Nocturama

I love the Metacritic summary for „Nocturama": some young folks, tired of the society they're living in, plan a bomb attack over Paris before to take shelter for a night in a shopping center... So simple, so elegant. Unfortunately, I can't say I loved the movie itself. „Nocturama" is artsy in a bad way, all high concept and lacking in every other aspect. Also, at 130 minutes, there's nearly not enough going on to justify the length. Sure, it's a promising material for short story/movie – a psychological portrayal of how terrorism is born. On paper, any summary of "Nocturama" would seem rather captivating... but, sadly, the result is frankly dull and lifeless. The screenwriter-director Bertrand Bonello's approach to storytelling is alienating (the characters are emotionally distant from the viewer and each other), and he likes to stretch many scenes, however empty, so long that it tests the endurance of the viewer. Some filmmakers use this conceptual aloofness and emptiness very effectively, such as Jim Jarmusch, who can make the most trivial on screen actions or details seem meaningful. Sadly, Bonello is not one of those filmmakers. The emotional distance makes sense as (part of the) general message of „Nocturama" – modern life has made us cold and empty – but constantly testing our endurance without payoff does not. At least not to me.

Even though it's quite clear from reading the premise that the film is surely not for everyone, that is still an understatement. The filmmaking here is incredibly detached of emotion, cold, and very, very clinical. That's part of the genius of it. A film like this needs to be executed this way, or else wavering too far into one side would be controversial, either being labeled as a film too forgiving of its protagonists and wanting us to sympathize with them, or portraying them as completely evil and not adding enough layers. In that respect the film works. It is mostly without a musical score, and scenes play out in long stretches in ways sure to infuriate many, but also impressive in their commitment. I think it's a fascinating, powerful film, but not an easy one to like.

I did not expect anything special with this movie but certainly not this I just watched. And I was not disappointed at all. But surprised, yes. A very interesting point of view about terrorism for sure, and different from the MADE IN France aspect. Here, a group of young men and women in their early twenties, and also from different race and class origins, not ISIS prototypes, decide to pull four different bomb explosions in Paris, and simultaneously. And just after this done, they shelter in a big and fancy department store. The first part in breath taking even not spectacular at all. It is a really weird film, I warn you folks. It won't please to every one. The second part could a sort of tribute to Georges Romero's DAWN OF TH DEAD - without zombies. The big department stores means the today consumerist society, and a short scene may also be a little tribute to SHINING. The true surprise is the ending, very unusual but after all not so for a French film. The way the authorities and politic power decide to fight against terrorist threat is a real shock to me. A film that makes you think a lot folks. A lot. But, one more time, most of you may not like it. Shephen Hopkins's A DANGEROUS GAME and made in 1988, also showed the scheme of young folks locked inside a department store. And pursued by a psychopath.

The movie is clearly split and its audience will likely be as well. The movie may desperately want to be provocative, thought it tries to down play both desperation and provocation and replace them with style.

I went in not knowing much and the tense action style of the first half of the film pulls one to the seat's edge.

I know the director has said the film is more about insurrection than terrorism, but I'm not sure I agree. That said I think it succeeds in portraying the emotional nature of terrorism, both for us aghast as "viewers" (on film and sadly in life) but more importanty for the terrorists themselves.

The director stridently avoids any sort of manifesto, and gathers a United Colors of Benetton cast. Youth is their uniting aspect, there are vague threads of rebellion for sexuality, for economic repression, for immigrant intolerance - but I think their motivations are intentionally vague. Again an accent on the emotion.

And an accent on style - the youngest member of the gang wearing his golden mask feels eerie and mythic. The whole second half of the film, staged in an empty mall as the nocturama for us to watch creatures more than children/people. It almost felt like a Brazen Bull scenario....polished, sleek and artful. But it may be more than just a pretty and warm place to hide out.

Surrounded by screens, as youth these days are, they try to resist watching themselves, but that is difficult. They play house, they play music, they play at rebellion. But maybe that is where rebellion, insurrection and terrorism come from - half baked ideas that catch fire. It's a game first that somehow becomes real.

Seems like the cast was comprised of non-actors or actors that the director worked hard to make into ciphers. Weirdly wooden while brimming with emotion. They stand in stark contrast to Adele Haenel, her face says more in silence than the other actors say with lines through-out. She is supposed to be the audience's touch point, a reluctant sense of this had to happen...even if we don't track the Jiri coefficient...in fact we're not sure why some anti-capitalistic or sense of human unkindness it had to happen, didn't it?

Again I think intentionally stepping far away from a rationale. The film wants to think less and act boldly. The setting of the second half of the film is arguably the biggest star, certainly shot in loving detail.

For what it's worth that image of the statue engulfed in flames, felt like an homage to something old - was it from "I, Claudius" - the movie features a lengthy lip-synching scene. More play-acting, play driving a tiny care. Again that young couple playing house, he in particular is perfectly frustrating as a leader who falls behind, who makes mistake after mistake.

Anyways, the movie has its moments and for me I found worked better than "Triangle of Sadness" but neither film is really rewarding.

How could this be? A big budget film that wants to blow up the big budget businesses?

Of course maybe I am too addicted to the status quo at this point, a real concern, but burn it all, blow it all up - even in my younger daze felt too childish. Thinking too much, just give this a 7, it's got a good beat and younger people can dance to its lack of coherent lyrics.

All of the music and more than a couple of dance scenes.... I'm left with a sense of AgitPop.

The film knows exactly what it's audience would like to see, but what it's withholding is integral to it's statement. This can be a difficult pill to swallow as it forgoes many of the simple pleasures of a conventional movie, testing both your patience and suspension of disbelief in the process.

It makes a group of terrorists into the central protagonists, but makes no attempt to offer any explanation for their actions. You keep waiting for a big reveal that will make it all seem justified, but it's absence leaves the film in a moral purgatory.

They come together to stage their attack in an almost heist movie like fashion, without any of the flair of say, Oceans 11. Then they retreat to a mall, which functions artistically to highlight the consumerist hypocrisy of our would be anarchists, but also makes absolutely no sense to the literal narrative, as it's clearly a terrible hiding place.

The pacing is deliberately slow, encouraging the audience to read between the lines of the minutia, though it does occasionally pick up at points. While it does seem to succeed at it's own intentions, it's impenetrable minimalism will probably alienate all but the most tolerant film buffs.