Not Coming to a Theater Near You
You know him?”
“Not socially. His name’s Jaws, he kills people.
In nearly every way, The Earrings of Madame de… is jaw-dropping, with unmatched grace and visual splendor, acting (on Visconti’s part especially) that’s pleasantly but never overly melodramatic, and a complexity in blocking and camera movement that is so difficult to apprehend (or even to believe) that it becomes overwhelming. As Hoberman put it, Ophüls taught the camera to waltz, dollying all over the place in a way that makes contemporary camera movement, for all its Cops-like agility, seem relatively sedentary. The film has Bazins in its pants, which seems to be what moves people like Andrew Sarris to proclaim it the greatest film of all time or, as Dave Kehr plotzes, “one of the most beautiful things ever created by human hands.” And as absurd as this sounds, it’s difficult to argue, at least regarding the film’s more superficial pleasures, which, to quote Monsieur de …, are only superficially superficial.
In terms of subject matter (and cinematic perpetual motion with a slightly different application), I couldn’t help comparing this to The Rules of the Game in the way that it so obviously delights in the decadence of blithe, charming upper class twits, before moralistically slapping their wrists in the final act. I find this late-game tragic mode a little unconvincing in both films, not only because it’s a bit of a bummer, but also because it’s a little dishonest, seducing with one hand and wagging its finger with the other. If I were being really picky, I’d say that Ophüls’ La Ronde is the better film, not only displaying a more complex and assured command of tone, but also more effectively integrating his famed camera movement into the structure of the film.
But what’s the point? The Earrings of Madame de… is as wondrous and pleasing a film as you’re likely to see and of a kind that — it almost goes without saying — they just don’t make like they used to. Don’t miss the chance to see it on celluloid.
by Leo Goldsmith | Source: Janus Films 35mm Print
26 Mar 2007 1:30 PM | Comments (2)
Visconti? You mean Vittorio de Sica, right?
Also, I don’t think Ophuls is being moralistic or punishing his characters (not sure about Renoir) — seemed more like he was (if you’ll pardon the expression) ennobling them, letting them reveal unsuspected depths. But I agree the first part of the movie is more fun.
P.S. Where’s your “Island” review?
Fact-checkin’! Atta boy, Kindley. Actually, my brain was thinking that this better resembled a Visconti film than a De Sica. So, that’s really informed laziness and not just me phoning it in.
As for The Island, I’m afraid I shall have to withhold my incisive commentary on Bay’s clone-bildungsroman until I have availed myself of its doubtlessly redemptive denouement.
Same goes for my masterful reconsideration of Uncle Buck, which is already in its fourth paragraph.
Evan Kindley
26 March 2007
6:40 PM