Szlia
Member
Nope.
I have not read Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, but I feel there is something akin to it at work in this film. Del Toro is not trying to film a carnival. The reference point is other films that filmed carnivals, it's mimicking the aesthetic of the representations of the thing. It's so far removed from any kind of reality that absolutely no dramaturgy can coalesce. I am not saying that you can't engage the spectator when using a stylized aesthetic (Wes Anderson movies are a good proof it's possible), but here it's just a collage of tropes with no personality whatsoever, so one believe in nothing and care about no one (except maybe the drunk mentalist ?).
I also invite you to compare the plot of the movie to the plot of the 1947 movie or the one of the 1946 book both movies are based on. In his adaptation Del Toro manages to remove basically all the elements that create dramatic tension. As a result his movie feels like 1 hour of exposition, a change of scenery, 45 more minutes of exposition and when after all this build up we finally reach what should be the meat of the movie (the Ezra Grindle part) it's lamely resolved in 20 minutes, just leaving room for a punchline the movie did not earn.
A big disappointment for me, because I am always ready for a good film noir. It feels like the recent great entries in the genre are mostly chinese art house ones like Bi Gan's 'Long Day's Journey into Night' or Diao Yinan's 'The Wild Goose Lake' and 'Black Coal, Thin Ice'.
I have not read Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, but I feel there is something akin to it at work in this film. Del Toro is not trying to film a carnival. The reference point is other films that filmed carnivals, it's mimicking the aesthetic of the representations of the thing. It's so far removed from any kind of reality that absolutely no dramaturgy can coalesce. I am not saying that you can't engage the spectator when using a stylized aesthetic (Wes Anderson movies are a good proof it's possible), but here it's just a collage of tropes with no personality whatsoever, so one believe in nothing and care about no one (except maybe the drunk mentalist ?).
I also invite you to compare the plot of the movie to the plot of the 1947 movie or the one of the 1946 book both movies are based on. In his adaptation Del Toro manages to remove basically all the elements that create dramatic tension. As a result his movie feels like 1 hour of exposition, a change of scenery, 45 more minutes of exposition and when after all this build up we finally reach what should be the meat of the movie (the Ezra Grindle part) it's lamely resolved in 20 minutes, just leaving room for a punchline the movie did not earn.
A big disappointment for me, because I am always ready for a good film noir. It feels like the recent great entries in the genre are mostly chinese art house ones like Bi Gan's 'Long Day's Journey into Night' or Diao Yinan's 'The Wild Goose Lake' and 'Black Coal, Thin Ice'.
- 2
- 1