02-16-2009, 12:20 AM
"Victor Hugo is dead! Victor Hugo is dead!"
Scores of townspeople run through the streets delivering the news. Everyone is in shock; mourners are everywhere.
Ah, the importance of a good writer. Those were the days...
But this movie isn't about a writer but a sculptor, Camille Claudel (though her brother Paul became a notable writer), who existed in the shadow of her lover, Rodin.
Rodin is played by Gerard Depardieu, of late the very personification of pork barrel spending. But this is an early role before he took Steven Segal's balloon ride. Anyway, the beard and top hat actually subdue his bold features and render him good-looking. And Depardieu makes a good Rodin and gives a very strong performance.
But the movie is about Camille Claudel, played by Isabelle Adjani, and herein lies the problem. Not with Isabelle, mind you, who gives a spectacular performance, but with the sculptor herself. Because -- and I hope I'm not giving too much away -- she did not exactly have a successful career. In fact, the story arc of her life makes for a very depressing movie, especially when the movie runs over 2 and a half hours (where's the Queen's shortcut for one half?). I watched it in three sessions, forcing myself to finish it, because even though it's a very good movie, for me it was almost unwatchable. Which begs the question, how do you rate a great movie that's such an incredible downer that you cannot enjoy the experience?
It's not that I'm against unhappy endings. I mean, I liked Titanic. Then again, that was a big unfeeling chunk of metal pretending to be the future, and we all wanted to see its come-downance (down-uppance?). King Kong (new version) is more applicable, because I really wanted to walk out of the theater when King Kong was brought to New York -- from that point onward, it became very unpleasant.
Why did I rent this? I didn't know much about Camille, and besides, I enjoy seeing movies about artists and writers. I'm intrigued (and usually disappointed) by the director's attempts to depict creativity. Quite often the artist or writer isn't even shown working, or if so, only in the simplest of ways. Camille Claudel is slightly better than most at that. But it could have gone much deeper. Still, the director had to keep the story moving, in order to work in all the depressing stuff....
If I were ever to direct a movie about Camille Claudel, I'd just change her life, make things up, give it a much more interesting and uplifting spin. I mean, it's just a movie. No one's going to grade you on the facts. Except some f***ing reviewer or art historian, or geek. Or relative of Camille Claudel.
--cranefly
Scores of townspeople run through the streets delivering the news. Everyone is in shock; mourners are everywhere.
Ah, the importance of a good writer. Those were the days...
But this movie isn't about a writer but a sculptor, Camille Claudel (though her brother Paul became a notable writer), who existed in the shadow of her lover, Rodin.
Rodin is played by Gerard Depardieu, of late the very personification of pork barrel spending. But this is an early role before he took Steven Segal's balloon ride. Anyway, the beard and top hat actually subdue his bold features and render him good-looking. And Depardieu makes a good Rodin and gives a very strong performance.
But the movie is about Camille Claudel, played by Isabelle Adjani, and herein lies the problem. Not with Isabelle, mind you, who gives a spectacular performance, but with the sculptor herself. Because -- and I hope I'm not giving too much away -- she did not exactly have a successful career. In fact, the story arc of her life makes for a very depressing movie, especially when the movie runs over 2 and a half hours (where's the Queen's shortcut for one half?). I watched it in three sessions, forcing myself to finish it, because even though it's a very good movie, for me it was almost unwatchable. Which begs the question, how do you rate a great movie that's such an incredible downer that you cannot enjoy the experience?
It's not that I'm against unhappy endings. I mean, I liked Titanic. Then again, that was a big unfeeling chunk of metal pretending to be the future, and we all wanted to see its come-downance (down-uppance?). King Kong (new version) is more applicable, because I really wanted to walk out of the theater when King Kong was brought to New York -- from that point onward, it became very unpleasant.
Why did I rent this? I didn't know much about Camille, and besides, I enjoy seeing movies about artists and writers. I'm intrigued (and usually disappointed) by the director's attempts to depict creativity. Quite often the artist or writer isn't even shown working, or if so, only in the simplest of ways. Camille Claudel is slightly better than most at that. But it could have gone much deeper. Still, the director had to keep the story moving, in order to work in all the depressing stuff....
If I were ever to direct a movie about Camille Claudel, I'd just change her life, make things up, give it a much more interesting and uplifting spin. I mean, it's just a movie. No one's going to grade you on the facts. Except some f***ing reviewer or art historian, or geek. Or relative of Camille Claudel.
--cranefly