Two weeks later and this is no longer a wrist problem, but my whole right arm and shoulder. The dictated reviews shall continue on.
If you have seen The IT Crowd you may get where I am about to go. If not, you should check out this fake advert for Internet piracy to see where the rest of this “talk up” is going.
They say that money is the root of all evil and going by the poster for this film, which depicts two franc notes with bloodied teeth, you can tell where this film is going. In short it is the story of how an innocent bystander is taken down a path of “evil” after being handed over three counterfeit bills. I can almost see the PSA that could be made about counterfeiting money from edited sections of this film.
One thing that I can appreciate about a lot of French films is subtlety. This is a gross generalisation as there is nothing subtle about Irreversible, but as the stereotyping goes you’re looking for subtle and slow. From the get go the message of the film is about how money can make good people do bad things. For example, I am sure that the owners of the frame store are usually decent people but the actions that they take after being duped by fake currency on three occasions is morally reprehensible. Sure, they get some form of comeuppance but their actions which leads to the corruption of an innocent delivery boy cannot really be excused.
Now I’ve seen some say that this film is about how one act of corruption can cause an innocent person to do terrible things. I wholeheartedly disagree. The main focus of the film had many paths he could have gone down that would have been honest. This includes swallowing some pride and asking for his job back after being so unfairly fired (if he was that desperate for money…) and not getting himself involved in a bank robbery.
I mean, I really feel for him. The perjury that was committed that led to him losing his job is abhorrent, but in this day and age (and I mean 1980s Paris) losing a job does not mean getting involved in a bank robbery within a week. Right? He chose this path of, what he assumed, least resistance. This is where the film failed to completely immerse me. I could not suspend disbelief adequately enough to accept this line of action. Even the ending 10 minutes feels outlandish.
Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t buy it and I feel that I could be alone here.
Here was me expecting to do a French language pair and The Golden Coach ends up being an English! It just shows how much I know about cinema, and the works of Jean Renoir, doesn’t it? Apparently an Italian version of this was also created, but the director always preferred the English one.
Jean Renoir is one of a select group of directors to have 5+ films on the 1001 list. Having seen two others it is only apt that I make a comparison. Of the three this is easily the lesser, but there is no shame in this for The Rules of the Game stands as one of my favourite French films. Similarly Partie de Campagne is one of my favourite short films regardless of nationality. So it is safe to say that I appreciate the work of Jean Renoir.
The problem is that the gulf between The Golden Coach and the other two films is rather large. There is no doubting that musically and visually this is an outstanding film. You only have to watch the first 10 minutes to understand what a feast for the eyes this is. It’s just that the central plotline of Camilla and her three suitors would have been better served in a different setting.
I have seen similar ideas in other films before. The woman/man having to choose between a number of lovers of different social standing. The thing is the courting process feels so incredibly brief and the object of their affections is not exactly welcoming.
This is the point I’m going to leap to the defence of Anna Magnani. For the role that she has been given she is outstanding. It can be distracting at times to have such a strong Italian accent delivering these lines in English (in the world of the film she is speaking in Spanish) but the actress is Italian as is her character so it all makes sense.
However, the issue that I have is that she is playing a poor actress (in money not in ability) and she looks like she’s in her forties. It feels incredibly sexist to by saying this, but this isn’t realistic. Especially from the point of view of the viceroy who is willing to give up his title and wealth to be with someone who cannot give him children. If his role had been played and by Anna Magnani when she was 10 years younger I would be all for it. I would be saying this if the roles were reversed and you had three young women going after Philip Seymour Hoffman. He is arguably one of the best actors of his generation, but… you know.
I also had a really big issue with the ending. Suddenly the fourth wall was utterly broken and we have no idea of the fates of the three suitors (as far as we’re aware two of them were gonna be killed). Also after all that Camilla is told that as an actress her true happiness is on stage and not in real life. It just feels like a cop out, which aggravates me after all the groundwork that had been built to lead to the final moments. It’s still a good movie, but there is so much that could have made it exceptional.