Truth be told but I'm yet to see a more frustrating film experience than "L'Hommé Blesse" ("The Wounded Man"). Obviously that I've seen far more terrible things
but this one was a series of complications that goes from the get-go while some bad movies manage to have some good starts or decent beginnings. I watched this twice in a
matter of months apart and even with such distance it didn't improved on quality neither got worst than the initial view though I wanted to like this movie. I'd really do.
Or at least, I wanted to see if writer/director Patrice Chéreau really had something meaningful to show or say. Everything is thrown into a vacuum because the presentation of events and the storyline are a confusing jumpy mess where actions and reactions don't make sense, dialogues don't make sense and the silent moments are all awkward. I was the wounded man at the end of the picture...twice!
If the movie has a strong sense of appeal that managed to attract me was the acting by Jean Hugues Anglade in one of his first films. It's an amazing and daring performance best expressed whenever he's not talking. He plays Henri, a teenage discovering his homosexuality who falls in love with a criminal of sorts (Vittorio Mezzogiorno) who inhabits a crowded train station where the majority of characters are either male hustlers or potential clients (of whom this man makes his scheme of attracting them to later steal them). Henri doesn't fit such scenario in terms of behavior, the typical family kid and despite his awkwardness and fright, he knows and understands the language of such men, specially the attention coming from Bosmans (Roland Bertin), a wealthy married man who's awfully obsessed with the cute guy but he doesn't know how to reach him (and that's where the movie becomes an annoyance of sorts since they keep following each other over and over to later run away and turn back to following). It's obvious that those three men will be involved with each other in one way or another in this underground world to unfortunate consequences.
It's pointless to go on about the "plot" since it's a series of random events and encounters that does not make any sense. The director fails with almost everything shown here. There's no life to it, it's neither real and neither becomes an atractive or dreamlike story. What's the point? What's the aim? What can we learn?
What's the final analysis in it? For brief moments I got some insights between the extremes of fear and desire, love and obsession. For all the desire Henri feels it equals the exact same weight as his fears (the distance he keeps from the tough guy, who at times seduces him but the young one just keeps observing things), typical of youth trying to find some correspondence coming from the other part. How much was really a matter of the heart or a matter of the flesh, the physical? Well, hard to say as much Henri admires the other, mostly because his good looks, his presence and the way he acts but nothing is said and hardly ever shown.
Truth is that I like those underground stories a lot more than the current cute stories when it comes to LGBT characters. I understand this about the gay underworld, about petty criminals taking advantage of old queers who prey on younger hot boys or dark scenarios. But despite the darkness and brutality of such world, some sense of appeal rather than repulse must exist in order to convince audiences or at least present something we can find a meaningful purpose to it all. "The Wounded Man" had nothing of those, it was moronic, confusing, everybody's so unpleasant, obnoxious, violent and rude to each other, from the main characters to background characters.
I've seen better films with similar queer underground stories with elevated purposes and relevant things to say and show with some close elements presented here. If dealing about the fools who fall in love, "Mala Noche" is the film; if talking about sexuality and the dangers, fears, excitment of the unknown, "The Fourth Man" is the film. And to mention another one that resonates a lot with this one. "Each man kills the thing he loves", says a song performed in Fassbinder's "Querelle" and it's a theory proved there and here as well as love is something that can change and consume us so we must kill it first, learn to live without it or find some love that is less destructive. And the ultimate result on why we kill the things we love is because deep down we know that such love cannot be kept, it won't last.
While I didn't like the movie as a whole (but I tried), it can also be said that it isn't a total waste. It's great to look at, the visuals, the underground stations and locations since it all feels authentic rather than a movie set; Anglade is great looking with his mix of innocent teen vibes with some mature traits; there are of lots of sex appeal and wild moments that were a little ahead of time, I must say and Anglade brings a lot of intensity, passion and excitment, delivering himself to his partner on scene like I never seen before. Those were the attractive magnets of the movie that worked brilliantly.
But storywise it was all dumb, obtuse, confusing and with many unexplained things or unrealistic actions and reactions (the whole longing and chasing was a burden to follow, highly anxiety and stress inducing). As said early on, from the get-go the film kept erratic. The opening moments with Henri and his family running in desperation to catch a train and we later find out it's only the sister who's leaving for Germany. Why this family react in such a persecuted manner? Why they're all distant from each other and to whom exactly Henri is looking for when he gets to the station? Nothing is explained and neither Chéreau is creative enough to allow audiences to figure things out - and I couldn't figure out anything, no theory or reasoning given. And to think he actually won Best Screenplay at the César awards. It's a very disjointed picture with a couple of great scenes that don't make a full circle and doesn't have anything deep to say, but it gives the impression that it might. But I absolutely accepted the ending. 4/10.
Or at least, I wanted to see if writer/director Patrice Chéreau really had something meaningful to show or say. Everything is thrown into a vacuum because the presentation of events and the storyline are a confusing jumpy mess where actions and reactions don't make sense, dialogues don't make sense and the silent moments are all awkward. I was the wounded man at the end of the picture...twice!
If the movie has a strong sense of appeal that managed to attract me was the acting by Jean Hugues Anglade in one of his first films. It's an amazing and daring performance best expressed whenever he's not talking. He plays Henri, a teenage discovering his homosexuality who falls in love with a criminal of sorts (Vittorio Mezzogiorno) who inhabits a crowded train station where the majority of characters are either male hustlers or potential clients (of whom this man makes his scheme of attracting them to later steal them). Henri doesn't fit such scenario in terms of behavior, the typical family kid and despite his awkwardness and fright, he knows and understands the language of such men, specially the attention coming from Bosmans (Roland Bertin), a wealthy married man who's awfully obsessed with the cute guy but he doesn't know how to reach him (and that's where the movie becomes an annoyance of sorts since they keep following each other over and over to later run away and turn back to following). It's obvious that those three men will be involved with each other in one way or another in this underground world to unfortunate consequences.
It's pointless to go on about the "plot" since it's a series of random events and encounters that does not make any sense. The director fails with almost everything shown here. There's no life to it, it's neither real and neither becomes an atractive or dreamlike story. What's the point? What's the aim? What can we learn?
What's the final analysis in it? For brief moments I got some insights between the extremes of fear and desire, love and obsession. For all the desire Henri feels it equals the exact same weight as his fears (the distance he keeps from the tough guy, who at times seduces him but the young one just keeps observing things), typical of youth trying to find some correspondence coming from the other part. How much was really a matter of the heart or a matter of the flesh, the physical? Well, hard to say as much Henri admires the other, mostly because his good looks, his presence and the way he acts but nothing is said and hardly ever shown.
Truth is that I like those underground stories a lot more than the current cute stories when it comes to LGBT characters. I understand this about the gay underworld, about petty criminals taking advantage of old queers who prey on younger hot boys or dark scenarios. But despite the darkness and brutality of such world, some sense of appeal rather than repulse must exist in order to convince audiences or at least present something we can find a meaningful purpose to it all. "The Wounded Man" had nothing of those, it was moronic, confusing, everybody's so unpleasant, obnoxious, violent and rude to each other, from the main characters to background characters.
I've seen better films with similar queer underground stories with elevated purposes and relevant things to say and show with some close elements presented here. If dealing about the fools who fall in love, "Mala Noche" is the film; if talking about sexuality and the dangers, fears, excitment of the unknown, "The Fourth Man" is the film. And to mention another one that resonates a lot with this one. "Each man kills the thing he loves", says a song performed in Fassbinder's "Querelle" and it's a theory proved there and here as well as love is something that can change and consume us so we must kill it first, learn to live without it or find some love that is less destructive. And the ultimate result on why we kill the things we love is because deep down we know that such love cannot be kept, it won't last.
While I didn't like the movie as a whole (but I tried), it can also be said that it isn't a total waste. It's great to look at, the visuals, the underground stations and locations since it all feels authentic rather than a movie set; Anglade is great looking with his mix of innocent teen vibes with some mature traits; there are of lots of sex appeal and wild moments that were a little ahead of time, I must say and Anglade brings a lot of intensity, passion and excitment, delivering himself to his partner on scene like I never seen before. Those were the attractive magnets of the movie that worked brilliantly.
But storywise it was all dumb, obtuse, confusing and with many unexplained things or unrealistic actions and reactions (the whole longing and chasing was a burden to follow, highly anxiety and stress inducing). As said early on, from the get-go the film kept erratic. The opening moments with Henri and his family running in desperation to catch a train and we later find out it's only the sister who's leaving for Germany. Why this family react in such a persecuted manner? Why they're all distant from each other and to whom exactly Henri is looking for when he gets to the station? Nothing is explained and neither Chéreau is creative enough to allow audiences to figure things out - and I couldn't figure out anything, no theory or reasoning given. And to think he actually won Best Screenplay at the César awards. It's a very disjointed picture with a couple of great scenes that don't make a full circle and doesn't have anything deep to say, but it gives the impression that it might. But I absolutely accepted the ending. 4/10.