Watching paint dry...


I'll never forget a line in the film 'Night Moves' where Gene Hackman's character compares watching a Rohmer film to 'watching paint dry'. Certainly it would apply to this. I have enjoyed watching more slow-moving films from Tarkovsky, Kiarostami, Bela Tarr, etc., but this garbage is beyond my endurance. 2 hours of people talking (and not even good actors) endlessly about nothing. Throw in a sick bit of pedophilia and that's all you have here, apart from some nicely photographed scenery.

Life sucks, then you're reincarnated

reply

Perhaps talking about "nothing" in the sense that their favourite topics seem to be the kinda stuff only the idle rich would worry about, analyzing the nature of their bloody desires at great, ponderous length; certainly the way Rohmer goes about their business, is indeed kind of objectionable as this nonstop amorous bourgeois navel gazing starts to get tiresome pretty fast. It´s not quite as big a talk show as that Maud thing from 1969, but there´re still extensive passages pregnant with self obsessed wittering and yammering emerging from a variety of characters, all of whom are somehow keen on psychoanalyzing themselves. Tedious stuff - nothing much subtle or "delicious" about it as some critics appear to insist.

No pedophilia in this film, though - the Claire chick appears to have been 15-16 during the filming and certainly looks it.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Damn. I should've read your post first. I see you posted exactly what I was after.

I did think Claire looked older than 16, though. But...irrelevant.

reply

Lil' bit, yeah. And I love international films; some French films are among my greatest-evers, personally; and I even like some of what Rohmer has done. But this one is massively underwhelming, a tour-de-force of navel-gazing and egocentricity. Just an ordeal, the kind of thing that makes some people hate Eurofilms.

I probably would get into a bit of a side argument with you about "pedophilia," since it's a sloppy use of the term to apply it to instances where the younger person is sexually mature (or approaching maturity). The fact that governments mandate specific ages of consent, statutory rape laws, etc., is a legal matter that corresponds only approximately to the reality of actual pedophilia. In short, if an adult male is attracted to a sexually mature teenager, it's not really a case of actual pedophilia, although it certainly may be creepy to our sensibilities, illegal, completely inadvisable, wrong for other reasons, and so forth.

But that argument is off-point to your real point about the film. Put it this way: If the two objects of attraction here were in their mid-20s, the film would still be like watching paint dry.

reply

I should add, by the way, that I do find it really objectionable when underage actors are employed to do sexual or sexually romantic scenes with adults, even if they're past the age of sexual maturity. Even worse when underaged actors are employed to do that same kind of thing; still worse when it involves underaged actors who are not sexually mature (cf. Wes Anderson's Moonlight Kingdom, which I thought was otherwise good).

Yeah, I know the French in 1970 had a different standard, and probably would today as well. Still.

reply