in the
case of
Repulsion, is responsible for all the action, is the receptacle and
simultaneously engine for major events. In turn, in those films everything is triggered in minimal spaces, minimal and low scenarios, and all this feeds
powerfully the minimalist style that was always in Polanski films. Then, for three
decades he was away from these guidelines, to return lukewarmly to them in appreciable
Death and the Maiden (1994); again abandon those guidelines up the feature to the
beginning said,
Carnage, and stringing the Polish filmmaker, decades later, two films of this
nature in a row. But, as stated, this feature carries those two directives to the peak,
when the duo of performers are the only human elements that we see, and when the
small theater venue is the only scenario seen during the ninety minutes of
footage. Polanski maximizes some of his most important guidelines, certainly returns to its
beginnings while still taking refuge in the theater (
Carnage is also
a theater piece).
In that sense, the director, when adaptating theater to cinema, two art so close, renounces the showiest
artifices of seventh art, austerity of resources is also reflected in that plane.
But obviously, an adaptation thus combines the virtues of both theater and cinema,
with the wonders that can be done in montage and with a good shots work (which
Polanski certainly gets), and we will see some expressive framings, empowering
at times the female for her location in the shots; light low-angle shootings, shots and reverse shots, and other framings again attest to this. It is curious that
Polanski, without being a theater man, in a moment that is expected as the
closing stage of his career, performs this kind of exercise, and do it with
quality. Polanski continues turning to his wife, his wife Emmanuelle Seigner,
who frankly could have some excess of years for this film; she still retains much of
its solvency and her antecedents in the sordid films by her husband (
Frantic 1988,
obviously the remembered
Bitter Moon 1992, and regrettable
The Ninth Gate 1999) were
the main arguments for, fourteen years later, starring in a tape of the Polish again.
That said, the Seigner retains many of her virtues, but has lost freshness over
the years, and although his performance does not clash or disappoints, maybe a
younger actress could have performed the same or better job. Mathieu Amalric
complete the reduced acting cast, and he feels achiever in his double-faced and
almost always subjected role.
The character of
theater director is eying almost as an extension of filmmaker Roman himself
, who probably felt
affinities between himself and the flamboyant theater director who is
completely subjected to the will of the fiery female who directs his work. Sadomasochism from literary novel goes
portraying from Vanda's provocative and daring clothing, getting at some point in lower garments, and becoming the dominator of
everything. In that sense, the psychological game is portrayed, the work of von
Sacher-Masoch, of course, is full of sordidness -not in vain sadomasochism was named after the author because of this novel-
, dark and bizarre issues, it moves to
film, the director has a traumatic experience with a whipping aunt, and he acquired a taste for
it. The psychological game is severe, the exchange of roles is
absolute, starting with her managing the theater lights, then fiction gets beyond
its scope and moves to reality: she assumes the role of psychiatrist and he is
placed on the couch, the figures and theatricality deployed reinforce powerfully
that tense psychological atmosphere. Gradually their roles are exchanged and
that is also reinforced by the correct camera work mentioned, it is pretty clear who's
boss and who obeys. If it was already outlined a psychological study in Carnage,
with parents losing control, with this film indeed new heights are reached. The
tape is nice, can fool its apparent discretion, but is powerful at some times, I like
the idea of making theater
from cinema, that game between the two arts that makes the filmmaker. However, it
feels like a feature already
in the old age of its director, psychology becomes important and strength, other aspects
of his films seem to be decreasing already since decades. Not having an
upcoming project confirmed by Polanski, is this his last production available,
noticeable, pleasant, perhaps not the best of its creator, but enjoyable.
Last film to date that has produced the once so
remarkable and appreciable Polish Roman Polanski, a film that continues
sticking to the guidelines showed in his latest works. This time Polanski
adapts a work that has multiple origins, having its primal root in the novel written by Austrian Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, sordid work composed in several sections
that gives the name to the masochism stream. Later, David Ives would take one
of those sections to adapt the novel into a play, and finally this yankee would
work with Polanski himself to develop the script of the film. Minimalist film, another one of this kind of exercise from the Polish throughout his career, the picture displays a simple story, the brief episode of a theater director who makes auditions for a
new female role, obtaining only deceptions of applicants to the part. Until a
singular female appears, resolute and determined to get the role, but in that track, director and actress find themselves in the midst of a peculiar situation, when the
part to interpret is extending beyond the fiction and both artists suddenly
inadvertently bring the work to plane of real life. New sort of psychological
study by Polanski, and new adaptation of a play, like the immediately preceding
Carnage (2011), setting a decent, discreet but decent film in what is already
eying as the final stretch of the career of this great filmmaker.
A somewhat uncertain music, somewhat dark
takes us to the interior of a theater, on a night where we see the director Thomas (Mathieu Amalric), who is having hard times not getting the actress he needs
to play the role of Vanda in his new play. Then, arrives late an actress who has the
same name (Emmanuelle Seigner), dressed very appropriately to sadomasochistic
role she wants to represent. Reluctant at first, Thomas gives in the momentum of Vanda,
she displays the audition, and he is shocked to see the strength and naturalness of Vanda
to play the role. The lines of the role played are advancing, as well as the admiration of
Thomas for his new aspirant, to the level that pays homage, not only
artistically. Like the male character of the literary work, the director
submits completely to the will of Vanda, although in the play that submission is
extended for a year. Various situations will happen, the director shares some
events of his personal life, always with her in command and control of what
happens, even managing the woman the lighting of the theatrical precinct, being Thomas unable to control the changing roles in the reality. As the director assumes the
role of a slave, she dominates more and more, crossdresses him into Vanda, and
finally leaves him alone and tied inside the theater.
The bizarreness of the picture is seen from the
beginning, with the musical accompaniment that has shades of dark, of bizarre
atmospheres, according to the nature and subject of the film, while, with a traveling
advance both lens and viewer in the shady night by the street, enters the as well dark theater, we get prepared for the show to witness. The music is rather scarce for the film, appears in dribs and drabs, but appears to generate certain
environments, especially in times like successive approaches between director
and directed. Aesthetically there will be pleasant surprises, attractive
moments: when seeing over a painting, more than one painting, especially at the end
of the tape with many historical images by painters such as Botticelli,
among others, representing famous females, real and mythological. There are sequences -few, but there are- where we actually appreciate a chromatic domain, a powerful light-and-shadows game that almost seem to have drawn these principles from the paintings, the effect of
colors and contrasts, which definitely enhances these sequences, and enriches
the aesthetics of the film. So we observe the domineering and unbridled Vanda coming almost out of nowhere, out of darkness, moving toward the light and displaying a
colorful costume at the theater, in a nice resource within austerity and
economy of resources of the film. Good atmosphere for the environment to create, the environment where reality and fiction line breaks, and where those two only
players interact.
We never left that pairing of actors, in this
sense, is the most minimalist picture of Polanski, the one which fewer resources needed to be produced, because although is too well known to the connoisseur of the polanskian work his minimalist inclination, his taste to make films with minimal resources, this is the
opportunity where that proclivity gets to climax point. Thus, we saw his lineament in Knife in the Water (1962), continuing in Repulsion (1965) and Cul-de-sac (1966),
his early films, where two or three characters, even a single character in the
case of Repulsion, is responsible for all the action, is the receptacle and
simultaneously engine for major events. In turn, in those films everything is triggered in minimal spaces, minimal and low scenarios, and all this feeds
powerfully the minimalist style that was always in Polanski films. Then, for three
decades he was away from these guidelines, to return lukewarmly to them in appreciable
Death and the Maiden (1994); again abandon those guidelines up the feature to the
beginning said, Carnage, and stringing the Polish filmmaker, decades later, two films of this
nature in a row. But, as stated, this feature carries those two directives to the peak,
when the duo of performers are the only human elements that we see, and when the
small theater venue is the only scenario seen during the ninety minutes of
footage. Polanski maximizes some of his most important guidelines, certainly returns to its
beginnings while still taking refuge in the theater (Carnage is also
a theater piece).
In that sense, the director, when adaptating theater to cinema, two art so close, renounces the showiest
artifices of seventh art, austerity of resources is also reflected in that plane.
But obviously, an adaptation thus combines the virtues of both theater and cinema,
with the wonders that can be done in montage and with a good shots work (which
Polanski certainly gets), and we will see some expressive framings, empowering
at times the female for her location in the shots; light low-angle shootings, shots and reverse shots, and other framings again attest to this. It is curious that
Polanski, without being a theater man, in a moment that is expected as the
closing stage of his career, performs this kind of exercise, and do it with
quality. Polanski continues turning to his wife, his wife Emmanuelle Seigner,
who frankly could have some excess of years for this film; she still retains much of
its solvency and her antecedents in the sordid films by her husband (Frantic 1988,
obviously the remembered Bitter Moon 1992, and regrettable The Ninth Gate 1999) were
the main arguments for, fourteen years later, starring in a tape of the Polish again.
That said, the Seigner retains many of her virtues, but has lost freshness over
the years, and although his performance does not clash or disappoints, maybe a
younger actress could have performed the same or better job. Mathieu Amalric
complete the reduced acting cast, and he feels achiever in his double-faced and
almost always subjected role.
The character of theater director is eying almost as an extension of filmmaker Roman himself, who probably felt
affinities between himself and the flamboyant theater director who is
completely subjected to the will of the fiery female who directs his work. Sadomasochism from literary novel goes portraying from Vanda's provocative and daring clothing, getting at some point in lower garments, and becoming the dominator of
everything. In that sense, the psychological game is portrayed, the work of von
Sacher-Masoch, of course, is full of sordidness -not in vain sadomasochism was named after the author because of this novel-, dark and bizarre issues, it moves to
film, the director has a traumatic experience with a whipping aunt, and he acquired a taste for it. The psychological game is severe, the exchange of roles is
absolute, starting with her managing the theater lights, then fiction gets beyond
its scope and moves to reality: she assumes the role of psychiatrist and he is
placed on the couch, the figures and theatricality deployed reinforce powerfully that tense psychological atmosphere. Gradually their roles are exchanged and
that is also reinforced by the correct camera work mentioned, it is pretty clear who's
boss and who obeys. If it was already outlined a psychological study in Carnage,
with parents losing control, with this film indeed new heights are reached. The
tape is nice, can fool its apparent discretion, but is powerful at some times, I like
the idea of making theater
from cinema, that game between the two arts that makes the filmmaker. However, it
feels like a feature already
in the old age of its director, psychology becomes important and strength, other aspects
of his films seem to be decreasing already since decades. Not having an
upcoming project confirmed by Polanski, is this his last production available,
noticeable, pleasant, perhaps not the best of its creator, but enjoyable.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario