MovieChat Forums > Kristen Stewart Discussion > JoBlo's review for 'Seberg'

JoBlo's review for 'Seberg'

posted 4 years ago by CKid (3816)
3 replies | jump to latest

I just read a rather interesting review for Seberg, a film which opens Friday.
(I have serious doubts that it will open anywhere near me.)

The film gets a 5/10 rating because of its flaws, none of which are associated with Kristen's performance.

Click away for the entire review ... https://www.joblo.com/movie-news/review-seberg

Rather than emphasize the cost to Seberg and her career, the odd choice is made to frame this through the eyes of a conscience-stricken FBI agent, a person who never existed. This is the strangest choice for a biopic since they decided to make Bruce Lee a side-character in The Birth of the Dragon. As such this is a frustrating film. When it focuses on Seberg, it is fairly compelling but it grinds to a halt every time we're asked to sympathize with Jack O'Connell's nice guy character.
**********
Even still, Seberg, as flawed as it is, is still worth watching for Stewart's spot-on performance in the lead.
**********
While I'm certain everyone involved with Seberg, from director Benedict Andrews on down probably intended this to pay tribute to an unfairly ignored but important figure from Hollywood history, she's done a disservice by not being allowed to dominate the movie named in her honor. There was no real need for a character like O'Connell to be the audience surrogate, as Stewart's good enough you'll empathize with her more than enough to be effective. In the end, this is a frustrating missed opportunity although it tells a worthwhile story.

So, the reviewer complains that the film should focus more on the character the film was named after, eh?
Problem is, the original title of the film was not Seberg, it was Against All Enemies.
That original title, in my opinion, makes it seem that the focus of the story was on the FBI's COINTELPRO team.
Anyway, it's too bad that the flaws in the film seem to draw some attention away from Kristen's once again, excellent performance.
None the less, I still hope that I will still be able to see it on the big screen, although as I stated earlier, I have serious doubts that will be the case.

P.S. I also read an article regarding Golden Globe nomination snubs titled,
Shocking Golden Globe film snubs:
Robert De Niro, Adam Sandler miss out,
female writers/directors almost entirely shut out

Kristen was included in the "NOT Best Film Drama Actress" category, along with ...
Helen Mirren, Elisabeth Moss, Lupita Nyong'o and Alfrie Woodard.
Pretty good company it you ask me.

You can read the article here ...
https://www.goldderby.com/article/2019/golden-globe-snubs-robert-de-niro-adam-sandler-women-news/
Other categories include, NOT Best Film Drama, NOT Best Film Drama Actor, NOT Best Director, etc., etc., etc.

[–] Ron2011 (907) 4 years ago

"Rather than emphasize the cost to Seberg and her career, the odd choice is made to frame this through the eyes of a conscience-stricken FBI agent, a person who never existed. "

Odd choice it seems indeed. Maybe more of the focus should have been on Seberg with the conflicted FBI agent as much more secondary to bring out that aspect of the case.

"Anyway, it's too bad that the flaws in the film seem to draw some attention away from Kristen's once again, excellent performance."

Agreed there.

[–] LLOwens (983) 4 years ago

None the less, I still hope that I will still be able to see it on the big screen, although as I stated earlier, I have serious doubts that will be the case.

I had a chance of watching Seberg on the silver screen but unfortunately I realized this after the fact. This film had its Hawaii premiere at the Hawaii International Film Festival and screened on the exact same day (11/16/19) and at the exact same multiplex (Regal Dole Cannery Stadium 18), that I watched Charlie's Angels at. To add insult to injury, out of the 18 auditoriums in this multiplex, the screen showing HIFF films was located adjacent to the auditorium that I watched CA. Talk about a missed opportunity that was staring me in right the face without me knowing it at the time.

What's equally ironic is, my go-to theater for indie/art house films, Consolidated Theaters Kahala--I've watched "Clouds of Sils Maria", "The Runaways" and "On the Road" at this multiplex--is undergoing renovation and won't reopen until spring of 2020. So my hopes of watching it here have been dashed to pieces.

Thankfully, "Underwater", will be showing in at least one theater here on Oahu, so I can look forward to that.

[–] LLOwens (983) 4 years ago

There was no real need for a character like O'Connell to be the audience surrogate, as Stewart's good enough you'll empathize with her more than enough to be effective. In the end, this is a frustrating missed opportunity although it tells a worthwhile story.

If the Jack Solomon character was fictitious, he should have been a bad cop instead of a good cop, as this would have added more conflict to the story, which would have made it more compelling. Instead of having the lead characters evolving in the same way, a dual protagonist story of sorts, it should have taken a different approach by showing how the titular Seberg character would evolve while Solomon would in stark contrast devolve. Sure, there is nothing wrong with a minor character being a mentor or helper for the lead protagonist, but I believe it would have served the film better had Solomon been the antagonist, unless of course, Solomon was a protagonist/good cop in real life, which wasn't the case as he was made up.

So this review seems to imply that the Solomon character stole much of Seberg's thunder, when the primary focus should have been on the challenges she faced, the transformation she would have to make and whatever atonement needed to take place in order for her life to come full circle and make a change for the better, with story dualities which would keep the story intriguing and prevent it from grinding to a halt as the review also mentioned. And don't take my word for it, this pattern is universal to all good storytelling as Dan Harmon clearly outlines in his storytelling technique known as the "Story Circle" which pinpoints the steps of "The Hero's Journey" that will resonate with moviegoers.

To use the Jack Solomon character as "the audience surrogate", implies that this character is intended to dumb down the audience, telling them what to think and believe. The great directors never dumb down their audience. If filmmaking is truly an art form, it should be open to interpretation--in other words everything should not be spelled out. My all-time favorite director Stanley Kubrick said it best in a Time magazine interview, "The essence of a dramatic form is to let an idea come over people without it being plainly stated. When you say something directly, it is simply not as potent as it is when you allow people to discover it for themselves."