Angela an illegal immigrant living in Los Angeles stumbles across Bill, a disgraced banker on the run.Through sex, conversation ranging from politics to philosophy, and other worldly pleasures, Angela introduces Bill to another worldview.
A young single mother drops her son of at the bus stop to visit his dad in Paris. After being late for work, she almost gets fired. At the end of her duties she gets into a tricky situation which she handles, with the advice her colleague gave her.
Reluctantly, a sulky adolescent returns to her parents' house for yet another boring summer vacation, dabbling in desire and the art of desirability, eventually mixing reality with vision, caged fantasies with the fierce female sexuality.
François is a film-maker, usually impassive and without affect. He's making a film about women's pleasure as they transgress taboos. He doesn't know that two fallen angels who've been sent to upend him are manipulating his interest. He interviews young women, video tapes screen tests, and selects several for the film. The erotic scenes with them generate off-screen dynamics that may overwhelm the project. His wife is at first ignorant of his venture, then she's put off, and then becomes his assistant. The fallen angels are always close at hand: is François's ruin inevitable?Written by
Sex is universal to every art in every time, in every culture. It's universal because it's as animal as every man is. So, no theme is more richly treated, and more thoroughly investigated as sex. That raises the bar of demand, in other words, if you want to do anything interesting that concerns sex you have only two choices:
-either you do something that, although not original updates somethings that had been previously done;
-you find any dark corner of sex, usually tied to other equally fascinating worlds, of the human mind or such; this film does nothing in any of the 2 options. it's as dull as its writer sounds. This i say taking in consideration the lines, and an interview i saw on the DVD extras.
Apparently this film was made as some sort of provocation against some sex related charges related to this director's previous film. I think he might see this as an exorcism or something that could be mapped into the realms of the "art" world. Some personal exploitation of the limits of voyeurism in sex; a man who studies female orgasm by watching (and filming) it. I suppose later in the process of developing this, Brisseau himself understood how thin the whole thing was, so he placed a couple of Wenders' borrowed angels, to add a layer of mysticism to the whole watching game and, i suppose, so we could identify with the more active angel, as a voyeur of the voyeur situations.
This could actually work, but only if the director was more interested in making a film, rather than looking like he masters the inner depth of the female orgasm. As it is, this is a shameless depiction of the female body, some women are really and genuinely appealing, but the whole work is just dishonest. I really would prefer to have this made into a softcore exploitative film, than this annoying piece. Anything Brass or Franco do is better than this.
My opinion: 1/5
11 of 18 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this