No, it has nothing to do with oogling
Oh?
But if we get to the end of your reply...
bears some relation to Von Sternberg's fetishization of Marlene Dietrich
If this isn't a Freudian slip, help me understand, how does a celluloid fetishization of a sexpot (say, in Blonde Venus or in The Devil is a Woman) work without relying on ogling?! In this picture, I will argue,
casting Kinski
is about Kinski's
looks. The comparison with von Sternberg's fetishization projects (my hat off to you for that association) doesn't quite hold — because those Dietrich's films
were about more than looks, as Marlene Dietrich melted the silver screen with her personality not at all any less than with her looks. You could've tried the comparison with the fetishization projects with M. Monroe and you would've still struck out, since MM's grand on-screen appeal came hand in hand with her equally grand off-screen drama. On the other hand, what did Kinsky in 1983 have aside from her looks that could've been used for fetishization? The off-screen story of hers was again — just some more ogling business. Fashion magazine covers. Oh, and she was a daughter of a good foreign actor starring in foreign productions, yay, big deal (I limit that qualification to The States). So, sure, going with Kinski was done because of the whole idolatry hokum in mind, but where I disagree with you is in your view that, first, the rest of this film is so bereft of anything laudable, and secondly, Kinski is so utterly a unique persona that creating the same hubbab of drooling over a siren would not've been achievable with some other intelligent beauty such as Emmanuelle Béart or, say, Paulina Porizkova (though, she also is too dove-like, to my mind). So, the exploitation as one of the main goals in Exposed? Yes. The exploitation impossible with anybody other than Kinski and Exposed consequently sucking? Resolute no.
I also disagree, very much, that Last Tango in Paris
is about Brando. What it
is about, is Bertolucci
and Brando, or even Bertolucci, Brando and Maria Schneider (do read, or read again Pauline Kael's (in)famous review). Last Tango would've still been an important, masterful work of art had Jean-Louis Trintignant accepted the role, even if I do agree the entire film would've had a different personality. It wouldn't have been permeated by the aura of Brando but it would of Trintignant. So what? You're making the artfulness of a film rely overly on "its personality".
As Last Tango in Paris, so would Exposed still been a nice little movie had it fetishizd Béart. You, however, are saying that with anybody other than Kinski, Exposed would not only have changed its personality (I'd say, not even all that much), but would've been no more than a silly b-thriller! What even with one Nureyev and his character's lines some of which are quite memorable, and with Keitel, and with the erotic scenes with Béart? Nothing but a silly b-thriller? Now that I find — silly.
no i am db
reply
share