Tears of boredom?
Christina
Ricci & Johnny Depp look great and act well in
an aesthetically beautiful film that fails to
engage any emotions with a rather lame plot.
Fegele is a little Russian girl of Jewish
heritage whose father leaves her behind in 1927
Russia to start life anew in America. He vows to
send for her when he has established a life that
can sustain them both. She lives with her
grandmother until forced to leave armed only
with a few coins and a picture of her father.
She
arrives in England and is taken in by a British
family who cares for her throughout her school
years. When old enough, she leaves for Paris to
become a showgirl. There, she changes her name
to Suzie (Ricci), meets up with Lola
(Blanchett), a gold digging girl with her eyes
set on the famous tenor Dante Domino (Turturro).
Suzie also falls for a gypsy named Cesar (Depp)
who is mysterious and reserved, and they start a
strange and rather unromantic relationship. Are
you still following?
Suzie's ultimate dream is to make it to America
where she can be reunited with her estranged
father. This is becoming ever more urgent as the
Nazis are taking over Paris and her Jewish
heritage is no longer the secret it once was.
There is just too much going on here to cram
into 100 minutes.
The film is wondrous to watch. The
cinematography is absolutely immaculate in
virtually every scene. The stars, one by one,
are framed and lighted with such exceptional
beauty that one may forget for a moment that the
plot is convoluted and uninvolving.
The acting is rather good in every role,
although it consists mainly of standing there,
looking winsome, and being pretty next to a
beautiful Parisian backdrop. If the film wasn't
just a succession of pretty images, I would say
that these are some of the best looking scenes
of the year. But it is hard to appreciate the
beauty when you're bored stiff.
For some reason the director chose to tell the
story visually rather than with dialogue and
action. There can't be more than twenty minutes
of dialogue in this 100 minute film, and when
you have a tale that probably necessitates three
hours of intense storytelling, we are left with
a skeletal story that skips enormous plot points
and neglects narrative to the nth degree. A
beautiful winsome look can be very powerful,
especially from a great actress like Ricci, but
forty of them tend to diminish their impact and
emotion.
The ending is contrived and clichéd. I felt very
little emotion for Suzie... were it not for
Ricci's acting, I would have felt none at all.
The resolution is as rushed as the bulk of the
film. We never get any time to familiarize
ourselves with any of the characters and as a
result have a tough time connecting with them.
The score is adequate, mostly well known opera,
but the lip-synching is poorly done and we never
feel that the actors are actually belting out
the tunes themselves. We are too aware that the
actors are exactly that... actors. This is
especially true of Dante, played by the
wonderful character actor John Turturro.
I am giving this film a lot of credit for its
ambition and its beauty. The acting is solid and
the directing is sure handed. All the elements
are in place for a great film... but the story
wanes after the first twenty or so minutes and
we are left with a great lesson for aspiring
cinematographers and a severe warning for
aspiring screenwriters.
©
Written by TC Candler
Richard
Propes' Comment
n/a
Jacob
Hall's Comment
n/a
