New Orleans Mon Amour!
Apr. 3rd, 2012 10:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fannishlissWow, that movie was SO MUCH BETTER than I ever expected it to be.
[76] NEW ORLEANS MON AMOUR
The film is set in the aftermath of Katrina. Volunteers have set up camp and are trying to help clean up. One of the volunteers is Henry, a doctor from the hospital uptown, giving routine care in the neighborhood. He runs into one of the young women, Hyde, who is a volunteer helping to strip houses amidst the devastation, and it turns out that six years ago, they had an affair which led to the breakup of his marriage and her near mental breakdown. Now Hyde has returned to the city with a new boyfriend in order to volunteer, and Henry's on the verge of remarrying his ex-wife. Being thrown together, Hyde and Henry are unable to resist getting involved again, even though they are supposed with other people. It's painfully obvious though that Henry is just going through the motions getting back with his ex. You feel worse for Hyde's boyfriend, who is well-meaning and seems to really care about her, and now she is getting back with the man who was so bad for her in the past.
It's very hard to describe any more of the story line. The film is visual and atmospheric. It has a ton of raw footage of the damage the hurricane wrought on the poor parts of the city, while the wealthy parts where Henry lives remain seemingly untouched. Part of the meaning of the film lies in the effort to do some kind of good, and how meaningful that effort can be in the face of so much devastation. But the other part of the film has to do with stripping away the facade that lends both a veneer of civilization, and a false front of lies. So you see Hyde in her coveralls, attacking walls with a sledgehammer in order to tear away rot, while at the same time you see Henry at a horrible party with his social peers, and they are really horrible!
I think the movie goes back to the symbolism in their names -- but happily, it is very subtle and well-handled. Hyde is not a monster -- though it appears that Henry did give her a book to read about a girl, a man, and a monster -- of course that made me think of Frankenstein, in which the Creature is arguable the most sympathetic character, depending on how you read it. Hyde has a harder time keeping a filter across her feelings, and her actions are impulsive and possibly irresponsible -- but at the same time, Henry is taking drugs on the sly (LSD it seems like), falling back in love with his old girlfriend without letting his exwife know, and floundering about in his huge, ornate mansion while the City around him lies in shambles. If you think about Kirk's transporter accident, you might think that Hyde is the violent dog, and Henry is the sleepy dog -- but the movie is much less reductive, because Hyde is not actually violent, more that she feels raw and powerful emotions, while Henry is pretending to be rational and tame while inside it is killing him.
Chris is devastating in this role. He delivers his lines in a reasonable approximation of an American accent, since he's supposed to be a New Orleans native. Moreover, his lines are so spare that the movie really makes the most of his strong physical presence -- you can feel his weariness, his frustration, his longing for the girl so clearly, without him saying a word. It's a really masterful performance.
Over at Art Thou Beguil'd the reviewer says this might be one of Chris's best movies. I enthusiastically agree. Chris is smart enough that he takes on challenging films -- and this film is definitely non-linear in terms of its storytelling, relying on the connection that Chris and Elisabeth Moss are able to forge by the end of the film to convince you that they are tearing down in order to rebuild. It's truly a movie with great depth, that works metaphorically in image after image to talk about destruction and the possibility of rebirth.
conclusion: WOW. MESMERIZING. LOVED IT!
Was it worth the price of $10 to download from Amazon? ABSOLUTELY. WHOLEHEARTED RECOMMENDATION -- but only if you dig great images, inspired juxtaposition of strong visual metaphor, music where you should be paying attention to the lyrics, and if you can tolerate when an older man leaves his wife -- even though he kind of likes her -- because he finds the woman he really needs to be with (even though she is half his age) -- normally I would frown angrily -- but this time, it works.
[76] NEW ORLEANS MON AMOUR
Dir. Michael Almereyda, Voodoo Pictures, 2008, 1 hour 18 minutes, with Christopher Eccleston and Elisabeth Moss.
The film is set in the aftermath of Katrina. Volunteers have set up camp and are trying to help clean up. One of the volunteers is Henry, a doctor from the hospital uptown, giving routine care in the neighborhood. He runs into one of the young women, Hyde, who is a volunteer helping to strip houses amidst the devastation, and it turns out that six years ago, they had an affair which led to the breakup of his marriage and her near mental breakdown. Now Hyde has returned to the city with a new boyfriend in order to volunteer, and Henry's on the verge of remarrying his ex-wife. Being thrown together, Hyde and Henry are unable to resist getting involved again, even though they are supposed with other people. It's painfully obvious though that Henry is just going through the motions getting back with his ex. You feel worse for Hyde's boyfriend, who is well-meaning and seems to really care about her, and now she is getting back with the man who was so bad for her in the past.
It's very hard to describe any more of the story line. The film is visual and atmospheric. It has a ton of raw footage of the damage the hurricane wrought on the poor parts of the city, while the wealthy parts where Henry lives remain seemingly untouched. Part of the meaning of the film lies in the effort to do some kind of good, and how meaningful that effort can be in the face of so much devastation. But the other part of the film has to do with stripping away the facade that lends both a veneer of civilization, and a false front of lies. So you see Hyde in her coveralls, attacking walls with a sledgehammer in order to tear away rot, while at the same time you see Henry at a horrible party with his social peers, and they are really horrible!
I think the movie goes back to the symbolism in their names -- but happily, it is very subtle and well-handled. Hyde is not a monster -- though it appears that Henry did give her a book to read about a girl, a man, and a monster -- of course that made me think of Frankenstein, in which the Creature is arguable the most sympathetic character, depending on how you read it. Hyde has a harder time keeping a filter across her feelings, and her actions are impulsive and possibly irresponsible -- but at the same time, Henry is taking drugs on the sly (LSD it seems like), falling back in love with his old girlfriend without letting his exwife know, and floundering about in his huge, ornate mansion while the City around him lies in shambles. If you think about Kirk's transporter accident, you might think that Hyde is the violent dog, and Henry is the sleepy dog -- but the movie is much less reductive, because Hyde is not actually violent, more that she feels raw and powerful emotions, while Henry is pretending to be rational and tame while inside it is killing him.
Chris is devastating in this role. He delivers his lines in a reasonable approximation of an American accent, since he's supposed to be a New Orleans native. Moreover, his lines are so spare that the movie really makes the most of his strong physical presence -- you can feel his weariness, his frustration, his longing for the girl so clearly, without him saying a word. It's a really masterful performance.
Over at Art Thou Beguil'd the reviewer says this might be one of Chris's best movies. I enthusiastically agree. Chris is smart enough that he takes on challenging films -- and this film is definitely non-linear in terms of its storytelling, relying on the connection that Chris and Elisabeth Moss are able to forge by the end of the film to convince you that they are tearing down in order to rebuild. It's truly a movie with great depth, that works metaphorically in image after image to talk about destruction and the possibility of rebirth.
conclusion: WOW. MESMERIZING. LOVED IT!
Was it worth the price of $10 to download from Amazon? ABSOLUTELY. WHOLEHEARTED RECOMMENDATION -- but only if you dig great images, inspired juxtaposition of strong visual metaphor, music where you should be paying attention to the lyrics, and if you can tolerate when an older man leaves his wife -- even though he kind of likes her -- because he finds the woman he really needs to be with (even though she is half his age) -- normally I would frown angrily -- but this time, it works.
