Title says it all really, avoid if you don't enjoy thinking about films DURING watching a film; this one's not for you.
In the "good old days of IMDB" I would have taken to the forums to discuss the film with my fellow Cinephiles, since they got rid...I guess I'll post here instead.
All of the elements that make a competently made film, designed for a mature audience are present & correct: Acting. Cinematography, scene selection and such. Clearly the script is the thing that divides audiences the most. Here are my thoughts on the divisive elements of the script:
1) The "non-linear storytelling" in the post "Memento" era of cinema, is fairly commonplace now. The difference is WHAT story it is, that is trying to be relayed to the audience? This is where this film distinguishes itself. By creating "potential realities", ones where Leo (J. B) could be recalling a memory, or just as equally a "non-memory", the viewer is left to consider "Is this real or imaginary?", therefore requiring a degree of analysis in a real-time LIVE moment of recall themselves, to review what facts are known/suspected regarding the character in question. A prime example of this is where the "Greece" scenes play out, culminating in his death in the row boat, after chasing tail from the bar, he succumbs to exposure out in the middle of the ocean. This clearly cannot be real as he would never have returned to N. Y in that case. Confirmed minutes later during the penultimate scene, where he recalls his daughters' (Molly) name & that he returned from Greece (after having previously abandoned his wife & child) due to presumably; guilt. The irony here, is that cerebral function(real time processing) is clearly beyond Leo himself in his current condition, and that is only one of the points that makes the style of narrative implemented here, so effective. A bait & switch approach, if you will...plus it makes you (me) think.
2) Using subtle clues and images placed throughout, to provide subliminal messages. E. G: picture of 1st love Salma Hayek in his wallet, 1st child/son & dog sharing a name, the "plot" of the book he was writing in Greece JUST SO HAPPENING to tell the identical same story as his own, just in the future. Think about the scene where he asks the girl at the other table in the Greek taverna "After being gone for so long, is it possible to salvage the relationship, is it too late?", to which she answers "Well of course it would be, after so much time, how could it not?", he then muses "Would it be?". Think about it; both points of view are true at once, it is both too late (Dementia) and NOT, as he is physically there & recalls Molly's name. So is that an answer, or isn't it? More obvious is the red light from the port side of the boat, motoring away, doubling for the police cars of N. Y. as he hallucinates his way around barefoot. Port you say...?
3) The final scene is very clever, as it displays how his legacy is inherited by Molly, depicting her in "2 places at once", something Leo has been doing throughout this entire feature. I presume that this sort of imagination is commonplace where writers are concerned, their inherent ability to "split consciousness" between the here & now, and the imaginary world their novels reside in. Perhaps a subtle nod, that being the daughter of 2 writers (Bardem and Linney), perhaps it was for the better that her career is stumbling, due to caring for her dad & having to split her time and attention. Maybe she could have found her true calling as an author?
The film is not feel good at all and shouldn't be watched with that eye, the performances are all 1st rate and my only complaint is the same one others have made, that only the main character has a satisfactory back-story, all other characters are 2D (reflected in the economical run-time?).
In the "good old days of IMDB" I would have taken to the forums to discuss the film with my fellow Cinephiles, since they got rid...I guess I'll post here instead.
All of the elements that make a competently made film, designed for a mature audience are present & correct: Acting. Cinematography, scene selection and such. Clearly the script is the thing that divides audiences the most. Here are my thoughts on the divisive elements of the script:
1) The "non-linear storytelling" in the post "Memento" era of cinema, is fairly commonplace now. The difference is WHAT story it is, that is trying to be relayed to the audience? This is where this film distinguishes itself. By creating "potential realities", ones where Leo (J. B) could be recalling a memory, or just as equally a "non-memory", the viewer is left to consider "Is this real or imaginary?", therefore requiring a degree of analysis in a real-time LIVE moment of recall themselves, to review what facts are known/suspected regarding the character in question. A prime example of this is where the "Greece" scenes play out, culminating in his death in the row boat, after chasing tail from the bar, he succumbs to exposure out in the middle of the ocean. This clearly cannot be real as he would never have returned to N. Y in that case. Confirmed minutes later during the penultimate scene, where he recalls his daughters' (Molly) name & that he returned from Greece (after having previously abandoned his wife & child) due to presumably; guilt. The irony here, is that cerebral function(real time processing) is clearly beyond Leo himself in his current condition, and that is only one of the points that makes the style of narrative implemented here, so effective. A bait & switch approach, if you will...plus it makes you (me) think.
2) Using subtle clues and images placed throughout, to provide subliminal messages. E. G: picture of 1st love Salma Hayek in his wallet, 1st child/son & dog sharing a name, the "plot" of the book he was writing in Greece JUST SO HAPPENING to tell the identical same story as his own, just in the future. Think about the scene where he asks the girl at the other table in the Greek taverna "After being gone for so long, is it possible to salvage the relationship, is it too late?", to which she answers "Well of course it would be, after so much time, how could it not?", he then muses "Would it be?". Think about it; both points of view are true at once, it is both too late (Dementia) and NOT, as he is physically there & recalls Molly's name. So is that an answer, or isn't it? More obvious is the red light from the port side of the boat, motoring away, doubling for the police cars of N. Y. as he hallucinates his way around barefoot. Port you say...?
3) The final scene is very clever, as it displays how his legacy is inherited by Molly, depicting her in "2 places at once", something Leo has been doing throughout this entire feature. I presume that this sort of imagination is commonplace where writers are concerned, their inherent ability to "split consciousness" between the here & now, and the imaginary world their novels reside in. Perhaps a subtle nod, that being the daughter of 2 writers (Bardem and Linney), perhaps it was for the better that her career is stumbling, due to caring for her dad & having to split her time and attention. Maybe she could have found her true calling as an author?
The film is not feel good at all and shouldn't be watched with that eye, the performances are all 1st rate and my only complaint is the same one others have made, that only the main character has a satisfactory back-story, all other characters are 2D (reflected in the economical run-time?).
Tell Your Friends