Bloodless Coup

You went last night?

Yup - it was a pretty busy, non-stop Saturday for Armand. And those were, by far, the most tedious two hours of the day.

Btw, Cath and I are off to see the 1:45 Stranger Than Fiction today, if you feel up for yet another film this weekend.

Duder! Thanks for the linkage. This movie was so disappointing. Man, what is wrong with her?

"Her" being Coppola, or Dunst?

I'm presuming Coppola - b/c whatever problems there might be with Dunst in the role, Coppola's script is the film's biggest problem. And there are obviously Coppola directing problems that make Dunst look worse too - I mean that childbirth scene ... uh, as if.

What exactly is this film about? Why do there appear to be no narrative arcs or movement of any kind in the story and characters? And if the goal is to show stasis and rigidity - well why does she do such a lousy job at defining those (constant) characters? I don't know what I was supposed to be watching. As I've mentioned to some others, maybe this is supposed to be some deep feminist manifestation on the role of women in society, or something on the body - but as a piece of entertainment it's sorely lacking.

Oh, and actually we ended up seeing Borat this afternoon - which I found both horrifying and amusing.

You should go see Shortbus.

i second the milder of the criticisms of MA. when i went a couple of weeks ago, as the credits rolled, my friend and i looked at each other and basically asked simultaneously whether it was okay to be bored.

thing is, i don't think that this is that far afield of Lost in Translation, which i loved. thing is, if you're goint to do an episodic, quie, slow static film, there's gotta be some source of heft -- emotional, historical, critical. lost in translation had such emotional depth that boredom was never really an option, even though the pacing and approach were not dissimilar to MA. but despite an able performance by dunst, given her material (and making allowances for the childbirth scene), there was no emotional there there.

so yes, we agreed, it was okay to be bored, and we were. bored, that is.

Well, I don't know that it's okay to be bored. And it's not the quiet that I mind. Lost in Translation was one of the best films of whatever year that was. I love it and own it. But that film had characters you understand, and there was action that went some place. It was a quiet slice of life - but it was meaningful, and yes, had emotional heft, whereasMarie Antoinette was static and empty.

Don't let this happen to you, cinephiles. It is NOT "okay" to be bored.

It's one thing to make a blase interpretation of your disintegrating marriage with a wish-fufillment role played by one of the greatest American comedians of the last 50 years (Lost in Translation).

It's quite another to spend two hours resisting taking a point of view in a compelling historical storyline while you have UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS to a landmark. That's just a reflection of how spoiled and self-satisfied someone is.

But static and empty were partly the point, no? And it was pretty -- give it that. And if you're bored by pretty than you're not the Armand I know and love :)

Oh you know - everyone knows - my fondness for pretty. And yes, it is that. But I was hoping for more than only pretty.

Still, I get your point about that sort of being the point.