I'm Not Scared - very special

[Howard Schumann]

I'M NOT SCARED (Io non ho paura)

Directed by Gabriele Salvatores (2003)

I have been critical of films that sidestep issues of conscience for broader appeal, so when a film comes along that tackles the issue head on, it is important to take notice. Set in Southern Italy in 1978, I'm Not Scared by Gabriele Salvatores (Mediterraneo) is about a child who discovers a small lad hidden in a cavernous hole near an abandoned farmhouse and acts with courage and compassion to "do the right thing". The film has aspects of a standard commercial product with lush music and pseudo-lyrical slow motion shots but it also embodies an artistic sensibility that expressively captures the world of a child in its wonder, innocence, and beauty. Similar to the 1996 film La Promesse by the Dardenne Brothers, it is a film about a young boy's awakening of conscience.

Ten-year old Michele, exquisitely performed by first-time actor Giuseppe Cristiano, is outgoing, intelligent, and strong-willed and there is a great deal of warmth and knowing in his face that makes us instinctively care about him. Michele and his friends play in the vast golden wheat fields during summer and all seems idyllic. When Michele looks for a pair of glasses lost by his sister Maria (Giulia Matturo), however, he makes an unexpected discovery. Beneath a straw-covered plank in the ground he finds Filippo (Mattia Di Pierro), a scared, dirty, and almost blind boy of his own age. The child, chained to a stake and barely alive, is subject to hallucinations and believes that he is dead and that Michele is his guardian angel. We don't know if the boy is a "wild child" or the victim of an unspeakable crime. Instead of reporting his finding to his overburdened mother (Aitana Sanchez-Gijon), or his moody working class father (Dino Abbrescia), he keeps the secret to himself, bringing bread and water to the starving boy and the two develop a mystical bond of friendship.

When Michele finds out the shocking reason that Filippo is in the cave, he discovers the strength within himself to stand up for what he thinks is right even though it leaves him open to potentially damaging consequences. I'm Not Scared does not idealize children and paint all adults as evil. The children can be ruthless in cruelly teasing the weakest members of their group and in selling out to the wrongdoers for trifles, for example, just to sit at the wheel of a car. The adults commit a heinous crime out of the desperation of poverty or for unstated political reasons but their love for their own children is clear. Based on a novel by Niccoló Amminiti, I'm Not Scared is part suspense drama and part coming-of-age story but cannot be neatly categorized. It is has a strange otherworldly and mythical quality to it, like a cinematic dream and the result is not vacuously uplifting but powerfully moving. In discovering the cave where Filippo is hidden, Michele truly discovers a cave "filled with gems and gold".

GRADE: B+

[Chris Knipp]

I liked this movie too and found what you have to say interesting and well written as usual. I like your observation that Filippo at first could be a “Wild Child” and wish I’d thought of that. I like your consistently moral focus. I somewhat downplayed the aspect of Michele's moral awakening in my review, which I will post below, focusing more on his initial period of confusion and lack of awareness of any wrongdoing. Both aspects are present. You’re right to allude to one of several instances where there’s a sellout, but others have pointed out that Michele intercedes for the girl at first to protect her from shame in the game, so it's not so much a question perhaps of his developing a moral sense as of his simply not knowing what the adults are doing or what's happening down in that hole; once he knows, he also knows what to do.

I like your final observation because it alludes to the important symbolic aspect of the movie: ‘In discovering the cave where Filippo is hidden, Michele truly discovers a cave "filled with gems and gold"’ . I have to quibble with your earlier remark that the movie is “partly a standard commercial product with a predictable plot.” Even qualified by “partly” I think “standard commercial product” is misleading because “I’m Not Afraid” is an art film despite its softness and niche appeal. I don't see that the plot is predictable; there is a sense of discovery. Likewise to say of the music that it’s “sentimental,” referring to the beautiful string quartet stuff, is misleading. I'm bothered by the string music too. It's obtrusive and for my taste a bit too arty, but it's not conventionally sentimental but rather -- again -- is more art film material. I agree that Giuseppe Cristiano is fine and appealing but he’s not a first-time actor, though Mattia de Pierro apparently is, from the IMDb listing.

I don't like to rate every movie I see and I can't help thinking that a "beta plus" is the kiss of death. If it's no better than that, it won't make it to the final cut. But for me it's possible that at year's end, it will. I do a lot of mental sifting through the course of a year's viewing. How would you rate this movie overall among the year’s best? Or would you, like me, have to reserve judgment till more entries are in?

[Chris Knipp]

Gabriele Salvatores: Io non ho paura (2003)

Three stories in one

Children may keep secrets to compete with the world of adults which for them is a secret, even when adults aren’t trying to hide from the children what they do. In I'm Not Scared (Io non ho paura) the adults are hiding what they do, and doing very bad things. A boy uncovers their dark secret, but it’s a mystery to him, so he interprets it for himself through what it tells him, and through the fables, fairytales, and comic books his head is full of. He lives in the country, in the south of Italy, where there are a couple of cars and a TV and the local convenience store comes on wheels once in a while. His house is separated from the mystery by hills and fields of high grass, and across and over a hill out of sight lies the sea. The world of 10-year-old Michele (Giuseppe Cristiano) is filled with light. His arms and legs are strong and brown from riding his bike everywhere in the summer sun. The secret he discovers is dark and blind and pale, a creature that at first terrifies him and then evokes his pity.

I’m Not Afraid is a movie that works only if you consent to see the world through the eyes of Michele but also accept that Gabriele Salvatores, the director, who’s adapting a novel, isn’t telling us all that’s going on in Michele’s mind either. This is a world of the purely physical that conceals and evokes a spiritual and moral (and immoral) world. Michele doesn’t understand at first what his father is involved in, but lives in his own world of secrets, bargains, and revelations that only slowly comes to terms with what the adults are doing and tries to trump them. (A child has the advantage of being regarded as unimportant and therefore is unseen.) This aspect of the movie is reminiscent of René Clément’s Forbidden Games (Jeux interdits, 1952), a story of children creating their own strange rituals hidden away from adults in a world of war filled with inexplicable mystery and terror. Paura doesn’t quite have the resonance of Clément’s film, perhaps primarily because it hasn’t got the emotional force of a great war behind it; but it does have the mystery and the horror.

The real horror here is the greed of petty gangsters. Michele’s truck driver father (who’s rarely around) and a couple of shady pals have kidnapped a boy for ransom. The facts appear on the TV news that everybody watches at Michele’s house and Michele pieces together a story from seeing a mother plead for mercy for her timid son and time to get together the money, and from hearing the adults’ quarrels at night in his house. When police helicopters come and the adults draw straws he realizes their scheme has failed and they are going to kill the boy and hide his body to escape punishment and he must try to help the boy escape.

But the horror is also the little body in the dark hole: at first the boy – shaggy-haired, covered with mud, draped in a dark cloth, terrified himself and crazed from the isolation and imprisonment -- seems like a strange monster that terrifies Michele and us. With great economy of means, I’m Not Afraid is three stories in one: a horror story, a crime story, and a story of a boy’s glimmerings of adulthood. Michele isn’t adult enough to think of calling the police (even if he could in this rural place); the boy down in the hole, who he learns from the “Telegiornale” TV news is called Filippo, is his secret and his special pet, whom he tries to feed and takes out for a walk in the high grass (Filippo is blinded by the light and staggers like a mole) and then puts back in the hole.

The risk Salvatores takes is to absorb the atmosphere of Michele’s country, summer world. Only the sometimes obtrusive arty string quartet music distracts us from the slow rhythms of summer days, games with friends, the bespectacled little sister, bike rides over the gentle hills and romps in the tall grass – which, symbolically, is mowed down at the end when the play is over and Michele has been disabused of his fantasies. But not quite: he chants phrases from books to steel himself when he goes by night the last time to rescue Filippo from his new imprisonment near a pigsty. (With gruesome rustic practicality the failed gangsters plan to feed Filippo’s corpse to the pigs.)

Salvatores, the director, doesn’t quite leave the child’s world behind himself, either: his ending is a kind of mythical wish fulfillment, an image of the kidnapped boy being saved, Michele surviving a gunshot wound, Filippo reaching out his hand to his “Guardian Angel” (as he has called him) in a flood of light. On one level the movie is a scandalous story from the Italian police blotter. But on another it’s a fable of mysterious import. Perhaps Filippo, who's the same age and at the same level in school, is Michele’s dark secret underside, his imagination and his child’s freedom, which the adults put in chains and try to destroy. The final music is a little too pretty and arty and the ending is a little too quick and easy a resolution (more so, I gather, than the book’s), but Salvatores’ film is a memorable evocation of childhood, brilliantly acted by the children, especially the gifted Cristiano -- with links to other striking tales of a child’s discovery of adult evil like Carol Reed’s 1948 The Fallen Idol. It’s an astonishingly peaceful and beautiful film that manages to remain selfconsicously simple, almost opaque, without descending into cliché or self indulgence at any point. Salvatores is an Italian director of distinction (his 1992 Mediterraneo won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film) whose work we deserve to see more of.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I have to quibble with your earlier remark that the movie is “partly a standard commercial product with a predictable plot.” Even qualified by “partly” I think “standard commercial product” is misleading because “I’m Not Afraid” is an art film despite its softness and niche appeal. I don't see that the plot is predictable; there is a sense of discovery. Likewise to say of the music that it’s “sentimental,” referring to the beautiful string quartet stuff, is misleading. I'm bothered by the string music too. It's obtrusive and for my taste a bit too arty, but it's not conventionally sentimental but rather -- again -- is more art film material. I liked this film enough to see it twice in the theater the same week so perhaps you are right, that I judged it a bit too harshly. I may have anticipated criticism about its being too clichéd and went too far to avoid it. I think it is a special film as I also point out and the "mainstream" aspects did not get in the way for me. I might edit it a bit before it gets to Cinescene.
I don't like to rate every movie I see and I can't help thinking that a "beta plus" is the kiss of death. If it's no better than that, it won't make it to the final cut. But for me it's possible that at year's end, it will. I do a lot of mental sifting through the course of a year's viewing. How would you rate this movie overall among the year’s best? Or would you, like me, have to reserve judgment till more entries are in? So far the two best films I've seen this year are BROKEN WINGS, and I'M NOT SCARED.

[Howard Schumann]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
[B]Gabriele Salvatores: Io non ho paura (2003)

Your review is terrific, much better than mine. Why don't you also submit it to Cinescene and let the judge decide?

[Chris Knipp]

Well, that's kind of you, I don't know if it's better than yours but I already did submit it along with a review of Nanni Moretti's The Boy's Room (La stanza del figlio) from two years ago, which I admire. I'd like to have a discussion of contemporary Italian movies, but I can't say that I've seen that many of them and I don't know that there are that many to see--distributed in the US, I mean. I've seen a few in a UC Berkeley Italian students series (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~iisa/movies.html), which permitted me to view Gabriele Muccino's two other movies besides The Last Kiss -- Come te nessuno mai (But Forever in My Mind) and Ricordati di me (Remember me). The six-hour La meglio gioventù was interesting, but I missed others, including Salvatores' 1992 Puerto Escondido, and I don't think that's been seen here. Salvatores has made about a dozen movies and as far as I know only two have been distributed in the US, yet he's a highly regarded director in Italy. He's also directed a lot of plays (http://www.moviement.it/scheda.phtml?art=68). Those who attend film festivals diligently like Oscar may have seen more.

[Johann]

The Pacific Cinematheque is showing a series entitled "Piemonte"-all Italian films. I'll at least get to see Cabiria, a 3-hour silent classic. Italy is a country rich in many things, cinema being but one...

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I'd like to have a discussion of contemporary Italian movies, but I can't say that I've seen that many of them and I don't know that there are that many to see--distributed in the US, I mean. I've seen a few in a UC Berkeley Italian students series (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~iisa/movies.html), which permitted me to view Gabriele Muccino's two other movies besides The Last Kiss -- Come te nessuno mai (But Forever in My Mind) and Ricordati di me (Remember me). The six-hour La meglio gioventù was interesting, but I missed others, including Salvatores' 1992 Puerto Escondido, and I don't think that's been seen here. Salvatores has made about a dozen movies and as far as I know only two have been distributed in the US, yet he's a highly regarded director in Italy. He's also directed a lot of plays ([url]. Some of my favorite films of the last decade have been by Gianni Amelio, especially Lamerica, Stolen Children, and The Way We Laughed. Have you seen any of these?

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Johann
The Pacific Cinematheque is showing a series entitled "Piemonte"-all Italian films. I'll at least get to see Cabiria, a 3-hour silent classic. Italy is a country rich in many things, cinema being but one... That's in Calgary, I presume. What else are they showing?

[Johann]

No, that's in Vancouver- I'll be going down for the Cocteau retro and to see Cabiria in about 2 weeks (it's only a ten-hour drive).

[Chris Knipp]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann:

Some of my favorite films of the last decade have been by Gianni Amelio, especially Lamerica, Stolen Children, and The Way We Laughed. Have you seen any of these?
No, I haven't seen any of those, though I've heard the first two mentioned, certainly. I'll see if I can find them. I'll have to look them up. A fan on the Italian site FilmUp says Stolen Children is the best Italian film since the early Eighties and that nobody knows better than he does how to show the hardships the young are forced to undergo; that Stolen Children is to our period what Truffaut's 400 Blows was to the Sixties.

Michael Atkinson completely trashed I'm Not Scared in the Village Voice, by the way. They do that sometimes. He's on a tear. I'm not exactly sure why he so loathes this movie, when he adores Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter. . .and Spring. Read and weep:

Let's take this moment to recognize an official movie genre, the Miramaxical, more or less defined as heavy-handed imports that could just as easily have been made by the blandest hacks in Burbank, but which instead cost one-hundredth as much to buy and peddle. It's a cornered market in quasi-American knockoffs, the Wal-Mart-ization of the foreign-film market, with a reliable, bachelor-degree boomer audience for whom domestic pop culture has just gotten too youthful and hyperactive, and who may consider seeing a "literary" Italian suspense thriller like I'm Not Scared long before they'd ever deign to sit through the latest, not dissimilar Sony boo machine in a multiplex theater packed with uncontrollable teenagers. Miramaxicals predate Harvey and Bob, of course, as Beat the Clock presaged Fear Factor. But the aberration has become the cultural rule. -- Michael Atkinson in the Village Voice: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0414/atkinson.php

[chelsea jubis]

Written by oscar jubis.

Italy was most important as a nation producing great cinema during a 30-35 year span beginning right after WWII (Open City, Paisan, Bicycle Thieves, Shoeshine). There were few Italian movies of high pedigree released in the past 20 years; especially if we exclude Bertolucci's international productions (Tha Last Emperor is one of my favorite epics).
My favorite during this recent time is Amelio's Lamerica. I do understand Italians prefering Amelio's Stolen Children, given how it navigates the important issue of regional aspersions within Italy, and the presence of hard-but-endearing child characters. Amelio's Open Doors and The Way We Laughed are only a notch below, where I'd also include the crowd pleasing Giusseppe Tornatore (Cinema Paradiso, The Star Maker, Legend of 1900).
I really admire Antonioni's Beyond The Clouds, completed with assistance from Wim Wenders in 1995. Two excellent movies with large "ensemble" cast are Scola's The Family and Pupi Avati's Story of Boys and Girls. Avati's films are all set in the verdant Emilia-Romagna region and often pack a wallop. My favorite, a film festival discovery I may never see again, is called Graduation Party. I also like two from Nanni Moretti: Caro Diario and The Son's Room.

[Chris Knipp]

This is another vote in favor of Amelio and I'll certainly have to seek him out.

By Pupi Avati I guess I've only seen "Il cuore altrove" (The Heart Elsewhere), an interesting, peculiar, if for me somewhat underwhelming effort shown recently in the UC Berkeley Italian students series I mentioned.

Of course I'd agree with you from what little I know that the Italians were great (very great) filmmakers during the period you mention and have seen a decline in the past couple of decades. But because of that decline or for whatever reason we have simply not seen much of their (perhaps relatively more limited) recent production. I strongly suspect that there's a lot of interesting stuff that just hasn't gotten here, because the distribution flow has dropped off due to a lack of publicity for Italian filmmakers compared to the days of Rossellini, De Sica, Viconti, Antonioni, et al., on whom many of the elders among us cut our foreign movie teeth. Pupi Avati for instance has made and written over thirty films. Can only one or two be worth watching? Accordingly I'd like to catch Graduation Party (Festa di laurea). Once again my hat's off to you for ferreting out and acquainting yourself with such a wide spectrum of cinematic fare. I still don't know how you or Johann do it, and with your busy life of work, family, running, etc. Florida would make some people sluggish. It seems to pep you up.

[chelsea jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp I strongly suspect that there's a lot of interesting stuff that just hasn't gotten here, because the distribution flow has dropped off due to a lack of publicity for Italian filmmakers.

There are two films I pin my hopes on; both cleaned up at the last two Italian Academy Awards (David di Donatello Awards):
La Finestra di Fronte to be distributed by Sony.
The Best of Youth, a 6 hr long story of a family during a 40-year span. Miramax bought distribution rights for N. America. Will Harvey actually release it?

On the other hand, Italian cinema is moribund. I see everything I can at fests and on import dvd, I read festival journals, I visit European film websites. I see little coming out of Italy to get excited about. Solid, entertaining films (recently:Malena, Respiro, Embalmer, etc.) but nothing that compares to the best of world cinema or the great Italian films of '45 to '79.

[Chris Knipp]

As I said above, I just saw The Best of Youth in the UC Berkeley Italian Students series. I said it was interesting. I’ve posted a review of it on IMDb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346336/usercomments-12 Maybe you would like to check the UCB series and see if there are others you've seen and can comment on for us: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~iisa/movies.html.

I really didn't like Malena or Respiro -- very soft, very weak. Embalmer was very offbeat and had a quirky appeal; certainly not overwhelming, though.

Maybe when I said I thought there was a lot of interesting stuff we don't get to see it was just wishful thinking. "Moribund" is a depressingly strong word, though.

Surely a major issue is that Italian culture is overwhelmed by American. More then half their bestsellers, last I looked, are translations of American books. Their TV is weak and heavily American-influenced. I contrast this with the French, who made a determined effort after World War II to resist American cultural dominance. They care about their culture and defend it vigorously; the Italians cave in.

Another significant factor is "doppiaggio," dubbing: the Italians idiotically pride themselves on having the best dubbers in the world, as if that were to be admired. It did play a positive role during the Neorealist era by permitting extensive use of non-actors. Happily they don't dub Italian movies any more, since it made the dialogue sound unnatural, but since they show all American movies dubbed (except for a few art houses), that means the mainstream Italian audience can be fed nothing but American stuff and they can get Troy right away with Brad yakking in Italian.

The fact still remains that not everything gets to festivals and we may be missing some good things. I like to see precisely what does not appeal to the "international" audience. Globalization of cinema like "World Music" means homogenization and cutsyfying specific cultures and artistic visions.

[Johann]

Speaking of dubbing, when Jarmusch met Fellini the first thing the maestro asked him was why he didn't dub his actors' voices.

Fellini: "Jeem, you could add a great quality to your films if you do what I do: have the actors say numbers when shooting".
Jarmusch: "Sure".

[Chris Knipp]

Federico was a goodly man. He is no more.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
I'M NOT SCARED (Io non ho paura)
I have been critical of films that sidestep issues of conscience for broader appeal, so when a film comes along that tackles the issue head on, it is important to take notice. Similar to the 1996 film La Promesse by the Dardenne Brothers, it is a film about a young boy's awakening of conscience.

I'm Not Scared emphasizes mystery and thriller elements and observation of a rural childhood over depth of characterization, intra-familial confrontation, and exploration of moral issues. The Dardennes' masterpiece emphasizes the father-son relationship and exploration of tension between moral behavior and family loyalty. Moreover, La Promesse amounts to an expose of the plight of the cross-border migrant worker, a worldwide phenomenon of increasing import. The Dardennes don't feel obligated to use a score to insist on how the viewer must feel or to provide the required closure mainstream audiences are supposed to prefer. I'm Not Scared is still a well-told mystery/thriller with a precise understanding of rural environs. I recommend it.

The adults commit a heinous crime out of the desperation of poverty

That's what Michele's mother wants him to believe ("promise me you'll get out of here when you've grown"). I like Salvatore's consistency regarding the narrative's point-of-view (Michele's). But I think the viewer is supposed to conclude that "the real horror here is the greed of petty gangsters" (Chris Knipp).

GRADE: B+

Your text reads more like your A minus reviews. After your second viewing you said "perhaps I judged it too harshly". My opinion is that this is a successful film of limited ambition.

[Chris Knipp]

Your point about the score is well taken. The Dardennes' films have a gritty realism that Salvatores' certainly lacks, but I'm Not Afraid does have a palpable physicality, a sensuality the Dardennes would probably not be capable of; their work is powerful but joyless. I'm Not Afraid also has a mystical element you overlook in these comments. I might need to see it again myself to decide how it stacks up among the year's releases.

[Howard Schumann]

[I'm Not Scared emphasizes mystery and thriller elements and observation of a rural childhood over depth of characterization, intra-familial confrontation, and exploration of moral issues. I don't quite see it that way. To me it is a coming of age/awakening of conscience film.
That's what Michele's mother wants him to believe ("promise me you'll get out of here when you've grown"). I like Salvatore's consistency regarding the narrative's point-of-view (Michele's). But I think the viewer is supposed to conclude that "the real horror here is the greed of petty gangsters" (Chris Knipp). In reality it was based on the political kidnappings in italy in the 70s which had both a political and economic motive.
Your text reads more like your A minus reviews. After your second viewing you said "perhaps I judged it too harshly". My opinion is that this is a successful film of limited ambition. Letter or numerical ratings are very imprecise and I hesitated to use them for a long time but others seem to want them. Very little difference between B+ and A-, only a matter of slight perception.

[Chris Knipp]

"the real horror here is the greed of petty gangsters" (Chris Knipp).
I don't know why this line of mine keeps getting quoted. Just below it I went on:
But the horror is also the little body in the dark hole: at first the boy – shaggy-haired, covered with mud, draped in a dark cloth, terrified himself and crazed from the isolation and imprisonment -- seems like a strange monster that terrifies Michele and us. With great economy of means, I’m Not Afraid is three stories in one: a horror story, a crime story, and a story of a boy’s glimmerings of adulthood.

If you see it that way, as "a horror story, a crime story, and a story of a boy’s glimmerings of adulthood," -- and Howard justifiably might add also a story of moral awakening-- you can't very well call it "a successful film of limited ambition." It's understated and minimal in its style, but that doesn't mean that it's of "limited ambition" -- or that it's wholly successful!

I would say that Oscar's reading is far too narrow, but the fact that he feels justified in making it shows that I'm Not Scared isn't wholly successful. It's too easily misunderstood. And the argument about how to rate it is telling. I find it particularly hard to evaluate.

It's in the nature of stories of childhood that they must be understated. A child is not spectacularly articulate and to make him so would falsify his existence. Would you call the powerful Forbidden Games (Jeux Interdits) of Rene Clement "a successful film of limited ambition"? Yet it too works with a limited palette.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
If you see it that way, as "a horror story, a crime story, and a story of a boy’s glimmerings of adulthood," you can't very well call it "a successful film of limited ambition."

I assume this is directed at me since I wrote the second quoted sentence, but I didn't write the first one ("a horror story...").

[Chris Knipp]

You, Oscar Jubis, saw it as a "successful film of limited ambition." I, Chris Knipp, described it as "a horror story, a crime story, and a story of a boy’s glimmerings of adulthood." Howard Schumann added the idea that it is a story of moral awakening: "it is a film about a young boy's awakening of conscience." I was saying that if one sees it as all these things, as I do and perhaps Howard does, then one can't describe it as you do, as a "successful film of limited ambition."

You evidently don't agree. That's why I said that I thought your interepretation was too limited.

My whole point in this last entry of mine was to reply to that assertion of yours that this was a successful film of limited ambition. I don't agree on either point. I don't think it's fully successful, but I think it's actually quite ambitious, but that the method of dealing with everything is very understated, because it's from the point of view of a boy, who wouldn't be able to articulate all the things that are going on in his life and in the story.

Salvatores builds out of the "nothing. Nothing to do, nothing to see" of the film's starting point, as the site summary puts it, into a historical film, a crime story, a horror story with a supernatural undercurrent, a coming of age story, and a story of moral awakening. To make something multilayered out of "nothing" is pretty ambitious, actually.

[Chris Knipp]

Most of the reviews emphasis the multilayered quality of I'm Not Scared, though many only consider the thriller and coming-of-age elements. Here are a few excerpts:


"With its unique perspective on both the coming-of-age and thriller genres, the movie deserves to be seen by a wider audience than the one that normally frequents subtitled movies."
-- James Berardinelli, REELVIEWS

"A beautifully shot and compelling blend of thriller and coming-of-age drama."
-- Carla Meyer, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

"With a taste for dark lyricism, the director delicately emphasizes the contrast between surface innocence and subterranean danger, and between grown-up secrets and boyhood bravery."
-- Lisa Schwarzbaum, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY

"With a graceful confidence Salvatores has made a movie in which good and evil flow into each other as easily as day and night."
-- Kevin Thomas, LOS ANGELES TIMES

"Most American coming-of-age movies focus on sexual awakening, but European films tend to view loss of innocence in a broader context. Based on an internationally acclaimed novel by Niccolo Ammaniti, this extraordinary Italian thriller (2002) is a study in contrasts: light versus dark, youth versus maturity, the playful versus the lethal."
--Andrea Gronvall, THE CHICAGO READER

For a negative view read Michael Atkinson's bitter pan: "you're expecting an epic, Viscontian political surge at about the same moment you realize it's a kidnapping story, and nothing more. "
--VILLAGE VOICE

[oscar jubis]

Atkinson coins a new word!

Miramaxical (n): Quasi-American hack knockoff for middle-brow foreign-film market.

[Chris Knipp]

You're not going to dip your pen in Atkinson's poison, are you, Oscar? Careful! His vitriol could eat through this whole website, and there's no known antidote.






P.s. Have you seen the Korean film Oasis? Reviewed by Michael Atkinson: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0418/atkinson.php

[oscar jubis]

Vitriol? From this voice of equanimity and moderation? :<))
Atkinson goes all negative on Io Non Ho Paura, no doubt an over-reaction to the David Denbys of our film world. Dude even calls the pacing "lame", when actually the gradual unraveling of the mystery (first we learn there's something there, then that it's human, then that he/she is alive, then that it's a boy...) engages the viewer for about one hour, then the thriller element kicks in, with two extremely likable characters in great peril. The film is quite effective. I recommend it.
Problem is some reviews have included terms like "lyricism", "artistic sensitivity", and "mythical qualities". Others have dared to compare it to classic mid-20th Century neorealism. The comparison is risible. Critics read each other's reviews. Sometimes vitriolic pieces like Atkinson's seem to be an overreaction to an over-hyped movie.

[pmw]

M-I-R-A-M-A-X-I-C-A-L

Nice word and the definition is spot on.
I've been calling these "films for the coffee cup crowd"
but there is finally a single word that sums it up.

P

[Chris Knipp]

Okay, come on: Let's have a list of 'MIRAMAXICAL" MOVIES, PDQ!

[pmw]

Amelie is M-I-R-A-M-A-X-I-C-A-L I'd say. It has that broad appeal as an "art" film that people love to list when talking about "art" films they've seen. Ok, here emmergeth the harsh critic in me. To be honest though, I like the film, but I didn't love it. Others:
The Station Agent
My Big Fat Greek Wedding
Y Tu Mama Tambien

I don't know... there are lots. I would say it's a recent genre and I think it's a good thing because it will ultimately draw more interesting films into the public eye.

P

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Okay, come on: Let's have a list of 'MIRAMAXICAL" MOVIES, PDQ!

Anything from Britain. "The Full Monty" and "Bend it Like Beckam" are good examples. Those enlightened Europeans are so cute with those funny accents.

[Chris Knipp]

Ah, yes. I'd agree on those. What about Amelie?

[JustaFied]

Amelie tended to be overly cute at times, so that may put it in the "coffee cup crowd" category. Also, My Big Fat Greek Wedding wasn't technically a foreign film, though it still had lots of eccentric foreign-type characters. And I wouldn't put Y Tu Mama Tambien in this category, I found it to be an accurate, piercing glimpse of Mexican society, full of beauty, corruption, infallible wealth, abject poverty, and a strong, proud indigenous culture.

The more I think about it, Bend it Like Beckham is the quintessential "Miramaxical" film to date. As for I'm Not Scared, I disagree with Atkinson's negative review, to be blunt. I loved the subjective viewpoint the filmmaker took; it opens with the children running in the beautiful wheat fields, happy in their innocent small world. It gradually expands to allow us a wider view of the place and time, and we're right there with the boy, putting together the pieces of the puzzle, re-evaluating everything we see and know.

[chelsea jubis]

Originally posted by JustaFied
I wouldn't put Y Tu Mama Tambien in this category, I found it to be an accurate, piercing glimpse of Mexican society, full of beauty, corruption, infallible wealth, abject poverty, and a strong, proud indigenous culture.

Precisely! The film surgically dissects the strata of Mexican society. Even though our protagonists are well-rounded, three- dimensional characters, each is representative of a different socio-economic class. Julio is a member of the bourgeoisie while Tenoch (Diego Luna) comes from the working class. The latter's aztec name implies he is a "mestizo" compared to the more "European"(white) Julio. Along the road, they come into contact with the peasant class, the poor and marginalized. I have been reluctant to delve into this subtext, suspecting that a lot of it is lost in translation. I don't know to what extent someone who doesn't speak Spanish can grasp the excellence of the script. This is not the Spanish spoken in polite society (particularly the exchanges between Julio and Tenoch); this is not the language of Mexican soaps.


An additional complication is provided by the character of Luisa (Maribel Verdu), a Spaniard used, in a subtle, measured way, to symbolize the old colonial power, the "Mother Nation", and its complex relationship with Mexico.
The thing is that Y Tu Mama Tambien provides so much bawdy fun that the subtext is easily ignored if you're not paying attention.
Kudos to JustaFied from oscar.
Chelsea, if you don't log off after posting you'll be grounded, young lady!

[Chris Knipp]

Precisely! The film surgically dissects the strata of Mexican society. Even though our protagonists are well-rounded, three- dimensional characters, each is representative of a different socio-economic class. Julio is a member of the bourgeoisie while Tenoch (Diego Luna) comes from the working class. The latter's aztec name implies he is a "mestizo" compared to the more "European"(white) Julio. Along the road, they come into contact with the peasant class, the poor and marginalized.

Maybe so Oscar, but if you surgically dissected the cast of characters, you mismatched the pieces. Maybe Chelsea had the stereo up too loud. Tenoch is the upper class one and Julio is the 'insecure' middle class boy. The Aztec name doesn't mean he's lowly. Why should it? Bernal is more low class in Amores Perros. But we should agree, Y tu Mamá También is a masterpiece, and no MIRAMAXICAL. Just because it's fun doesn't mean it's junk. Why do people always think that?

It looks to me as if the best examples of MIRAMAXICAL films are British.

But I think there should be lots more recent French and Italian entries in the category.

Debatable items: The Last Kiss (Muccino); Monsieur Ibrahim; the recent Argentinian Valentín.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Tenoch is the upper class one and Julio is the 'insecure' middle class boy. The Aztec name doesn't mean he's lowly.

My bad. When upper class parents name their boy "Tenoch" (after the Aztec capital city Tenochtitlan), a likely implication is that these are hip, cultured folks who probably where in college during the turbulent late-60s. It's something rarely done, like naming a girl Oklahoma. I'm convinced its use in the movie is deliberate.

Y tu Mamá También is a masterpiece, and no MIRAMAXICAL.

Yes and yes. Besides, Y Tu Mama Tambien is "too impudent in its sexual slapstick"(Hoberman), with homoerotic implications towards its conclusion that make a portion of the "miramaxical" audience uncomfortable.

Just because it's fun doesn't mean it's junk. Why do people always think that?

Just because it's fun doesn't mean it's shallow and superficial.

It looks to me as if the best examples of MIRAMAXICAL films are British. But I think there should be lots more recent French and Italian entries in the category.

La Vita e Bella is molto miramaxical.

[Chris Knipp]

The choice of Luna as the upperclass one and Bernal as the poor one is interesting, don't you think, too? It works; it partly doesn't matter because they're such good friends (:both in the movie and in real life) that the chemistry between them is more important than their social diffrerences -- till the end, when their friendship is over. But since Luna looks darker, isn't it paradoxical that he's more patrician? I have a sneaking suspicion that the filmmakers gave him the Aztec name to capitalize on that darkness, to be bold about it, perhaps also as a sign of his parents being hip and cultured, as you suggest. One would really like to consult with Cuarón (whose new Harry Potter movie is getting great reviews) to know all the details of the thinking behind the casting and the names.


Just because it's fun doesn't mean it's shallow and superficial.


That puts it much more politely and much better.


La Vita è Bella is molto miramaxical. I do feel completely ready to agree because I found La vita è bella a disgraceful whitewash of the horrors it's about. But you would get some objections on this one, wouldn't you, in view of the widespread admiration for this film? (As I was hoping we would get for my choosing Amélie as being of the category. I expected some hackles to rise.)

I want a nice big long list. I hope somebody is working on one. You who are so good at gathering data, tell me, how can I make up such a list? Where can I find the likely titles since they aren't in my head?

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
One would really like to consult with Cuarón (whose new Harry Potter movie is getting great reviews) to know all the details of the thinking behind the casting and the names.

Absolutely. Cuaron and his brother Carlos, who wrote the script.

I found La vita è bella a disgraceful whitewash of the horrors it's about. But you would get some objections on this one (As I was hoping we would get for my choosing Amélie as being of the category. I expected some hackles to rise.)

Amelie is less objectionable, although I read a piece regarding how it depletes Paris of any "persons of colour". I have to admit I liked the editing and art direction, besides Mademoiselle Tatou's obvious charm. But it's still miramaxical, which doesn't mean "bad" in my book, just somewhat limited by middlebrow considerations.

I want a nice big long list. You who are so good at gathering data, tell me, how can I make up such a list? Where can I find the likely titles since they aren't in my head?

Enter La Vita e Bella in the search engine at IMDb. Click on "Company Credits". Click on "Miramax". A list of over 300 films distributed by Miramax can provide likely titles. Of course, many titles they distribute are not "miramaxical", and some films that deserve the designation were distributed by Sony Classics, Lion's Gate and others.

[Chris Knipp]

That list for Miramax on IMDb's "La vita è bella" site is a good place to start, though as you say we have to look at Sony and Lion's Gate and other places too.

Bearing in mind that the term MIRAMAXICAL came from the acid-dipped pen of Michael Atkinson, you are "de-clawing" it too much in saying
it doesn't mean 'bad' in my book, just somewhat limited by middlebrow considerations. I'm a nicer person (in print anyway) than Michael Atkinson, but you're much nicer than either of us -- perhaps a little bit too nice to be a good critic! We do need out and out 'bad' categories, and this is one of them. You admire Jonathan Rosenbaum, I believe, and he certainly uses the word "bad" quite freely. In this case we don't mean technically bad. Are Hollywood blockbusters technically bad? And Amélie certainly is full of clever devices used to construct its highly contrived and artifical bright cheerful lily-white picture of Paris. MIRAMAXICAL movies are often seductive, but surely they're not just "somewhat limited by middlebrow considerations," or why bother with the category? Granted though Amélie is in its way an accomplished, even beautiful, film. But such is the nature of cinematic seduction.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by chelsea jubis
Kudos to JustaFied from oscar.

Hey, Thanks man!

I didn't realize the new Harry Potter movie was directed by Cuaron. Strange choice. Chris mentioned it in one of his posts below.

Rented Criterion version of "Rules of the Game" and "Knife in the Water" today. Looking forward to watching them. There is only one store in Houston (city of 4 million people) that rents many of the more obscure Criterion titles, and it's 20 miles from where I live now. I was in the area today, so I picked these two up. "3 Women" was checked out, and I didn't get that one on Ebay last week either, it ended up at $28.00 w/o shipping costs. No dice.

Anyway, these two should be good viewing. Certainly not Miramaxical category.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by JustaFied
I didn't realize the new Harry Potter movie was directed by Cuaron.

Mr. Cuaron also directed a marvelous The Little Princess, in the early 90s.

Rented Criterion version of "Rules of the Game" and "Knife in the Water" today.

Wise man!!! Rules of the Game is perhaps my favorite film not made in Japan. (Huge fan of Kenji Mizoguchi if you didn't already know). Polanski's feature debut is excellent.

"3 Women" was checked out, and I didn't get that one on Ebay last week either, it ended up at $28.00 w/o shipping costs. No dice.

www.dvdplanet.com/product_listing.asp?productid=40999&format=DVD

[Chris Knipp]

How about this one which I have used?
http://www.dvdpricesearch.com/

But I checked 3 women: criterion collection on this site and the cheapest price is, in fact, dvd planet. Oscar scores again! $25.97, free shipping when over $25.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Wise man!!! Rules of the Game is perhaps my favorite film not made in Japan.

Watched the film, almost impossible to "cast my impression" into words at this point, let alone write any sort of review. I see on another thread that you're reluctant to write a review of The Rules of the Game; I won't even try. I need to watch it again, there's so much to take in on the first viewing.

Altman's Gosford Park is clearly similar to this film in many ways. It's a bit more serious, perhaps because it involves the British not the French.

Can also see the influence of this film on Woody Allen, and on other Altman films. This is pointed out in one of the "tributes" to the film on the Criterion DVD. Altman's "tribute" is simply this: "The Rules of the Game taught me the rules of the game". At least he's honest.

[Chris Knipp]

I think you meant the French not the British?

I can't resist a bit of analysis:

Altman's "tribute" is simply this: "The Rules of the Game taught me the rules of the game". At least he's honest.

Altman's statement indicates that for him Renoir's film provided a structural principle rather than an intellectual orientation. I don't like that phrase, "intellectual orientation" -- very clumsy. But what I mean is that Altman is not a filmmaker of ideas but of social observation, and not really as humanistic as Renoir; he lets his characters descend into brittleness sometimes.

Another way of putting it is that for Altman Rules of the Game is an organizational technique, not a way of seeing the world.

I guess Oscar won't object since he doesn't like any American films, according to what he's just said. Not a lot,anyway.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I guess Oscar won't object since he doesn't like any American films, according to what he's just said. Not a lot,anyway.

You knew I'd retort to this one, Chris. You're trying to spice it up, "a la Kael", so to speak. You have access to my Profile Top 10. There's more American films than from anywhere else. I took the time to post my list of what I call "Great Movies I Love". There are 63 American titles. France runs a distant second with 29, which includes films by non-French Bunuel, Kieslowski, Dreyer and others.

What I meant was that if forced to pick one, it'd be between Renoir's and two from Mizoguchi (Sansho The Bailiff and Ugetsu). Actually there are four American films I treasure and hail as much: SUNRISE, CITIZEN KANE, THE SEARCHERS AND VERTIGO. I love all the great American Directors: Griffith, Chaplin, Welles, Ford, Borzage, Sturges, Hawks, Fuller, Casavettes, and on and on. My Favorite Movie of 2004 (so far) is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

In the spirit of Jean Renoir, I wouldn't want to praise that Master at anyone else's expense, or at least not Altman's. I have to live with the fact that my scribe alter-ego is "a little bit too nice to be a good critic". My posts can be dull. I seldom have extreme opinions (as you know, there are exceptions). I watch very few movies I'd call "bad". I'm also equally stingy with "masterpiece" or "classic". I can't fake it, but there's a range of personalities here and there's a role and a place for everyone.

[cinemabon]

Oscar, I would say your response to Michael Moore's film "...9/11" was more than sophmoric. Besides, no truly educated person takes extremes positions due to the fact they recognize fanaticism as a weakness and not a strength. Interesting how this thread has developed, eh, Howard?

[Chris Knipp]

I suppose I am a bit "a la Kael" and not in the least ashamed to be so; however, my limited experience of Rosenbaum suggests he's just as capable of provocation, not to mention meanness. (As far as I can remember, Kael did not explicitly put down other critics -- by name -- to the extent that Rosenbaum has sometimes done.There's been an extensive discussion of this, and other aspects of Rosenbaum's criticism, on IMDb recently, on the Classic Film board to which Howard has directed me.) Provocation is quite different from meanness, as everybody knows -- though the distinction may sometimes be lost sight of in the heat of debate. Surely you know, Oscar, that I think very highly of you.

I really wan't trying to provoke you but just get an explanation of that quote from you a few steps above on this thread:
Rules of the Game is perhaps my favorite film not made in Japan. I still don't understand this. Should you have said "Rules of the Game is perhaps my favorite film not made in Japan or America"? Though your reviews (if they are meant as reviews; I'm not sure) are rather cryptic and noncommital, perhaps assumed to be positive, I have never meant to imply, nor do I think, that your entries on this site are "dull."

There's a difference between "extreme" positions and strong ones. When I write reviews, they're not very extreme compared to many. I don't want to be accused of extremism, and I don't think I am guilty of it.

Whether or not it is true to the spirit of Renoir, I confess to admiring him more than Altman. Not a controversial position, to consider Renoir the greater director, nor an extreme one; in fact too obvious. To quote myself
But what I mean is that Altman is not a filmmaker of ideas but of social observation, and not really as humanistic as Renoir; he lets his characters descend into brittleness sometimes.


Though this certainly reveals a preference for Renoir, assuming one likes humanism, but it's by no means a put-down. There's nothing wrong with social observation and occasonal brittleness of characters. It can be great fun, and Altman can be a delight.

To go from "strong position" to "extreme position" to "fanaticism" is to take imaginary leaps with no real provocation, or to overreact (if it's a reaction to something I said) to my really very mild provocations.

I don't know where the word "sophomoric" got in. I don't believe I've accused anyone of that.

[Chris Knipp]

What I meant was that if forced to pick one, it'd be between Renoir's and two from Mizoguchi (Sansho The Bailiff and Ugetsu).

Pick "one" what? Again this confuses the issue for me, as to where American films fit in.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I suppose I am a bit "a la Kael" and not in the least ashamed to be so

Why should you be ashamed at all? I know you like(d) her style so I'm surprised you're talking about shame.

my limited experience of Rosenbaum suggests he's just as capable of provocation, not to mention meanness. (As far as I can remember, Kael did not explicitly put down other critics -- by name -- to the extent that Rosenbaum has sometimes done.

R wrote a book called "Movie Wars: How Hollywood and The Media Limit What Films We Can See" in '99. A portion of the book involves the state of Film criticism in America. He called attention to the renaming of The Chicago Art Institute's Film Center after Mr. Siskel. R writes that it was common knowledge amongst Chicago critic circles (they attend the same screenings) that Mr. Siskel: didn't seem interested in attending festivals, reading any film books (much less reviewing them), rewatching older films, discovering neglected movies, or even discussing films at lenght. In the 13 years preceding his death, Mr. Siskel reviewed the program at the Film Center once, the exact opposite of most Chicago critics like Kehr, Wilmington and Ebert who week after week championed the exciting, varied film programs at the Center. All because of the notoriety afforded to the former Real Estate beat writer by the TV show "S and E at the Movies". It's not done with vitriol or vindictiveness at all, but as a symptom or an indication of what's wrong with the critical establishment and its cozy relationship with Hollywood. Rosenbaum is interested in cinema, not in putting anybody down. He wants you and me and others who live in less populated areas to have access to more good films, not only the ones pushed by Hollywood with the media's complicity.

I don't want to be accused of extremism, and I don't think I am guilty of it.

Read my post again. The only thing I say about you is that you "try to spice it up". Which sounded to me like a compliment when I wrote it. Perhaps it's more clear to say your posts often ellicit responses and promote debate. The extreme position pertinent here is Atkinson's "all-bad" review of I'm Not Scared. It's a fun read, in contrast to what I would likely write, mostly because I seldom have opinions as one-sided and as strong as Atkinson's.

To go from "strong position" to "extreme position" to "fanaticism" is to take imaginary leaps with no real provocation, or to overreact (if it's a reaction to something I said) to my really very mild provocations.

I don't get how any word here relates to anything I've posted.

I don't know where the word "sophomoric" got in. I don't believe I've accused anyone of that.

Cinemabon is reminding me how recently I offered a strong opinion, regarding the timidity of distributors when it comes to picking up and promoting any film that has a smidgen of potential to be controversial. At the time, Fahrenheit 9/11 had no US distributor.

[Chris Knipp]

Other passages from Rosenbaum quoted on the IMDb "Classic Film" section of the Boards discussions of him bring out that he has been very critical at times of not only Siskel but Ebert, Denby, Kael, and some others -- particularly Denby. In response to questions put to him on the website he defends himself in general by saying
Aren't critics supposed to criticize? Or is the problem simply that I'm only supposed to criticize bad movies, not bad critics or bad criticism?. . .however, he insists that he and Ebert are friends, that he's "sometimes agreed in print with Kael and Denby...and even written about liking Denby's prose style." I got the sense that he can be acerbic about other critics and he doesn't entirely dispel this. Nor is he repentent:
...what I have in mind by criticizing some of my colleagues is precisely what I say--nothing more and nothing less. If you think some of your colleagues are both wrong and influential and want to counter or challenge what they're saying, what's wrong with doing this?

The remarks about extremism referred to cinemabon, not to anything you had said. Often several different entries get mixed together and I try to answer all of them at once.

"Trying to spice it up" is probably the phrase that led me to say I'm not ashamed. It comes naturally; I'm not "trying." "Trying to spice it up" sounds forced, and I'd be ashamed of that.

I didn't think "sophomoric" was directed at me. But I still don't know who said it and about exactly what. Did you say distributors were sophomoric, or did cinemabon, or what? Not important, however. Just a loose thread in the thread, for me anyway.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
But what I mean is that Altman is not a filmmaker of ideas but of social observation, and not really as humanistic as Renoir; he lets his characters descend into brittleness sometimes.

Another way of putting it is that for Altman Rules of the Game is an organizational technique, not a way of seeing the world.

Well, I think Altman's films certainly present a way of seeing the world, they're films of ideas, even if they are also films of "social observation". Not mutually exclusive categories. In simply turning on the camera and observing characters, Altman presents ideas through the actions and dialogue of these characters. That's what's so fascinating about his films to me. We observe ourselves in such social observation.

Reality TV is an example of "social observation" without any "ideas". It's pure voyeurism.

Of course, some of Altman's films are better than others. Still, I'm curious as to your statement that "his characters descend into brittleness sometimes". Example?

I'm committing heresy with this statement: I prefer Gosford Park to Rules of the Game. Rules was the original, it broke all sorts of taboos in 1939 France, it created a standard for filmmaking, similar to Citizen Kane. But, absent those considerations, I still prefer Altman's work. I found several of the characters in Rules to be borderline caricatures and rather two-dimensional, and the world they lived in seemed almost artificially insular. We don't feel much sympathy for anyone (except Renoir's character), even those who have been scorned by lovers. The heroic pilot and the groundskeeper are simply buffoons.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I got the sense that he can be acerbic about other critics and he doesn't entirely dispel this. Nor is he repentent.

"Acerbic" implies bitter and there's none to be found in Rosenbaum's writing. He matter-of-factly dispels misconceptions, and points out the ways critics are compromised by their relationship with Hollywood ("Movie Wars"). Once in a while, as needed, Rosenbaum will call attention to a writer simply disseminating false information. I'll give you an example of what he does. There's a popular book I believe titled "Katz's Dictionary of Film". Rosenbaum wrote at lenght about errors therein such as the fallacy that director Carl Dreyer was raised a strict episcopalian and the his films (especially Ordet) reflect that. Rosenbaum provided evidence and references to support entirely different biographical details that impact the interpretation of Dreyer's masterpieces. This is the type of issues Rosenbaum addresses, in a logical, measured tone. No bitterness towards Katz.

"Trying to spice it up" is probably the phrase that led me to say I'm not ashamed. It comes naturally; I'm not "trying." "Trying to spice it up" sounds forced, and I'd be ashamed of that.

You're naturally spicy :-)

[Chris Knipp]

You are being too literal in thinking acrebic means 'bitter" and Rosenbaum is never bitter. He can be cold and dismissive; that's acerbic enough for me


Well, I think Altman's films certainly present a way of seeing the world, they're films of ideas, even if they are also films of "social observation". Not mutually exclusive categories.I quite agree. I withdraw my previous comment. However, I still think it's fair enough to say that Renoir is more warm and humanistic; that's true of him in comparison to most other directors.

I am naturally spicy (provocative, that is), just as Rosenbaum is naturally cold and acerbic. A good critic ought to be provocative, surely?

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by JustaFied
I'm committing heresy with this statement: I prefer Gosford Park to Rules of the Game.

These days, people are likely to encounter Renoir's work for the first time on tv or video rather than in the cinema. In these low information, small screen formats, the energetic ensemble acting characteristic of his films often seems merely busy. The humour and much of the richness of characterisation derive from interplay between dialogue and the visual image (which communicates gesture and movement). For an anglophone audience, even when the subtitles communicate the dialogue accurately, the pace of the interaction and the impeccable timing of the delivery of the lines are lost. Thus the wit is largely dissipated. In Renoir's art, every line of dialogue, every action, every detail of dress, gesture, posture and setting needs to be taken into account if story, theme and characterisation are not to be misunderstood.
James Leahy (Senses of Cinema)

Renoir's 30s films in particular grow in complexity both thematically and psychologically with repeat exposure. I'd dare to bet that a person of your sensitivity would achieve a deeper understanding of milieu and characters, perhaps even develop a more sympathetic and empathetic stance towards a few of them.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
I'd dare to bet that a person of your sensitivity would achieve a deeper understanding of milieu and characters, perhaps even develop a more sympathetic and empathetic stance towards a few of them.

Thanks, I'll always approach art and cinema with an open mind. I know there's something about Renoir that I haven't quite latched onto yet, the passage you quote may highlight why. I know very little French, and I'm sure there is something lost in the translation. I'll seek out some of his other films.