Maybe Paul Verhoeven is the only one who can open a movie through rape. And continue with the next scene, where rape victim Michelle (Isabelle Huppert) calmly wipes his puffy face from the beatings, boringly cleans the apartment, picks up the phone and orders dinner. The opening scenes of the painting “She” are only the beginning of a crazy and exciting experience that the viewer will get after watching the film.
To begin with, “She” is literally full of symbols. Sexual assault is often used as a plot starting point; there are several films that focus on the aftermath of rape. And "She" is in that category. Despite the boring narrative, there is always something going on in the picture and it revolves around Michelle. The world of the main character develops through several storylines: whether it is the relationship of Michelle with her son - a dumb slacker or the subtleties of life of a Botox mother with a young Alphonse. But the main focus of "She" focuses on the personal and professional life of the heroine Hupper after the rape. Michelle hides the facts from the police, buys weapons for self-defense, conducts an investigation to find possible suspects. Is the lady capable of murder? A person is in an extreme situation and due to impending paranoia confuses dark fantasies with reality. It is interesting to watch at least.
“She” is not a pure-blooded detective romance (the identity of the rapist will be revealed somewhere in the middle of the film), but rather a black comedy in the spirit of macabra. "She" can be described as an eccentric comedy of manners, in which a bunch of well-dressed Parisians gather for dinner parties, but each has a dark secret. At the same time, the film contains outrageous elements of a psychological thriller and the study of a controversial character. And the very fact that in the film special attention is paid to satire on the middle class and old-age boobs (very often in “She” you can trace the idea that by the age of 50, the human mind erases boundaries, including sexual ones), eloquently shows the elaboration of both the main character and secondary characters. All the characters of the picture (even the pope flickering in the background) are really important for the narrative. The characters themselves are important, not their individual fantasies or cruel actions. They form a world ruled by Michelle's revenge. In the end, all of Michelle’s actions are only a reaction to the behavior of others.
Acting. Many venerable actresses refused the role of Michelle, barely reading the script. I believe that there is simply no woman in Hollywood who can convey the character of the heroine. The whole film is based on the extremely complex and charismatic acting of Huppert. I think this is the best role in her career, she was able to outshine even “The Pianist”.
By the way, Paul Verhoeven in an interview about the film clearly demonstrated that he enjoyed the squeamish reaction of an individual audience. I believe that this was the main task of Verhoeven’s new project – not the desire to please the audience, but rather to keep the viewer in a state of discomfort. Also, I noted that when describing his creation, the venerable director constantly uses words such as “contradictory” and “inconvenient”. I think these words best describe this deeply disturbing film. But I would add another word: “provocative.” An intriguing French thriller that will not suit everyone.
In general, I was rooting for the coolest Isabel Hupper. My film weekend recently completed the picture 'She' veteran Paul Verhoeven, the author of the same ' Basic Instinct'.
Of course, Emma Stone also impresses me madly, but her vanilla Mia still gives way to the tough bitchy fem-fatal, energetic and cold-blooded grandmother Michelle, masterfully played by the unfading Hupper (she is loved primarily for the starlet-aunt from ' Eight Women' Ozone).
So, in the Verhoeven/Huppert tandem comes a tough, almost sterile, but at the same time outrageously confused drama about violence, the attitude of the victim and the rapist (who is who), ' the young' the old generation and the glorified French free mores in relation to love, sex and similar adult themes. Of course, the Oscar would not be an Oscar if European cinema were given one of the major awards. Well, Stone also has a lot of other great roles. A'She' so flaunts nominations and awards such major awards as Cannes, Cesar, Goya and the Golden Globe.
8 out of 10
Naturally, for Hupper and her wide acting range under the mask of a cold-blooded bitch, disdainfully getting rid of the ashes of her mother in an almost accidentally caught river, but not disdaining the violence of her coveted neighbor.
The film ' She' is a new psychological thriller from cult director Paul Verhoeven.
From the very beginning of the film, we are shown that the main character is brutally raped. And as if smartly, you have to go and write a report to the police, but for some reason she decides everything ' let go ' and does nothing.
She's rich, successful and single. She says unpleasant things to her family and friends. She's cynical. And yes, she's a woman, a mother, and now she's a grandmother.
Working as a director in a game company, her life gradually becomes a game and sometimes she no longer sees the lines between what is allowed and not.
The film is delayed in places, but this does not particularly affect the overall picture. Separately, I want to celebrate the acting game. She's on top here.
And of course Isabelle Huppert. At 63 years old, she looks amazing.
8 out of 10
She's... If Spike Jonze in his 2013 film has a soulless but masterfully imitating human feelings operating system, Paul Verhoeven has a cynical and cruel, dehumanized public morality.
However, without modern technology here, too, did not do. The main character of the film Michelle LeBlanc (Isabelle Huppert), a strong, successful and self-sufficient woman, heads a company that produces hard video games - and refers to violence on the screen without unnecessary sentiment, pragmatically monetizing it. She does not mind playing BDSM herself, and at the same time is ready to lynch the rapist without resorting to the help of the police.
Despising weaklings and losers, She ruthlessly breaks people from her environment who do not obey her, do not fit into the framework of narrow ideas about how to behave and how not to behave. This is an elderly mother who decided to jump out to marry Alphonse, a rag son who adores his bitch-wife and sincerely believes that the black stepson is his own child, etc. Verhoeven, balancing on the verge of what is allowed, shows these characters as public morality sees them, and we buy into this trick, swallow the hook - and try to put all the wrong people in a kind of Procrustean bed.
And how can we not remember the heroine’s own father – a maniac who destroyed all his neighbors, a terrible monster, whose image unwittingly evokes associations with fascism, who committed reprisals against all “others”. By the way, the “right” daughter hates the unworthy parent so fiercely that even he, unable to withstand this hatred, has no choice but to “go and hang himself.” Here is such bitter, sarcastic humor from Verhoeven, who, evilly mocking his heroine, presents her without embellishment and certainly does not feed her account any special illusions.
10 out of 10
One morning, the owner of a large computer game development company, Michelle LeBlanc, is brutally raped in her own home by an unknown man in a ski mask. Surprisingly, Michelle takes the incident quite calmly, does not go to the police and even seeks to somehow find out the name of the attacker, poorly understanding what this can lead to.
After reading dozens of reviews of this film online, I never found what I saw in the film myself. Many reasonably write that in his new film, Paul Verhoeven in his usual manner condemned modern society, exposed its hidden vices and hidden desires, outlined a circle of both sexual and simply social deviations, and demonstrated the depth of the decline of moral mores. I agree with all these conclusions, but I am not ready to row all people under the same comb and go too far in hasty conclusions. Still, in my personal opinion, the film ' She' is a picture of weakness in its various manifestations. But the fact that all the characters of this tape are weak people does not make absolutely weak all members of the human race.
And ' Weakness' like ' Strength' are neither universal nor comprehensive. Everyone is weak in their own way and in something specific. Someone, like the heroine Michelle, can not forget his past and at the first opportunity clings to a rather unusual exit from the vicious circle ' home - work - lover', someone shows weakness in the pursuit of ostentatious ' cheap ' violence, someone is weak in his infidelity spouse, someone can not manage his anger, someone haphazardly and thoughtlessly relies on his faith, someone can not cope with criticism, someone - with the aging process, and someone, like the son of Michelle, just ' rag. Paul Verhoeven, not shy at all, hints to his viewer that more or less every first in this world is weak in something. And I can't argue with him because that's true. The very notion of weakness can be subjected to a reasonable gradation. To be so insecure and complex moral freak to rape women is one thing, and, for example, not to be able to resist a rude saleswoman is, you will agree, quite another. So I wouldn't take Paul Verhoeven's diagnoses too seriously.
Of course, speaking about the film ' She', it is impossible not to mention the acting talent of Isabelle Huppert, who is 63 years old for a second, which, of course, cannot be said for this role. Her acting courage can only rival her artistic talent, and the image of Michelle, on the verge between a complex woman and a fierce aggressive fury, Hupper certainly succeeded. It is good that the jury of the Academy Awards still made this actress in the top five, despite the bureaucratic obstacles that arose between the tape itself and the category ' Best Foreign Language Film'.
In a word, 'She' is a very good film with an unconditional pearl in the person of Isabel Huppert, with the inner content of which, however, I can not agree one hundred percent. However, this does not give me reason to argue that Paul Verhoeven is not a talented author with his strict life position, which can and should be respected.
8 out of 10
A good movie is easy to tell. What's "She" about? About a woman. Who has a bad life. Everything. Dad's a maniac. Mom in old age was completely crazy and was going to marry a young Alphonse. Ex-husband is a rag. The adult son is all about his father. And I picked up a girl whose child is clearly not his, plus a tattoo with someone else's male name on the tit. The lover is the husband of a best friend, a total goat - and enjoys it. Her friend has lesbian tendencies and a prodigal look. At work, young subordinates consider her a stupid rich bitch - and bully as they can. That's life. They were raped as well.
So what does an aunt do? It's nothing special. Something worked out as well as I could, something worked out on its own. At work, the result was given, the husband helped, the son warmed up. Life goes on. Not for everyone, though.
At first, watching is quite difficult and unpleasant. And the point is not even in the rape of the elderly, to put it mildly, the main character, with which the film actually begins. Things are no better, even if not so shocking. Throughout the picture, unpleasant people do unpleasant things. They don’t care much about their unpleasantness.
Cold and carelessly disguised anger. A lifeless world where aggression rejoices: it means that someone does not care about you. So dead-inhumane - and so ordinaryly recognizable that shivering and all the time want to turn off and forget. But you look and you repeat to yourself: it's not Haneke or Lars von Trier, it's Verhoeven, everything will be fine. And all the same, the whole film is balanced between: “Yes, people, do to yourself!” and “so you, cattle, and should!”
And only towards the end do you realize that you saw and believed for good reason. This is the main thing, in my opinion, the miracle of the film, where exactly the same thing happens to the viewer as with the main character. We look and believe - and she gradually finds the strength to live in spite of everything, scraping the remnants of love in spitting corners.
That’s why the ending is so painfully bright, as if he did not react to such a situation under other circumstances.
“The greatest danger comes from you.”
... Such words one of the characters of the film says the main character in the performance of the stunning Isabel Huppert. French film Verhoeven, a Dutchman by birth, famous most for his American paintings, for more than 2 hours trying to mimic either black comedy or social drama, the main line seems to show us a thriller. Suddenly, the subject of rape is treated almost with a feminist approach. And if you do not forget that it is Verhoeven and this is French cinema, it becomes quite organic eroticism, violence and tons of sarcasm about the life of the European middle class in the frame. It is impossible not to mention the work of the operator and composer of the film, thanks to which we get a real suspense without any frankly frightening scenes and an atmosphere of coldness and indifference inherent in principle to almost all the characters of the picture.
Of course, the director did not miss the choice of the actress for the main role. Someone has compared Huppert’s role to her character in The Pianist, which is not a careful comparison. In addition to the fact that the film Haneke also shows violence against the heroine performed by Isabel, there is little in common. Haneke's film is about the horror of loneliness and dislike. It is difficult to feel sympathy for the main character, but it is obvious that she has to endure suffering by her own example. Speaking of "She," I didn't want to put these lines in the title, because they perfectly characterize Michelle. The further you watch Verhoeven's film, the more you realize that the scariest thing is not a masked stranger breaking into your house. Not that a loved one can betray. Not even death. How the main character reacts to all this. She does not commit direct actions, but her words and emotions accompanying various events in her life and the lives of people around her are frightening. They are frightened by their pragmatism and directness. But not everything is so unambiguous, there is a child psychological trauma, the subsequent Stockholm syndrome (and perhaps not associated with it) and the absence of any “moralization” inherent in Hollywood films in the film. As a result, one of the most discussed films of the year, nominations and victories at various film festivals. Subtle psychology without accurate answers always breeds controversy.
She is a psychological film from Paul Verhoeven, a veteran of time-tested non-standard films that are designed for an adult audience. The plot tensely conveys everyday life with its nervous impulses and people performing their functions in a huge urban anthill. But the action would not be too interesting in terms of the script, did not include the filmmakers in the narrative close to the modern audience style and entourage. Young people and fans of video games, in addition to the delightful dynamics of the thriller component, will be happy with references to the gaming industry, in particular, the French studio Cyanide, which perfectly fits into the vision of the director, and just suitable for the main place - Paris. The main heroine Michel (Isabel Hupper) is a developer of computer games, one day facing all the sins of society. What happened does not break her steely and mature character. The protagonist is tempered by events, does not lose self-control and conducts a specific investigation that is not without risk.
Paul Verhoeven is known for directing such projects as: Robocop, Remember everything, Basic Instinct, Shougels, Star Troops, Invisible.
Over time, the principle of plot in the plot is included. It seems not the most outstanding material, with every minute it becomes more interesting and accelerates so much that the make-up intrigue unexpectedly shoots. An important factor is live dialogues and characters. Dialogues and chemistry between people are real, in some ways simple, philosophically meaningful and suggestive of edifying morality. The tape contains a lot of cruelty, candid scenes, but it looks easy and the time spent on it flies unnoticed. The pace goes along the same road, does not turn or slow down, therefore, interest in all common components bribes.
Beautiful camera work is perfectly combined with musical accompaniment, acting at a height, and directing is excellent - the highest refinement.
The first scene of the film is a cat, a beautiful gray cat, who watches with interest what is happening to his mistress, and exactly the following happens - she is raped. Next, the rapist gets up, pulls up his pants and walks out the door through which he broke in to commit his violent act. Next, we see how our main character, not particularly panicking, gets up, collects fragments and goes to take a bath. Apparently, the situation scared her, but to shock, humiliate, trample, ruin her life? Well, no, our heroine and actually the whole film is not about that at all.
It’s about how strange “She” is about violence. Honestly, I, like many people, wondered throughout the film, what was wrong with her? Why such a reaction? In my opinion, if she threw herself out the window, even such a reaction to rape and beating would seem more adequate, and she just buys a couple of self-defense items, dreams of crushing the rapist’s head with some plate, tries to calculate the scoundrel, suspects everyone around and continues to live as if nothing had happened.
But in all of the above and there is all the highlight of the film, more precisely in the heroine (which I will talk in more detail later). She is such a complex and shrouded in mystery person that with every minute of the film it is more interesting and interesting to watch. To say that Paul Verhoeven turned out to be an action-packed thriller is nothing to say, the film is really addictive, and the atmosphere and mood of the film, which is transmitted literally through the screen and makes you constantly be on the lookout just falls in love with the film from the first minutes. This film really impressed me, I will definitely review it several more times.
I would like to describe in more detail the heroine of the film – Michelle. She's gorgeous. I love movies that have a strong female character, but Michelle is one of the strongest characters. Yes, maybe her attitude to the violence committed against her is a little embarrassing, and in real life, of course, not one woman, not even the strongest, will have such a reaction, but Michelle is amazing. Without panic, she continues to live on, and she will only mention what happened once - by the way, telling her friends about it at dinner and eventually drawing a line under it all by saying that there is nothing to discuss here. When asked why Michelle has such an attitude to violence Paul Verhoeven and the team of writers do not give an unambiguous answer, perhaps it comes from her childhood (Michelle is not a simple heroine, her family is not simple, especially her father), perhaps this is something that there is in Michelle herself why she is so easy to relate to this, but I did not find a clear answer for myself, only the version.
Isabelle Huppert is absolutely gorgeous. I always admire her from film to film. It was Hupper who gave Michelle such strength and perseverance, because it is not the first time she played strong and domineering heroines (at least remember Erica from The Pianist). I know that Paul Verhoeven wanted to shoot this film adaptation in the US and find an American actress for the role of Michelle, but no one could bring Michelle to life better than Hupper. And in general, I would like to say that I am glad that this film is still produced by European cinema, rather than American, so it feels a special atmosphere inherent only in European films. Isabelle Huppert once again falls in love with me as a spectator and I wish her that her Golden Globe awards for this role will not end, she truly deserves all her nominations.
Bottom line: the film "She" is a stunning, action-packed, psychological thriller, which may be at first introduces into a stupor, but then as the plot develops, it becomes more interesting and interesting, the finale for someone may seem unexpected, because in this film there is a rule - to suspect everyone. Behind the mask of the rapist can be absolutely anyone. The film has an excellent script, an eminent and venerable director, a very talented actress who plays the main role and an exciting thriller atmosphere. Therefore, I recommend this film to all lovers of action films, the magnificent Isabel Huppert and the master of quality cinema Paul Verhoeven. Enjoy your visit and thank you for your attention.
Otstots pervertots, grandmother is healthy,
Otz-totz pervertoc, eat compote,
Otz-tots pervert, and dreams again
Otz-totz pervert, survive the raid.
This means: director Paul Verhoeven, Golden Globe, France, Isabelle Huppert. Thriller. Drama. Any questions? In my opinion, everything is very clear - a lot of sex, perversions, violence, etc. are guaranteed. But... Hupper is already in the seventh ten - what will we sell? And then the much-vaunted outrageousness betrays the authors and they cockEtlivo give Hupper for 49-year-old. 49 and 63 are different ages. You tell me not to pick on me? Why is that? If you want to shock and laugh, go to the end, 63 is much more unconventional than 49.
Okay, back to the story, and there's rape and bodily harm. What emotions do you think a survivor of such violence will feel? Not just a victim, but a victim from Verhoeven's film. From a Golden Globe-winning movie. Victim played by Isabel Huppert. The victim is experiencing... Testing the victim. . .
Of course, a feeling of deep satisfaction. Well, again.
For decency, of course, it depicts something like concern, and the desire for revenge, however, is not particularly zealous. (Hello to Russian 'Portrait at dusk' by the way.)
And so almost the whole movie: if your mother is an old woman - it means marrying a young Alphonse stallion, if your father is a zealous Catholic - it means a maniac, if the father is a maniac - a daughter with a jerk, if teenagers - it means dream to fuck the boss 60+, if girlfriends - it means lesbians, if a girlfriend husband - it means lover, if your neighbor is a zealous Catholic - then you should get her husband in the pants ... Here lies the weakness of the film - the predictability of vulgarity. One has only to remember who the director and who the actress is - both the most daring & #39; and shocking semantic twists can be predicted unmistakably. All these moves have long become common places for the venerable provocateur Verhoeven and a nymphomaniac with fifty years of experience Isabel Huppert.
However, the film is still not stupid, not boring, visually impeccable, with all the comic is not without drama and, in its own way, talented. Verhoeven and Hupper are absolute stars. A bygone era. But whether the epoch is passing too long or nothing is coming to replace it, only all this modest charm of the bourgeoisie over the past fifty years has somehow lost its former modesty and acquired some unhealthy obsession with the old insanity.
Troubled times are usually accompanied by a surge of sexual pathologies. And not just sexy. The glimpse that casts the lifestyle of the main character is much larger. This film reveals the essence and roots of the phenomenon, the consequence of which is what is happening before our eyes in continental Europe. This is for you and the crowds of migrants sitting on the neck of power, this is the connivance of this very government, and a tough crime. Mark my word, it will only take a few years for old Europe to legalize incest and pedophilia. The name of this phenomenon is political correctness.
Isibel Huppert is a brilliant actress! She knows how to show a broken soul. It is thanks to her play that what is happening on the screen is perceived as trauma and its consequences, and not as something that needs to be tactfully and shamefully turned away under the slogan “everyone’s personal business” or raised as a slogan over their heads ' Yes! freedom of sexual perversions'.
In general, everything that happens on the screen is scary and gives rottenness. I don't understand this "civilized" habit of home-friending after a divorce. In this sense, the Christmas scene is just the apotheosis of political correctness: everything is filled with hypocrisy. Internal contempt, cynicism and ostentatious decency. The heroine Hupper is a person who wants to control everything: the life of an adult son, ex-husband, a wonderful elderly mother. That desire makes her a calculating bitch. But it also helps her to successfully realize her career. But not everything is controlled. And even the victim was not typical. It seems that nothing can break, surprise, embarrass or frighten this woman. But maybe it's because it's already broken. She knows exactly when and how it happened.
So many thoughts come from this movie! Thank you so much to the authors for that! I still find it difficult to understand them and build a picture of my attitude to what I saw. But it was worth a look.
I finally saw this movie. The painting evokes mixed feelings. I won’t tell you what or how, but I’ll tell you the first scene. A gray cat watches as his mistress, the main character (Isabelle Huppert) is raped.
The film tells about the decline of morality and morality, about vices that are loyally perceived by our contemporaries. Violence and perverted sexual taste today will not surprise anyone. This is probably the main idea of the painting.
Michelle, performed by Huppert, is absolutely delightful! I will not dwell on the appearance, although the costumers and makeup artists have fully worked out their blood, morally Michelle is a very strong woman who is used to coping with all problems herself, cruel, sarcastic, this character will remain in my memory for a long time.
The picture is saturated with eroticism and routine gloom, but it looks in one breath.
I watched this film especially at the right time, and even if I did not have the desire to change my life, to rethink something in it that every director tries to achieve by releasing another picture, and especially such a picture, but I still smiled malignantly in some places.
Enjoy it, great thriller.
The parody of Verhoeven to Verhoeven, Hupper to Hupper
“She” is a very illustrative example of how in the pursuit of an attempt to shock and provoke the viewer to an allegedly frank dialogue, absolutely nothing is worth it. Complete nonsense in the plot, no-one’s unnecessary leapfrog with secondary characters and the parody role of Hupper on herself in “The Pianist”. I understand why all the leading Hollywood actresses refused this role. And the point is not at all in the frank scenario, but in how normal the viewer is still - whether he likes the complete perversion, which in the modern world everyone is trying to justify.
In the film “She” the main character seems to be trying to get away from the past, live a normal life and adhere to at least some values, but apparently no one has ever managed to escape from herself.
Hatred of the father, the behavior of the mother, their own family failures, the understanding that the son grew up completely independent person, unable, unlike the main character, to make their own decision. The heroine Huppert, surrounded by a rabble that only vaguely resembles men, needs some kind of power...and how does she find that power? . . .
Verhoeven, who also seems to have trouble expressing eroticism, tries to repeat the success of his Basic Instinct, but to no avail. No normal viewer will understand what the director would like to say.
5 out of 10
The name of Paul Verhoeven is quite familiar to the audience, but if you ask what his tapes tell about, then opinions are divided. Someone remember major Hollywood blockbusters in which it was shown how bleak the author sees our future. Others will recall historical tapes showing fragments of his country's history in an unusual way. Well, someone will remember that the director started with everyday and most realistic films. But all these categories of viewers will converge in one Verkhoven always knew how to raise uncomfortable topics and with age this ability only grew stronger.
Here is an attempt to analyze both our unhealthy society as a whole, and especially aggressive cockroaches filling the minds of the main characters. Almost every hero of this film is mentally ill, they are all oppressed by something, but in a society where external signs of success are important, they are all well arranged. And it does not matter whether there is even a hint of moral principles, nor old phobias, nor a broken psyche. As long as a person has a position in society, all this will pass for slight fads.
The picture is certainly unsightly, but in some ways it can be honest. Watching these people’s lives is sometimes frustrating. But what really confused me was the choice of the actress for the role of the main character. Isabel Hupper plays wonderfully, but this does not save from the fact that the actress is much older than her heroine. Therefore, all the delights and flirtations of male characters with her look absolutely unnatural.
One thing can be said for sure, this film is not one that leaves the viewer indifferent, it can cause outrage, may sincerely not like it, but may cause stormy delights, but in any outcome it will reach the viewer.
When a player kills an orc, he must feel blood, warm and thick on his hands.
The film by Paul Verhoeven, “She”, based on the novel by Philip Jian “Oh....”
The film is about the hidden phobias of people, about the wounds of the soul, about the struggle with the external, / world / and internal, / world /, about the human and animal nature, and therefore about the moral and immoral, and not only.
Paul Verhoeven is a Dutch and American cult director. He began his career in television and made short films. The first full-length films brought the viewer into a state of culture shock. He worked in Europe, then in America, then again in Europe. The first received the prize "Golden raspberry" for "Showgirls".
Philippe Gian is quite a prolific French writer, produces two novels a year, to date there are 20. Gian's books are filmed, and he is considered "the most unpredictable writer in France."
As for the film, I will say at once, the film is not easy, there is something to think about in it, there is something to correlate with your worldview and life experience.
First, a small preface:
A brutal rape, watched indifferently by a fat cat. From the point of view of the cat, nothing terrible is happening, nothing unusual, pure physiology is no more.
And a little synopsis:
Michelle LeBlanc, Isabelle Huppert, quite a successful woman, / about fifty years old / the owner of a studio for the development of computer games, she has an adult son and, ... a lot of problems, /as indeed, any person /.
Best friend, co-owner of a computer games studio, Anna, Anna. Her husband, Michelle’s part-time lover, Robert, Christian Bergel. And Michelle’s ex-husband, the unrecognized writer Richard, who has a new liking. Rebecca’s neighbor with flies in her head, Virginia Rebecca, and her attractive and wealthy husband, banker Patrick, Laurent Lafitte. And the son, Jonas Bloque, with whom Michelle can not find a common language, the pregnant wife of his son. Michelle's mother, Judith Maghr, has an affair with a young Alphonse, and a criminal father convicted of a mass murder committed many years ago in the presence of then ten-year-old Michelle. And a lot of different people, / well, just a Babylonian pandemonium /.
And exactly, she became a victim of violence, but instead of reporting to the police, (who for obvious reasons does not trust) not very upset decides to find the rapist.
A few thoughts on:
The film is billed as a drama and thriller (a comedy about rape), but further action fits more into the definition of farce, /in light of spiritual transformation /.
Michelle's actions do not fit into any framework. She's on her mind, and what's on her mind is a dark forest. Yeah, she wants revenge. But who's the offender? Her long-standing resentment towards others comes from the past and is projected onto the present. Projected on those who are trying to support her, on friends, on loved ones and everyone, everyone, everyone. She is trying to prove to herself that she is not an extra person in this world.
Why does it happen in our world that a person feels superfluous? As an explanation, we are offered a story of childhood psychological trauma, the consequences of which manifest themselves in adulthood. Only this story with a double bottom, with a triple morality and not at all what the viewer expects.
We try to realize ourselves in the world, and we try to take everything from life. And we are achieving something, and our successes are growing, but there is no moral satisfaction. In other words, there is no happiness in life.
Somewhere something interferes with the harmonious system of our values. Something inside, in the brain, in the soul, somewhere deep, something I wanted to forget. It is something on the subconscious level that guides our actions, our thoughts, our future. And despite the fact that there is no past, (well, except that in memories, and in variants of alternative development of the situation), for us our past is important.
It is important for us to kill a virtual orc, (not for nothing Michelle is engaged in computer games), well, we will kill, and then it turns out that this is not an orc at all, but your best friend and you killed him not virtually, but really. Without blood, in a word, but really killed and to replay this game is impossible, because it was not a game, and your life. And you are not a player, but just a miserable person who did not manage his life correctly.
But that’s not all, let’s continue.
Once upon a time, the world showed us its blunt power. Since that time, we have grown stronger, gained intelligence, life experience and doubted the correctness of world laws. We decided that it was possible to live according to personal concepts, kindness, justice, and not much else. So, we live by personal concepts, and life. And it's not glued more precisely, glued, but not in the way we understand it. And the same story, there is no happiness in life.
No, and it won't be until you know it.
Everything that happens to us, no matter how terrible, from the point of view of time, eternity, the world order, the Lord God, the Truth, is nothing terrible, nothing unusual, it is the same pure physiology.
This world will never live according to our concepts.
If you want to be happy, learn to forgive, learn to forget the bad, learn to truly love, learn to enjoy life. As long as you are alive, it is possible.
It's still possible.
Paul Verhoeven in his directorial creation “She” moves from mess and chaos to calm and order, but seems to overdo it. His heroine has too many personal problems, and even some maniac breaks into her house, beats her and rapes her. But this is just the beginning of the film, all the other problems will be revealed later. Problems and psychological trauma associated with parents, problems with her husband and colleagues at work, problems with her son and his new bride. Why all this? Verhoeven tells us: she's just confused. Although, on the other hand, perhaps people of the age of the main character really have so many problems?
Despite all the above, the film will look easy, and in places can even laugh. Nor will Verhoeven be confused by another thought, which he expressed vividly: at the age of fifty or seventy, all moral norms will be erased. All the characters, as it turns out, have already cheated on each other, they will change in the frame, so be prepared to witness the dilapidated wrinkled charms of the participants in this action. True, all these betrayals will come to the fore, overriding the idea of bringing order to the head, but in the end she, the heroine of Hupper, will say a couple of phrases and come to logical conclusions, considering the life of her mother and everything will fall into place. All except for the complete perception of the plot.
“She” is a drama with a mixture of humor and thriller about the difficult rethinking of herself and her environment by a sixty-year-old woman who will show us some human vices and dirty lusts, but will treat them quite loyally, especially for our time, so she will not break through the necessary emotions.
Verhoeven this time made a movie in Trierovsky crafty. It seems that he is watching the audience in secret, for our reactions to what is happening, enjoying the effect. Of course, I boldly attributed my own vision to the director, but “the courage of the city takes,” as they said. If not for this, then why did he show a woman to the world like this - with an all-metal core under a fragile shell? How “hardened this steel” we can guess in general terms, Verhoeven omits the details, leaving on the surface only that the “smiths” were men at first, and then the creation was psychologically modified independently. And now many times humiliated weak-willed husband, once raised his hand on her; trampled the marriage of a lover who forgot that sex has two; encouragingly caressed infantile son, who will never become self-sufficient, finding himself with a mother with a Gehetti; even a maniac father and he prefers a date with an old woman with a oblique meeting with her daughter. Will the weak rapist resist her? She will chew it and spit it out, not forgetting to use it utilitarianly and have fun. Very quickly this false detective removes the “balaclava” from the handsome stockbroker looking for a thrill away from the God-fearing wife; very quickly this false drama changes the places of the offender and the victim; very quickly this false feminist manifesto returns everything to its place, showing that the victim was, and worst of all, there will always be She, deprived of her true nature, able only to suppress, but in the eternal search of someone who can suppress her. This is not even role-playing games, not a struggle for influence, in this case it is a disease, it is perhaps the only honest phrase spoken on the screen that should be taken literally.
Curiously, more recently in The Handmaid, Park Chan-wook resorted to the well-known erotic image from the engraving “Dream of the Fisherman’s Wife” in order to make it clear that the liberated woman rejects this kind of enslaving male fantasy, so Verhoeven used a modern version of Hokusai’s work, turning to the genre of tentakli, in order to demonstrate that the woman inside of which yin has replaced yin, paradoxically it sounds, is ready to meet male sexual needs, suffer from it and respond, unable to change anything. A curious theory from an older Dutchman. Although, in fairness, there will be one man in the film, to whom the heroine sincerely shakes hands, and he deserves it exclusively by honesty, directness and talent. Stepping aside, we women don't need much. There's a little bit more about religion in the film, but it hasn't been properly addressed, so it's not particularly interesting to talk about it. Of course, Hupper, as always, is delightful, bold, uninhibited, skillful and doomed to comparison with herself in Haneke. It seems to me that there is no reason to draw an analogy, in a sense, the actress continued, of course, the topic of sexual deviations in a very adult woman, which arose on the basis of abnormal relations with her parents, but on the other hand, announced that everyone himself cares for his inner monster.
She is a wealthy Parisian, the owner of a large company, the mother of an already grown son and the daughter of a man who once did something most terrible and irreparable. At first glance, it seems that she is doing well: prosperity, a luxurious house, good friends, even with her ex-husband did not mutual hatred after so many years. But all this is only an external gloss, behind which, as is often reported, a deep personal drama and psychological trauma hide.
The story of this film is multifaceted, it is not centered around a single character, just the opposite: Paul Verhoeven gives the viewer the opportunity to become an observer of several lives that are closely intertwined. Remove one of them, and immediately some side of the personality of the characters will remain unlit. The whole story is holistic and tells about people for whom norms and morals are not written, about people whose souls have already partially died. But for some reason I don’t want to condemn them.
The choice for this film fell completely by chance after I saw the picture of Tom Ford & #39; Under the cover of night' (still the title 'Nocturnal animals' I like more). Both films are about grown women with a difficult past, and both women try to escape from it, to forget, each does it in its own way. However, Isabelle Huppert eventually decides to come face to face with herself in an unusual way.
What distinguishes an experienced woman who has seen a lot in this life is that she is much more resistant and cold to even the most terrible things that happen to her. In the film ' She' we will not see how rape breaks the human psyche, we will not see spiritual suffering, liters of tears, moral dilemma and the ensuing Resurrection' as it might have been if the main character was twenty years younger. She is curious and confused about what is happening. She doesn't go to the police, she doesn't panic. It only tries to understand the reasons for what happened and through these reasons to reveal what was overlooked under the external gloss of life.
Childhood trauma becomes a catalyst for further perception of life. She does not trust men, she allows herself to intrigue with the husband of her best and only friend. She easily turns people and literally at the click of her fingers decides the fate of several people at once. And she likes it. Violence is not always just physical violence.
I liked the ending of the movie. Thanks to her ' insight ' the main character gives something very necessary for her loved ones. Husband, son, girlfriend, even neighbor. She gives herself something important, but has she become different? Hardly. It was another game, from which she easily came out the winner. My parents died, life goes on. Someone else has died - life still goes its own way. It is a reality, whatever it is, but it is.
The picture itself is made so that it is interesting to watch. The component related to the thriller genre does not cause any terrible disgust. This film shows the history of the human soul, even several souls at once, and each of them is sinful in its own way, but also human in its own way. Some can forgive, others can tell the truth. Such is our world: heterogeneous, ambiguous, sometimes cruel to the point of madness, but it can not be otherwise. From everything else will save the mastercard and faith.
Like many others, he came to this film through the list of nominees for the Palm Branch of Cannes and the shortlist of the best films of the year from the editorial office of Kinopoisk. But nothing but disappointment I have experienced what pleasure there is.
In recent years, all sorts of interviews have proliferated both from the meters of cinema and quite ordinary personalities, about the fact that, they say, modern cinema is not that, and the film adaptation of comics is to blame. It's funny to read. Almost all superhero films are blockbuster action films, where the stake is on special effects, on pathos, no one there even thought about the deep meaning, such is the genre. Now they are in the mainstream, but no more, this is not all that the modern world of cinema is capable of. Why don’t we blame the lack of depth on Stallone, Schwarzeneger, or Chuck Norris – these are entertainment movies, there was no such purpose. We owe it to modern youth that superhero blockbusters have become a trend, however, it is simply foolish to associate modern film art, including its shortcomings, with this genre. Especially since there are quality works here. Do you really think the Guardians & #39 or Nolan's Batman trilogy are bad movies?
What is really depressing is the supposedly great directors making a supposedly great movie. This is the second such hit this year after the "Swiss man knife" #39. But in general, it was full of game, and here it is - noodles were thrown in the ears, and many easily bought. I believe that such works are the problem of modern cinema, because the creators and critics assure us that we see real art on the screen, and those who do not understand are ignorant, and in general, there is no rule on you, such fools. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
And now for our film.
First, if the director is Verhoeven, then expect a lot of eroticism, sex and vulgarity. And what will be ' Secondly ' no one cares. The old business model is sex sells well. So Paul Verhoeven made a name for himself on such banalism, however, always relevant and valuable as precious metals. And the critics just praise as much as heaven - look what a brilliant work. I think it's an empty air shaking. And, if, at one time, the works of, for example, Warhol were also quite simple, however, they were rightfully innovative and aesthetically very cool. That's ' She' can't boast of anything like that. The topic of rape is as old as the world, and trying to play this story in a new light is a deception and provocation. Here are the words ' provocation', ' glamour' and ' shocking' the best way to describe modern art as a whole, and for free that there is nothing meaningful behind it all.
According to the description, it seems that our heroine Michelle, who was abused, decided not to go to the police, but to take revenge on the abuser and now a real thriller, a game of cat and mouse between the victim and the perpetrator, will begin. Fuck you, it's not that close. You know, it may be a well-known movie template, but it works if you correctly beat it. Here is not even ' it seems', and you can say quite confidently that Verhoeven's main task was to shoot a couple of scenes of a sexually deviant nature with Isabelle Huppert, and everything else, so tinsel - you had to cook something from above to make the film.
Therefore, Verhoeven coped with his main task, but no more.
The script in many ways can be called far-fetched and primitive - the first half of the film I was generally slightly confused by the simply stupid actions of the main character, then in the club ' stupid and even dumber' the rest of the participants, led by the rapist, whose identity, by the way, I figured out almost immediately. And all this happens in a fairly chambered environment, there is no thriller here and does not smell. Actually, the whole script is an ode to human stupidity, and ' stupid stupidity' there is nothing profound here, at all! Even if you drop everything and focus exclusively on the topic of sex and violence, then there is nothing new and interesting, so, provocation, acting on idle minds. For some reason it seems to me that even Freud and his followers would be ashamed of the primitivism and clumsiness with which their ideas are depicted.
Characters can be classified into 3 main types: good, bad, contradictory. Michelle performed by Isabel Huppert can not be attributed to any of them - ' neither fish nor meat' Again, all the laudatory reviews on this score - the director's provocation worked - look at what bold scenes of violence we filmed with the actress, who is already 63 years old! Michelle doesn’t look like a broken victim of violence, a strong person, eager for revenge, or a femme fatale (that’s kind of something that should have come out in the end). In fact, all the characters suffer from infantility, bordering on idiocy. Most of the characters are undisclosed, and the violent scenes with Hupper and Lafitte are extremely inconclusive. What I believed was the conflict between Michelle Vincent's son and his fiancée Josie. However, this storyline, like other side conflicts, is nothing more than another parasitism, now on the cinematic stamp about family quarrels. Critics like that. To this can be added the fact that a series of negative events concerning the main character, looks artificially adjusted. You can see in this all the playfulness and contrived script. Sorry, but it smells like a regular TV soap.
The finale of the picture is very simple, predictable, it can be accused of a very dubious quality of realism, based on how events developed. In fact, we are not given any useful life advice either.
In the end, Paul Verhoeven could not show anything intelligible, which corresponds to the concept 'drama' or 'Thriller' and, importantly, he did not try. One of the worst works of the director, in no comparison with his ' Basic Instinct' and 'Shougels'.
I watched this movie outside the company and didn’t miss it. It’s better to concentrate on the movie and understand (I think) the essence that Paul Verhoeven wanted to convey to us. From the beginning, I suspected that I would not spend time in vain. That's how it turned out.
Paul and the team did a very good job. Now to the cinema.
Michelle has lost her temper, her self-control since she was a child, since her father was free and feared society. He is responsible for all the psychological conflicts in her life. Animal instinct generates violence, perversion, beating and many other antisocial consequences. I haven't read the novel yet, so it makes no sense to compare. The whole plot is constantly trying to knock us off our thought-out meaning. That's what affected me. The heroine constantly reminds us that I do not need your help. But she doesn’t make some decisions herself. That's how she was raised by her father to act on her instincts. It has deprived her of a rational understanding of love.
Paul Verhoeven is on top. Perfectly appreciated the whole atmosphere of the heroine's life. 'HE' a bit of a worn-out title lately. However, this name characterizes the essence of the picture. I'll be simple and modest. Thank you for your creativity!!
In the picture, I was also struck by warm, sometimes even burning tones. Cinematography is high. Genre ' still life' Verhoeven says that in art there are no boundaries. Only self-expression breeds art.
Isabelle Huppert perfectly blended into the Verkhovenian idea. I think she's the only one who could do such an incredibly difficult job. Isabelle is one of the brightest actresses of this year. The movie I saw this year was one of the best.
I recommend this, but not everyone. This is a movie for those who can not only watch, but also think!
8 out of 10
The works of the popular French writer of Armenian origin Philip Jian from the late 80s were addressed by the directors Yves Boisse, Jean-Jacques Benex, the brothers Larier and Andre Teshiné, but only Benex in his cult film “37.2 in the mornings” in 1986 was able to more than reliably convey the multi-factorial and sophisticated perversion of Jian’s prose, picking up more than adequate – on the thin verge of permissible, however, the film genre – preferably losing to the author’s personalism at the expense of the rest of the author’s postulated book. And only the film adaptation of the novel “O...”, the film “She” in 2016 broke the walls of total non-perception and discrepancy of Jian’s prose, at the same time returning the lost reputation to the once main supplier of cruel sexual games Paul Verhoeven.
It should be noted that “She” with playful spontaneity shuffles all genre maps, because, strictly speaking, Verhoeven’s film is a truly wild mixture of psychopathological drama, erotic thriller and black satirical comedy, implicitly supplemented with elements of the notorious exploitative cinema “rape revenge & revenge”. However, such contrasting souls of too different genres do not prevent the film from being truly balanced, shot extremely muted and on semitones, without leaving the undoubted detective intrigue of the film on the mezzanine mezzanines and gradually leading the audience to a rather sarcastic, pseudo-shocking finale, exhausting the entire monolith of the film text strictly according to hardcore.
Verkhoven in this picture resorts to the artistic method of creating the fatal falsity of what is happening on the screen, repeatedly tested in The Fourth Man and Basic Instinct, the more along the way thinking not only about the inexorable disintegration of a particular person, but also coming to a more universal statement about the attractive nature of cruelty, about the awakening of hidden somewhere in the depths of the soul, consciousness, their essential embodiment of dangerous and secret passions, leading not so much to the freedom of aka libertine, but also to a series of depressionism, which is not unsured at the same time by the bourgeois society, which they are perceived as being corrected in addition to the truthfulness in the society. For suddenly (!?), but the most normal character among the whole European family on the most global scale of Mrs. LeBlanc is her rapist, and, despite the internal logic of defeating the evil he bears, he is much more harmless than his self-pleasantly enjoying pain victim, in which the notorious decline of Europe mirrors itself, falling into thousands of fragments.
On a subconscious level, Michelle wanted to meet with the rapist, in order to finally expose herself, but the irony of the tape is that Michelle stubbornly does not notice the difference between self-exposure and self-destruction, and the usual desired - subjective sublimation - is taken for real, and the desire to balance the violated status quo looks nothing more than bliss, moral relativism in the terminal stage of its involution. And it is unlikely that an invitation to the main role of Isabelle Huppert looks completely accidental, who, in the image of Michelle, only once again tries on the depraved dress of an inconspicuous but asocial contemporary, concrete his own roles from the paintings of Haneke, Honore, Bray or Joaquim Trier, while the directorial film text refers to the benefit of the Benex-Anglad-Dahl trio.
In fact, the director Verhoeven habitually changes the accentuation of the perception of the central character - as a result, Catherine Trammel and Michelle LeBlanc are almost intentionally compared. However, a great ambiguity lies behind the guise of a bisexual writer, a hunter and victim, who played not according to the rules of the male world, men knew how to cheat sophisticatedly and openly aggressively - however, it was a social model of behavior of the nineties; Michelle, whose gender role in society as an alpha female and a lady boss is too often questioned and ridiculed, almost immediately after the moment of rape and further does not attract the role of an innocent victim. And on the surface, all the same double or triple author's games with reality that are observed in the Dutch director since the time of the screen embodiment of Gerard Reve's prose, in which it was in vain to separate the alcoholic and drug-addicted delusions of the hero from reality; in "Basic Instinct" the book-reality intertwined in an ominous dichotomy, and in the new picture Verhoven, the reality of computer games only complements, but does not replace the horror of the external world - Verhoven became a realist to some extent. The deliberate coldness, dispassionate coolness of Michelle, coupled with the loneliness raised to the absolute of her own existence, literally emphasizes the inability of the heroine Hupper to normal social fitness, the role of the daughter, mother and wife not that it does not seduce her at all, but it is also too important to call her in the matter of personal identification and self-realization of this woman, who initially renounced ordinary gender attitudes, her in a purely masculine community and without becoming - careerism and thirst for evil pleasures turned into essentially nothing essential, at the same time as a paradox, as a terrorist does not reveal her sexuality in the end, but she does not have a very pleasant experience with a terrorist, but she does not have a very normal one, although she can be. The emptiness of the interior decoration of her house, the lacquered lifelessness of the situation rhymes with the heavy experience of the past; everything according to Freud, baby, except that Verkhoven allows himself and the viewer not to be horrified by such (anti)heroine, but to ironize not without a sardonic grin over her. After all, we are all maniacs to some extent, so maybe we should stop being hypocritical! The game begins to dominate the space of the film, but this game is in the authenticity, from which all the characters of the film so carefully avoided themselves. Starting the process of recognising their own past and rethinking the present, Michelle, in cooperation with her rapist, inevitably pull skeletons out of the closets of everyone, nothing and no one will remain untouched under the director’s sight, The Game Is Over.
“Buyed” to see primarily because of Paul Verhoeven, J. Hupper and the genre of “drama” and “thriller”. Even despite the intriguing beginning, further viewing was given with great difficulty, sometimes justifying the appropriateness of adding such genres as “comedy” and “melodrama”.
I was totally disgusted with Isabelle Huppert here. It's hard to say why. Perhaps the very image of the heroine in the eccentric scenario caused, at least, surprise against the background of events. Moreover, not only the actions or statements of Michelle were inconclusive (which, by the way, were also abound), but precisely as an impression made by an experienced actress. If this is the author’s intention, to introduce Michelle as the main heroine of the film, and under the name Elle (She) to hide a complex psychotype, which is also limited by her, then, in my opinion, this image turned out to be too complicated. The viewer has to take the whole series of events with even stranger heroes with incredible difficulty, initially worrying, “over” for Michelle.
Of course, we love different movies, appreciate it for tangible or elusive virtues. No matter how much I tried to be not biased at first, not noticing literally a stream of inconsistencies and implausibility, in the middle of the film I simply waited for its ending, which turned out to be blurred to the level of: “What was it?”
In the film, there is an obvious overkill in the sexual theme. Sexual abuse, masturbating heroine, loving mother Michelle (the respect of the unfading 90-year-old Judith Magr!), cheering age-old girlfriends in bed, examining the phalluses of suspects: "You are not a Jew, but looking for a circumcised" (as if only Jews are circumcised!). What about the animation of computer games in the company run by it? Who is she, this heroine? Should we view her in the context of the tragic events of her childhood? Then why is her image so implausible, when perhaps the authors wanted us to accept and empathize with Michelle? One of the last phrases that just discourages viewers. To the direct accusation of the closest friend Michelle responds extremely brazenly and cynically: “Just no words.”
And here is the phrase of the supposedly devout neighbor: “Patrick was not bad, but with a wounded soul” and after all that became known about the husband, his wife Rebecca adds Michelle: “I am glad (!) that you gave what he needed (!), at least for a while (!)”. No comment. Obviously, the viewer should think that all believers are so powdered.
It seemed to me that the film of the venerable director was made hastily, without purpose and without an author’s appeal to the viewer. However, after watching the film carefully and reviewing the snippets for review, I got the feeling that “She” is a provocative movie. And provoking viewers to moral confusion "in their heads." If it were only about “Neigh,” the film’s strangest heroine, the film might have acquired just the opposite sound. And so, alas...
One of the few advantages of the film is a luxurious owner's cat.
My opinion: save your 2 hours, neither "She" nor your other time is worth it.
4 out of 10
Verhoeven was always good in this European, which is a long harness, and then, due to the plot intricacies, quite quickly gaining momentum. Here and here, the film, originally served as a thriller about the search for the one who abused the heroine Hupper in her house, after 30 minutes of timing turned into a dramatic story of a woman who, at the peak of her sexuality, experiences such stress, giving her not a weak shake.
By throwing a decent amount of lust, Verhoeven skillfully builds a narrative around people, exposing their most vile qualities, and putting vice at the forefront. A vice that with age turns into something ordinary, simple, normal. He does not try to play detective, does not dilute the cheerful action with an art house and does not seek to give out some message or morality in the final. He just broadcasts from the screen about adults who occupy serious positions, have seen a lot, but do not know how to cool their heads and cope with their feelings. At the same time, for all this he does not need the whole caste, because he has Isabelle Huppert, who, thanks to holistic work on the image, absorbs a little from each hero, competently showing emotions in the right dosage.
It is, indeed, the apogee of everything; and the chamber manner of shooting, laconic setting of the frame, moderate locations, and not overloaded history. Her every emotion is appropriate, her eyes expressing the coldness of women her age who experienced something terrible as children. She skillfully combines all these qualities that were prescribed for a woman working in an unusual video game industry. She is here face, who runs the place, and everything else, rather a pleasant addition to her, will not offend the film team.
I am very glad that I got to the picture, because now it will definitely find a place in my final ten as Hupper will find a place in the Oscar nominees.
9 out of 10
Preparing the heart, opening tight membranes.
Take out lumps of sensations and needles of emotions.
The old stitches can not be found - but I see fresh wounds, too.
Knives and torn - God, how does it beat? V. Polozkova
The film tells the story of a heroine whose soul flew away when she was a very little girl, and only her body remained to live out her life. Hupper skillfully performed the role assigned to her by no living emotion - only a kind of backbone of vaults and rules "how people behave" and "what to do to mimic a living person."
In fact, at the end of the story, the director for a not very prescient viewer conveys the idea of the whole film with one phrase of the heroine, standing at the tombstones she says – “I am not here ..., only physically.” So throughout the film, the life of the body is shown, which with a tired eye states what is happening to it. Here's the act of rape, here's the order of food, here's the bloody foam in the bathroom, here's the search for computer hooligans, and the dispelling of the ashes, and all this is like a mechanism that just has to maintain its life, as well as the characters of her computer game. She is just a character, a model of a person, a biomonster, and a real person, long dead.
Verhoeven resorts to the same technique as McQueen in his “Shame” – deliberately highlights certain elements that so temptingly cling to not too intellectually burdened individuals – be it pornography, masturbation, rape, sexual acts. This technique is in some ways even cruel, since it skillfully masks the main idea, and the main idea is the “living dead” among us – dead souls. When the dragon self-destructs, it completes its mission. Verhoeven showed an absolutely unsurpassed facet of "death" - the death of the soul. Those viewers who are familiar with various films of a near-occult orientation, where souls, angels and demons, acting independently, know how the body behaves without a soul. And it behaves exactly like the heroine Isabel Huppert – the result: the feeling of “viscous cold”, remains very persistent, since the action does not unfold in a mystical thriller – and this feeling of contemplation of the “living dead”, leaves a viscous, sticky taste, as from the sight and smell of decaying flesh in the middle of a white day and a bright sun. A look into the emptiness from which an instinctive animal fear actually arises.
Realism is the scariest genre, gallons of blood pale at the sight of one torn finger in “Euphoria”, and in “She” creaky realism, it feels sand on your teeth, if you know where to look. Naturally, the cause of the “death” of the main character is exaggerated, but for this there is a movie where it is necessary to deliberately disguise, and where it is necessary to emphasize. However, how many “dead” are among us, and how many are needed to kill such an ephemeral and fragile substance as the soul, the more painful the soul was, the stronger the external armor, in some cases armor, is just a framework that protects emptiness.
Verhoeven made a bet on Isabelle Huppert and did not lose. And not because Hupper literally holds the record among performers of roles with all sorts of sexual perversions, her heroines literally shimmer with all the colors of Freud’s works. However, in this film - sexual deviations are not the main character - it is just a screen that covers the main core of the film. She could grow up to be a good person, but then she died at 10, and Hupper masterfully got used to the role of a “dead” person who walks cheerfully in her cloaks, dresses and stockings...
Her, nominated for the Palme d’Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival, is the return of Paul Verhoeven to the film industry. The director, who over the past decade shot only two films, has long not pleased the viewer with high-quality works, and his not quite successful Hollywood experience made it clear that perhaps the director retired.
Once there were in his career the famous “Robocop”, “Remember everything”, “Star landing”, “Basic Instinct” and “Shogels”, but since then it took so much time that the films managed to become classics, and their creator returned to his homeland.
“She” is a story about an undeniably strong spirit and body of a woman who for many years of her life fought with everyone with whom she could (not in terms of confrontation, but in terms of the struggle of a mother with a bad son, a mother with a stubborn mother, etc.), and when she was left completely alone, she was “rewarded” by a cruel rape, which was watched only by a silent witness – her cat.
The heroine of Isabel Huppert can only be patted in her hands, because she embodied on the screen the image of a truly strong lady who can handle any difficulties. The father – a serial maniac – can only guess what it is like to live, knowing this and when everyone around knows this, smile in the eyes, and if you pass by immediately begin to judge. It is necessary to be boundlessly strong-willed to live in one place, not trying to start your biography from scratch.
But you should not discount the son, like and come to senses, but still rattling her nerves with his antics and deeds (what only the episode with his dismissal is worth), but there is also the mother of her heroine, who sometimes plunges into shock by her actions, but there is still work where on the rights of the boss she needs to be tough with subordinates.
Someone will say that this film is “about nothing”, someone on the contrary will admire. I’m not going to be one of them, I just like the movie. It is good in almost everything, and the fact that Paul Verhoeven had a hand in creating it makes you look from beginning to end. With his inherent handwriting, the director created an exciting, disturbing, sometimes frank, sometimes shocking film, in which not only the characters are mixed, but also human destinies, the vices of modern society are displayed, the relations between relatives, employers and subordinates, neighbors are described in colors.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
I think, first of all, it's a film about how people can be cruel and dangerous, what games they play.
Michelle is an absolute sociopath. This is evidenced by her actions and reactions.
Her father is a serial killer who at one point just decided to walk around the neighbors and start killing everyone for nothing, then with a gun, then with an axe. This is one of the manifestations of evil, but there is another.
Michelle directs the creation of violent video games in which she embodies her diabolical talents. And she does it well, because in life she leads a rather cruel game, calculatingly thinking through all the moves.
The story with Michelle's father did not go without a trace. Not only does it affect Michelle’s life, but it is also heredity.
How annoying Michelle is that her mother is trying to be positive, trying to find joy and solace. When she dies, the first thing Michelle says when the doctor tells her about the stroke is, "So she's not pretending?" Michelle is a manipulator and corruptor of society.
The story of the rapist is not the main thing, it shows that Michelle is sick. She says it is a disease.
The way she manipulated her son was the one thing that outraged me the most. They do not ask her, but she climbs into everything, boasting that she has the opportunity to help. And the son is even ready to accept someone else's child to assert himself, to prove to her, and even to himself, that he is not a schmuck, but is capable of bearing responsibility. Who knows who made him so irresponsible, Michelle?
Anna, a friend of Michelle, due to her closeness with her son, compensated for the loss of her child, which also worried the main character, and, perhaps, because her choice (to meet her needs) fell not on some random man, but on Anna's husband. Although she said it could have been anyone, so she didn't choose someone else, just for moral reasons, like you can't sleep with your friend's husband, I'll find someone else. And Michelle ends up telling Anna everything, not because she got bored, or because it bothered her, but because that was the plan. But in the end, the husband got his resignation, and instead of resenting the betrayal of loved ones, we get a lesbian ending, which is also abnormal. I don’t think Verhoeven wanted to show us this idea: “All men are assholes, form lesbian couples.”
In short, there is not a single character in the film that can be sympathized with. Except for Michelle's mother. And the beauty - the girl of the son, perhaps, least smeared, she has yet to be maimed by her mother-in-law if she does not escape in time. And Michelle calls her a crazy psychopath.
And here's the story of saints and sinners: this neighborhood couple building a holy nativity den for Christmas. The holy man turns out to be a sick sinner. And the wife clearly knew about her husband's illness, so they moved from place to place. And then she smiled and thanked Michelle for giving him what he needed. Indeed, this Christian virtue is the hypocrisy of our society.
I want to mention the humor in this film. It exists, but the person who understands everything that is happening is not funny, but becomes even more disgusting.
In the end, after this film, there is a desire to wash. And the impression is ambiguous: on the one hand, excellent directing and acting work, on the other - the vile realities of modern society. Mind food.
Paul Verhoeven’s films do not come out often, giving the right to believe that he is responsible for the production of his films. A film about 'skeletons in the closet' in the form of sexual deviations of our heroes.
Who's the movie for?
Cinema is for those who can abstract from the classical views on human sexual behavior. The viewer draws a picture when the desires of a person prevail over his views on life and even more common sense. If you are ready to accept the views of our heroes without judgment - welcome, you will be interested.
Summing up, I will say that the movie is not originally for the mass audience and justifiably has a limit of 18+, including due to the semantic load.
How to watch?
Verhoeven paints us a picture and leaves the whole world outside the picture. Moreover, he wants everyone to draw this world for himself, through his experience.
Let me give you an example for you.
You walk through the subway station and you see a dirty man lying on the floor, wearing a very expensive suit and go on. You've only seen this person for 5 seconds, but you can draw a picture in your head of how he got here and got there. This picture may not match reality, but it will be yours. Now, if we talk about works of art, then such pictures are painted for you on purpose so that you think.
There is a very large interweaving of fates, actions and points of view. When we think about each character, we understand why everyone does this. After analyzing this, we conclude that everyone is right in his own way and everyone has his own truth.
The mother of a heroine who wants to marry a young man. A guy who's willing to accept her offer out of a desire to keep going. The father of the heroine whose story is in the fog. Friend, lover, neighbor and neighbor... The son of the heroine who had a black child and who believes in his fatherhood. Looking at the film from this point of view and trying to understand each character and stand in his place will be very interesting.
The genius of the director is that he managed to show it and combine all such difficult life positions.
Bottom line:
Many people think that the ending of the film is nothing. In my opinion, the finale is more than clear. You need to forgive people for the fact that their views do not coincide with yours.
Adults and aunts to watch!
The eye does not notice the moment when life, already not the most happy, interesting and diverse, closes in a dull ring “home – work – gatherings over a cup of coffee – home”. If we add to the routine voluntary reclusiveness caused by bad heredity and bad memories, it turns out that the rapist, bastard and misogynist who broke into personal space causes dangerous changes. All a lady like Michelle LeBlanc needs is aggressive proof that she can still be fucked like a cheap prostitute on the floor. She received it, finding at the same time the exhausting aftertaste of the perfect act, which provoked the release of long-dormant instincts, to the amazement of former and new acquaintances. Not a prey, but a predator. Not a righteous woman, but a sinner. Not a confessor, but an executor. An exquisite weapon in the hands of an old Dutch intriguer, habitually subverting public morals.
The tandem of Paul Verhoeven, who once again warmed up in the rays of the European cinematic sun, and the great, always mysterious Isabel Huppert, displayed on the landscape painted with pastel tones a small fragment of a big life, where constraint, surprise and honorable morality have long rested in peace. “She” is not only the title of the picture and the designation of the key character. “She” is a characteristic of the most suitable type for a society where promiscuity is a way of acting, and a poorly hidden habit, and a real mantra that somehow restrains dependence on high technologies. Michelle has a work suitable for provocative Uppervenous perversions: computer games today are so far removed from the “lamp” samples of the eighties that sitting down at the monitor, a person himself does not realize how the “little god regime” helps him satisfy the need for aggression. The relationship between the violent act and Madame LeBlanc’s manic demands to make the gameplay as shockingly naturalistic as possible is so clear that there is no doubt that the Dutch eccentric will only get cooler. And Verhoeven, of course, does not defy expectations by addressing his long-standing and endlessly beloved theme of a messiah born in a perverted society. Why else would a director need an unremarkable blonde if she couldn't start dinner at a party without evening prayer? Ever since the days of Robocop, viewers have been able to observe how unusual and unnaturally just the messiah can be in a rotten homeland. The tape “She”, with all the unique specificity of the genre, follows the same path, finding a very original center of revealing attraction.
Looking at what the highly cultured, intelligent and refined-repulsive Michelle is doing, you inevitably wonder whether there are real victims in our time. Living her whole life in the half-mad halo of the daughter of a serial killer, a rich and quite self-sufficient woman suddenly felt the intoxicating power of power. Not the one that allows you to control a large team of computer scientists, but the real one is the power of violence. Fused with its capabilities, the hostess herself does not notice how she wants to feel accessible, humiliated, but only happier. It is likely that the police would be able to find the rapist, but why would it be necessary if the sadomasochistic scenario could be repeated again and then again? In the eyes of a scumbag who raises his hand against a woman, a reflection of herself is suddenly revealed. What she, despite her mother’s moral precepts and the demands of a noble society, wanted to be. Isabelle Huppert’s magnificent gestures and facial expressions make one horrified by the ease with which the transformation of a cultural person into a sexually anxious female takes place. She is amused by masturbation, peeping through binoculars for innocent neighborhood activities, easily changes the image of the mistress to the image of the victim, and all for the intoxicating feeling of freedom from any rules. After success with Catherine Tramell, Verhoeven managed to raise another, no less dangerous, individual, which seems to cut the fabric of the usual existence of himself and his fresh surroundings with scissors. Formerly basic, instinct develops to the all-consuming. There comes a significant moment in the relationship between people of a new generation, the main value of which is a perverted passion and confrontation with those who take it too seriously.
The picture can be considered a detective story, a melodrama or a thriller, but more logical is “She” as a psychopathological drama, turning the female creation to the very bottom, discovered at the age of ten. Paul Verhoeven picked up an excellent material, which came from the pen of the prose writer Philip Jian, which allowed us to again turn to familiar theories, and make each viewer count the number of layers hidden behind an unassuming plot. Pushed from the cruel incident, the Dutch provocateur made a mocking verdict to the whole of Europe, which since the seventies and the accompanying "Turkish sweets" has not learned to live in harmony with instincts, in accordance with vice. Responding to the requirements of the enlightened age, Verhoeven without much hesitation equates the current society with previous versions. The triumph of the exhausting, but no less exciting process has become absolute over the past forty years. Carefully picking up the exquisite Huppert, the director pierces the moldy illusions with a sharp blade, as if someone knew the happiness inherent in nature itself as ideal. No, not yet. In the fire of error, all into the fire. Something will grow on the ashes someday. Unless a woman's hand spreads the ashes in the right place.
Shame is not a strong enough feeling to stop a person.
This phrase from the film, in fact, is the motto of the main character.
She is risky, domineering, bold, seductive, too graceful even for a French woman. It is not without strangeness, fantasies and even perversions. She is wonderfully played by Isabelle Huppert. About it tries to subtly and unusual to tell the film director. It's a pity he's just not doing it. . .
Paul Verhoeven knows how to shoot women. (Perhaps only Almodóvar is better at this.) He can perfectly reveal all the secret passions of the heroines. It turned out that he with Sharon Stone in ' Basic Instinct', with the lead singer in ' Black Book', it turned out here.
The actress and the director feel each other. Hupper's a smart girl who keeps the whole movie. They are the victim, and the hunter, and the leader of the team, the friend, the daughter of a slightly worried mother and the father of a murderer and a psychopath, the mother of a slightly dorky son who found himself and a girl ' with an idiot ' All these different vicissitudes of her life are perfectly executed by the actress. It is complemented, by the way, by a wonderful Russian dubbing.
Scenes of violence are shown in European pretentiously, if you really bare something so bare, beat so beat, everything is on edge, but the director does not cross this very line. The intrigue with the rapist is revealed unpredictably, but this is where all the intrigues end. And the main question of the film, after all, is not who the rapist is? Who is she?
And the director does not answer this question, or gives only hints, and then everyone decides for himself. . .
The film has subtle, sometimes sarcastic dialogue. Enough of comic moments, and sometimes not at all funny situations seem comical. And this is the whole ambiguity of the main character. There are interesting camera finds. But the music seemed too monotonous, and it was not always pumped to the place.
The first hour of the review, I was sure that I would write a positive review, but alas... The film is delayed, and this is the main omission that spoils all impressions. 30 minutes can be safely removed. And although from the very beginning not all actions of the heroine are clear and logical, but then it seems that this is the whole point, and in the end we will finally solve this mysterious woman. But, no, to the finale, the viewer is even more confused, and the ending so generally baffles and in the last ten minutes makes you completely bored.
Pity! It all started stylish, catchy and mysterious, but ended just somehow no way.
Watch at least once, the film is absolutely necessary.
The washing out of the social conceptual apparatus of religious ethics in the form of undiscussed, unreflected, literally perceived dogmas has one of its inevitable side effects creeping, all-dissolving, all-decomposing moral relativism. When the crime, which is not conscious of the victim as such, gradually ceases to be considered a crime, all moral restrictions are removed by mutual agreement, and mercy - in the pre-Vlatov sense of self-indulgence and the primacy of pleasure over honesty, clarity, transparency - becomes infinitely higher than boring, everywhere crushing justice. Left alone with themselves, without a fervent all-seeing eye in heaven, people begin to paradoxically review for a decrease even their sins - in this they did not like any dogma - but the transgressions and atrocities, the victims of which they became. Does it matter with whom the girl-friend has settled your recorded baby? - the main thing is to stay with you, a living and warm excuse for your restlessness. Why break ties with a friend on the basis that a friend sleeps with your husband? - after all, friendship is a lifetime, and the price for it is a joint, profitable, single-handedly unaffordable business. Is it worth raising gwalt and police gewalt, if they broke into your house and raped you? - after all, they did not maim, did not infect anything, and interestingly disturbed the dreary course of a lonely life, they added pepper and other tart and spicy spices to it. Finally, the murder itself - is it so unthinkable, unimaginable, if you yourself crave, seek death? . . .
Paul Verhoeven, the director, paradoxically positioning himself as the most obsessively religious figure of modern Hollywood, who has a lifelong plan to film the life of Christ, starting - yes, exactly so, with a traditional high-ranking rape, later covered with a metaphor of the Annunciation, loves to quote in his articles and interviews Blake, the Eternal His Gospel: & #39; Antichrist, flattering Jesus, // Could please every taste, // I wouldn't mind the synagogues. He didn't drive the merchants over the threshold. And, meek as a tame donkey, he would have found mercy. God did not write in his tablet. We want to be humbled and #39. Verhoeven’s Christianity, lost by the West, which has now become sharply hostile to the general tendency to exchange one’s own personal integrity, inviolability to other people’s sinful desires, for emotional and spiritual comfort. His victim, regardless of whether he is subjectively suffering from the violence committed against him, must accept and bear his own suffering. So that others do not suffer, so that evil does not turn into mediocrity, so that the immutable scale of values continues to determine human life.
The temptations of the heroine Hupper, satanically carrying a creepy trail of inhumanity, inhumans, undead, played for a long acting biography, become just traps of stuffy humanity, tender but sticky tentacles involving her - in the purchase of an apartment knowingly and forever to an unsuccessful son, career assistance to an ex-husband, an ambitious loser, indulgence in relation to the senile lustre of a mother, a client of professional gigo, participation in relation to a terrible series of murder, sitting behind a terrible prison ... Uper, as always, is a symbol of an era, one in which the highest kindness and humanity becomes firmness in recognizing sin as sin, evil as evil, while mercy, soft-heartedness, grace are adopted by the evil. Because a bummer will be born gray from a soul devoid of faith. And faith now needs stones, not jelly.