Yes, eroticism, and on the verge of pornography, and yet, this is a real film, not a porn with a plot. Of course, it is lost in the background of “At first sight” (another film about a blind man, the same 1999) or “Dancer” (a 2000 film about a silent dancer), but I compared the erotic with two real dramas and do not think this comparison
more
Yes, eroticism, and on the verge of pornography, and yet, this is a real film, not a porn with a plot. Of course, it is lost in the background of “At first sight” (another film about a blind man, the same 1999) or “Dancer” (a 2000 film about a silent dancer), but I compared the erotic with two real dramas and do not think this comparison is too stretched. It is clear that this is a specific studio, apparently, for the night channel, but the entire creative staff really tried, made a good film, for which then no one will be ashamed. Yes, it has flaws, but they absolutely do not belong to the erotic component.
The main problem is that the relationship of the main characters and their happy ending could not be believed. I don't like the term "chemistry between actors," but for lack of a different definition, it remains to say that this chemistry did not arise here. There's him and she, two musicians, each with their own grief, and the film had to have a tumultuous but conflicting romance between them. Alas, the beginning of this novel was lost in abusive mentoring, the conflict arose from absolutely nothing, in the most impossible place for this, and the happy ending was attracted. The drama needs the characters to get sick at a certain point, but stick it right in the middle of a bohemian orgy, out of the blue? Really? The characters spent little time with each other, their interaction was built on intermediaries, and if that was the idea of the film, it was not disclosed. However! The characters were well revealed individually. Lucy Janner beautifully portrayed a blind musician, flawlessly played her invisible look, her attachment to the cello, her lonely passion and fear of regaining sight, without which she is already accustomed to live. And Andre Hooles perfectly portrayed an unpleasant crazy perverted aesthete, drowning two troubles in debauchery at once. These are decent acting jobs. It is a pity that the film could not more clearly intertwine these two fates.
As for the other actors/characters – they are here a little as furniture, they had little to play, neither Ivan’s assistant, nor her friend and lover have their own arches.
From a technical point of view, the film clearly lacked extras. All of this music had fewer than 10 listeners both on the street and in the vaunted concert at the climax. Obviously, that's not enough. It took 30-40 people to be credible, and getting them together for a couple of minute scenes wasn't that hard.
Music occupies a special place in the film – I don’t know what professional musicians would say about it, but everything seemed beautiful and convincing to me as a layman.
Over. The acting jobs are good, they're the ones who pulled this movie out. A little more budget, extras and a little better to work out the script – the film was not enough to become a real drama, which would be perceived at all without discounts.
|
