I liked reading your comment doodlepenny and I do agree with what you say, same here.
Reading and posting here on IMDb occasionally it's the one disagreement that keeps coming back all the time in every thread. A lot of people seem to insist a movie should be entertaining like in just entertaining meaning easy, comfortable and silly (fun to watch, how fun is that). And then there is people who claim a movie can or should be entertaining and at the same time interesting. Difficult is not unpleasant, it is interesting and can be emotional and fascinating.
Fun to watch is lazy, interesting is stretching yourself a little bit into a new experience. I mean when do you think what to do when my partner dies and I feel my partners best friend is the only one I can relate to and can console me? It was an interesting theme and good study.
So I think movies like this are a relief and a surprise. Because I didn't expect much of it. I also thought it was original.
I agree with you on the style and/or cinematographic bit. The use and later avoiding of flashacks was a little inconsistent. The big scene at the table (Hale Berry telling about the fire they had and what her husbands reaction was towards this incicent) with all of the people involved with each other would have been perfect for a flashback (but then we wouldn't have seen Hale Berry in that big emotional scene. And it worked. A key scene for the present, because afterwards she realises her husband is really no longer with her).
Maybe it was done on purpose as to reveal Hale Berry was living in the past in the beginning of the film, and not any longer towards the end of the film. As a viewer I felt comfortable and very cosy witnessing those flasbacks. I can understand Hale Berry would want to live in that past than in the present realising that life has gone.
Director Bier speaks of those extreme close-ups in the extra's on the DVD. That they are like landscapes (I get that, visually they are like objects or landscapes. But so what, what is the use in context to the scene and dialogue?) and that they are very emotional (I don't get that at all, what is so very emotional seeing a big part of an ear? In relation with a voice-over it works, but I think in spite of not thanks to the use of extreme close-ups).
I didn't mind and wasn't disturbed, because like you I thought it was great acting and a moving story too.
reply
share