I think that fact that I'm a male, and this film is considered to be one of the defining feminist films could make my review seem biased, in a way, since perhaps I cannot truly identify with what the director, Shantal Akerman, was trying to convey. That being said, she did say in interviews that she was reluctant to consider herself as a feminist filmmaker, so what do I know.
Anyway, in case you somehow don't know this - this movie is 3 and half hours long, and 90% of it consists of showing mundane house chores done in long and static shots, with the intent of showing you how boring and terrible those are, and making you understand the patriarchal prison the heroine is trapped in. It's not a spoiler - you'll realize this very very quickly once you start watching the movie.
Personally, I understand the point of the length and making this so mundane, but I don't think it's necessary. Would you have needed to see a film lasting 12 years to understand the pain and suffering of the hero of "12 Years a Slave"? I assume that the answer is no.
Some critics take pride in the great experience the movie transforms its viewers through, but it truly sounds to me like some modern version of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Some self-deluding to try to justify a waste of 3 and half hours on something that honestly could have been much shorter, still painful to watch, but at least somewhat legitimate.
I'll ignore stuff like the occasional "boom" (microphone) hairs sometimes sticking into the frame. I'll also ignore some terrible acting moments (which is surprising, due to fact that most of the movie is consisted of silent handling of chores), but what I can't ignore is the fact that even though I do understand the importance of this film (mainly as an historical milestone, which is the main reason this gets 2 stars and not one), it does not justify watching it.
There, let me take of care of it for you: PATRIARCHY IS BAD. I've just saved you 3 and a half hours. No need to thank me!
Anyway, in case you somehow don't know this - this movie is 3 and half hours long, and 90% of it consists of showing mundane house chores done in long and static shots, with the intent of showing you how boring and terrible those are, and making you understand the patriarchal prison the heroine is trapped in. It's not a spoiler - you'll realize this very very quickly once you start watching the movie.
Personally, I understand the point of the length and making this so mundane, but I don't think it's necessary. Would you have needed to see a film lasting 12 years to understand the pain and suffering of the hero of "12 Years a Slave"? I assume that the answer is no.
Some critics take pride in the great experience the movie transforms its viewers through, but it truly sounds to me like some modern version of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Some self-deluding to try to justify a waste of 3 and half hours on something that honestly could have been much shorter, still painful to watch, but at least somewhat legitimate.
I'll ignore stuff like the occasional "boom" (microphone) hairs sometimes sticking into the frame. I'll also ignore some terrible acting moments (which is surprising, due to fact that most of the movie is consisted of silent handling of chores), but what I can't ignore is the fact that even though I do understand the importance of this film (mainly as an historical milestone, which is the main reason this gets 2 stars and not one), it does not justify watching it.
There, let me take of care of it for you: PATRIARCHY IS BAD. I've just saved you 3 and a half hours. No need to thank me!
Tell Your Friends