How was this movie Oscar worthy? How does one go from The City of God to this? Admittedly, I had high expectations considering Ralph Fiennes was in it as well as Rachel Weisz (who won Best supporting actress for 1/3 of the movie - do flashbacks count?) who did some excellent work in developing such a passionate character; as opposed to the others who appear to have just been paid for breathing. I have not read John Le Carre's novel, yet it is one thing to depict a social plague within the confines of a thriller and it is another to use this very real dilemna and make it the template for a cat and mouse game. Meirelles' guerilla style camera work, although present in a few small parts in this film , does not have the effect it had in The City of God; I would, in fact, argue that it loses its effectiveness in The Constant Gardener and becomes like a snake that eats itself. Ralph Fiennes is a cardboard cut-out at the beginning of the film and is gradually animated into the world's greatest detective (I guess it would not be as tough, being a diplomat and all). As far as I am concerned, Fiennes' two finest performances are as Amon Goeth in Schindler's List and as Dennis Cleg in David Cronenberg's Spider, and this movie surely did not make me change my mind. Perhaps it is my bias, however, having seen Africa Addio (an exploitative yet interesting guerilla style-esque document on the end of colonization and the beginning of civil war) and Darwin's Nightmare more recently, I could not find myself being able to create an emotional attachment to any of the characters, yet the acting, on average was quite good. Is it really a bias though? How can you attach yourself to a thriller that attempts to be real while comparing it to a series of documentaries that push the real enough to the point that you try to convince yourself that it has to be fiction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't know about the documentaries (as I haven't seen any of them) but I, too found it impossible to identify or "emotionally attach" with any of the characters in this movie. I totally agree with your point of view on this and the rest of the stuff you said.
I don't think you had a bias of any kind in wondering why this movie was Oscar worthy. I have the book on my shelf but hadn't read it before seeing the movie. I'm not so sure I want to now, since the movie left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.
Do yourself a favour and check out The City of God, it will make The Constant Gardener look like very tame in comparison, and Darwin's Nightmare is great too but very difficult to watch, but I think that is the point. My favourite films evoke the rawest emotions out of me, and I would not have it any other way. Thanks for your comment.
Post a Comment