A Netflix production - already by that we have created an impression in our mind and expectations have been set for this new film. Just as the old studios had their own image and filmmaking standards, so does this new streaming service that is slowly replacing them. Not that it is right to create expectations so fast - a film is, after all, a collective effort, and it is an injustice to all the cast and crew to dismiss or praise their effort only based on whom they made it for.
The film is based on a book. Does this mean we have to judge the film based only on the book? Absolutely not. What we have to hope for is a good film, and one that uses the book but for background - décor and creates something new from the source material is only welcome.
(These are just general principles concerning film and its relationship with other arts from which it may borrow elements. I think that film can be a completely independent art and its relationship with literature should consist of creating through images what the book describes with words, or change the content of the book entirely if the end result is artistically satisfactory.)
COMMENTS ON THE FILM
Deficient photography. A gothic film with a gothic atmosphere was what the film should have been, would it really want to successfully imitate Poe's work. It is not, though. The colors and the way the combine creates a very bright atmosphere and the play between darkness and light gives emphasis on the latter (something that takers all the symbolism about the climate of sadness, grief, and madness that dominates the film away). The film prefers to just paly with light and candles and the only way the dark atmosphere is created is (literally) by setting the film at night. The darkness, in the film's world, though is not a matter of time, but a time of mood that dominates every aspect of this universe every time because of reasons owed to the human mind's condition (i.e. Madness). Is this film "mad"? Visually, it is too sane.
The mood of the film (that is created by the direction): unsuited to its subject matter. A detective that searches for a murderer that cuts the victims' hearts out and discovers a world of mental instability and disorder is a story that would require some intensity directorially. Yet the director adopts more a view of curiosity than one of complete instability. The camera, too stable to give away any indication of craziness just records what the a actors do as if being more a child that curiously sees everything as a spectacle (Poe is in the film portrayed like that; but in this film, the main hero is the detective; so for the camera to adopt the point of view of a secondary character while still making it clear that there is a protagonist is a grave mistake) rather than a person slowly sucked in a world where nothing is what it seems. More a attention is given to details (the uniforms of the soldiers) than the atmosphere of the age. It is more a period film with atmosphere than a film of atmosphere with period elements (what it should have been).
In this film, madness is a spectacle and directed accordingly. In a scene we see a family drenched in madness from head to toe, but the director gives more emphasis on their actions (thus making them an object of attention only because of what they consist of) than the characters' state. The characters, anyway, are not well developed something that could have been made up for by the direction (different montage for every character, something that could make the contradiction between how they seem and how they truly are inside apparent: they see themselves as sane, and their actions as logical, but we see their threatening presence, their faces betraying their mental state, emphasized by gros plans; the detective facing the cliff form where his daughter committed suicide and feeling so small in this world that has no space for him now that he's lost everyone {plan général}). Instead the direction is bland, same for everyone, as if waiting only for the actors to betray what they truly are (but since the film has as its subject the play of appearances, they can't) through their performances.
The performers rely more on exaggeration to communicate their mental state and worries: since the direction treats the latter more as material to see because of tis unusual character than just a quality of the characters that creates fear rather than repulsion {the director wants us to see what is happening because it is something we haven't seen before, not because this says anything about the film} the actors seem more to perform hysterically than to truly convey the undercurrent of madness that runs throughout the film (but never truly makes itself clear, to my dismay). The camera is stable, recording someone who is shouting; the conclusion we make is that the character is mad but in a way that is owed only to them and not to their environment. A film with intensity that the camera doesn't want to communicate because the director is not involved and just sees everything from distance is a film only based on the actors' performances. But without good direction that creates the film's general tone (i.e. Its intensity), the performances don't blend in well and stand out as outsiders. Christian Bale and Harry Melling are these outsiders, of whose the reactions are so antithetic to the film's calm and distanced character that they are just branded as hysteric. But intensity of performance doesn't always mean that the character is hysteric or that the actor exaggerates. It is often a sign of trauma on the part on the characters, that the actors portray with their intense reactions. The film wants to make such a case for Bale, but Scott Cooper can't show the character's mental state's dependence on his environment because the second is serene {again, stable camera}, and the first isn't. Result? The only thing that communicates madness in the film are the actors --> They are treated by the director as something special that doesn't fit with the rest of the film, and no intension is added to their reaction through the direction --> The real intention of the intensity of the actors'' performances is lost, and it seems redundant and tiring.
The director has generally distanced himself from the plot and the mystery in the film is treated more as a puzzle to solve from a safe distance than a case requiring our constant attention (and thus involvement in the film). In general, the problem with the film is that everything in it is spectacle; the characters and their actions are spectacle, the plot is spectacle, the photography is only used for "spectacular" reasons than as a real effort to produce visually the emotional tone of the film. In short, nothing there is to be examined, but to be looked at, nothing is there to engage us in the characters'' journey, but to make us watch them from afar as something different and eerie (or creepy) that has no degree of identification with us. The distance is so big between viewer and film that it just gets boring, since if films were just made to show us everything foreign that we have to see only because they are different and of which the only interesting quality is their strangeness we would have stayed in the days of the first documentaries. Now we are in an age where we can treat madness in film as something more as a spectacle and even if we lack that kind of conscience, we can just make it have a substantial character in the plot. Here, though, this character doesn't exist.
A case of lost potential, that could have been saved, had there been a better director and cinematographer.
The film is based on a book. Does this mean we have to judge the film based only on the book? Absolutely not. What we have to hope for is a good film, and one that uses the book but for background - décor and creates something new from the source material is only welcome.
(These are just general principles concerning film and its relationship with other arts from which it may borrow elements. I think that film can be a completely independent art and its relationship with literature should consist of creating through images what the book describes with words, or change the content of the book entirely if the end result is artistically satisfactory.)
COMMENTS ON THE FILM
Deficient photography. A gothic film with a gothic atmosphere was what the film should have been, would it really want to successfully imitate Poe's work. It is not, though. The colors and the way the combine creates a very bright atmosphere and the play between darkness and light gives emphasis on the latter (something that takers all the symbolism about the climate of sadness, grief, and madness that dominates the film away). The film prefers to just paly with light and candles and the only way the dark atmosphere is created is (literally) by setting the film at night. The darkness, in the film's world, though is not a matter of time, but a time of mood that dominates every aspect of this universe every time because of reasons owed to the human mind's condition (i.e. Madness). Is this film "mad"? Visually, it is too sane.
The mood of the film (that is created by the direction): unsuited to its subject matter. A detective that searches for a murderer that cuts the victims' hearts out and discovers a world of mental instability and disorder is a story that would require some intensity directorially. Yet the director adopts more a view of curiosity than one of complete instability. The camera, too stable to give away any indication of craziness just records what the a actors do as if being more a child that curiously sees everything as a spectacle (Poe is in the film portrayed like that; but in this film, the main hero is the detective; so for the camera to adopt the point of view of a secondary character while still making it clear that there is a protagonist is a grave mistake) rather than a person slowly sucked in a world where nothing is what it seems. More a attention is given to details (the uniforms of the soldiers) than the atmosphere of the age. It is more a period film with atmosphere than a film of atmosphere with period elements (what it should have been).
In this film, madness is a spectacle and directed accordingly. In a scene we see a family drenched in madness from head to toe, but the director gives more emphasis on their actions (thus making them an object of attention only because of what they consist of) than the characters' state. The characters, anyway, are not well developed something that could have been made up for by the direction (different montage for every character, something that could make the contradiction between how they seem and how they truly are inside apparent: they see themselves as sane, and their actions as logical, but we see their threatening presence, their faces betraying their mental state, emphasized by gros plans; the detective facing the cliff form where his daughter committed suicide and feeling so small in this world that has no space for him now that he's lost everyone {plan général}). Instead the direction is bland, same for everyone, as if waiting only for the actors to betray what they truly are (but since the film has as its subject the play of appearances, they can't) through their performances.
The performers rely more on exaggeration to communicate their mental state and worries: since the direction treats the latter more as material to see because of tis unusual character than just a quality of the characters that creates fear rather than repulsion {the director wants us to see what is happening because it is something we haven't seen before, not because this says anything about the film} the actors seem more to perform hysterically than to truly convey the undercurrent of madness that runs throughout the film (but never truly makes itself clear, to my dismay). The camera is stable, recording someone who is shouting; the conclusion we make is that the character is mad but in a way that is owed only to them and not to their environment. A film with intensity that the camera doesn't want to communicate because the director is not involved and just sees everything from distance is a film only based on the actors' performances. But without good direction that creates the film's general tone (i.e. Its intensity), the performances don't blend in well and stand out as outsiders. Christian Bale and Harry Melling are these outsiders, of whose the reactions are so antithetic to the film's calm and distanced character that they are just branded as hysteric. But intensity of performance doesn't always mean that the character is hysteric or that the actor exaggerates. It is often a sign of trauma on the part on the characters, that the actors portray with their intense reactions. The film wants to make such a case for Bale, but Scott Cooper can't show the character's mental state's dependence on his environment because the second is serene {again, stable camera}, and the first isn't. Result? The only thing that communicates madness in the film are the actors --> They are treated by the director as something special that doesn't fit with the rest of the film, and no intension is added to their reaction through the direction --> The real intention of the intensity of the actors'' performances is lost, and it seems redundant and tiring.
The director has generally distanced himself from the plot and the mystery in the film is treated more as a puzzle to solve from a safe distance than a case requiring our constant attention (and thus involvement in the film). In general, the problem with the film is that everything in it is spectacle; the characters and their actions are spectacle, the plot is spectacle, the photography is only used for "spectacular" reasons than as a real effort to produce visually the emotional tone of the film. In short, nothing there is to be examined, but to be looked at, nothing is there to engage us in the characters'' journey, but to make us watch them from afar as something different and eerie (or creepy) that has no degree of identification with us. The distance is so big between viewer and film that it just gets boring, since if films were just made to show us everything foreign that we have to see only because they are different and of which the only interesting quality is their strangeness we would have stayed in the days of the first documentaries. Now we are in an age where we can treat madness in film as something more as a spectacle and even if we lack that kind of conscience, we can just make it have a substantial character in the plot. Here, though, this character doesn't exist.
A case of lost potential, that could have been saved, had there been a better director and cinematographer.