Emmanuelle Seigner could only shoot her scenes by day because she was appearing at night on stage in an acclaimed revival of Harold Pinter's "The Homecoming." See more »
Any other director I know would have already jumped on me.
I'm not "any other director".
Bullshit. If he thought he could, he would have already done.
Not even if I allowed him?
See more »
Behind the credits are images of classical artworks depicting Venus. Titles, in French as per the credits, are as follows - Titian: Vénus a sa toilette (1555) (National Gallery of Art, Washington) Ferdinand Bol: Vénus et Adonis (1658) (Rijksmuseum) Titian: Vénus a sa toilette (1555) Rubens: Vénus au miroir (1616) Rubens: La Toilette de Vénus (1608) Diego Velasquez: Venus au miroir (1651) Hans Memling: La vanité (1485) École de Fontainebleu: : La Toilette de Vénus (around 1550) Sandro Biotticelli: La naissance de Vénus (1485) Alexandre Cabanel: La naissance de Vénus (1863) Emil Jacobs: Vénus allongé et Cupidon (1839) Nicolas Poussin: Vénus dormant avec l'Amour (1628) Titian: Danae (1546) Rembrandt: Danae (1636) Joseph Helmz l'ancien: Vénus endormie (around 1600) Alessandro Allon: Vénus et Cupidon (16th century) Titian: Danae (1544) Lambert Sustris: Vénus et l'Amour (1515) Domenico Zampieri: Vénus (17th century) Jacopo Palma: Vénus allongée (1520) (Bridgeman Art Library) The final image is of the "Venus De Milo". See more »
The short plot synopsis for this film is so misleading. But you know it is Polanski, so naturally something, probably strange, will begin to transpire.
And strange it is. This actress arrives covered in rain, hours late, and is not on the audition list. Yet, with much persuasion, the director, reluctantly, agrees to do some lines with her, and after she starts he begins to take her seriously. He stops thinking she is a lunatic.
Suddenly he picks up the script and they are engaged in the lines. But as they rehearse the lines, they argue over trivial matters like the placement of one of their characters, to the actresses' perceived misogynistic take on the book.
But as they argue, something pulls them back into the story, and they are suddenly and instantly back in character. It really is a trip.
From this point on, there this a story within the play unfolding, and it begins to get very strange as you watch them rehearsing, then suddenly you realise they have actually been arguing for the last minute! It keeps you guessing constantly, and as they explore the subject matter further, the blurring of the play and reality increases as they both become more passionate about the subject matter. And into Polanski territory the film goes.
This movie is easily the best film he has made in the last 30 or so years. It reminds me of The Tenant, it has that sorta of weird, surreal and creepy vibe.
Kudos to Polanski, who, much like in Carnage, makes full use of the single set, in this case a small theater, with the final act of the movie actually taking place on the stage of this theater itself, which adds to the visual niceties. The camera is constantly moving around the theater, not once was I bored as the dialogue was so intriguing, funny in a dark way at times, but also pretty effed up, which I guess is due to the original text, and who does effed-up films better than Polanski?
I'm not sure of the running length, but this film felt like it was an hour long. The ending was incredible, and because of the deft handling of the dialogue, the switching between play and reality, this is something I want to watch again immediately.
People think he has gone senile? This is easily his best movie since The Tenant.
50 of 61 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this