La caméra de Claire

Huh? was my initial thought. Some scenes I felt made me mildly embarrassed but on reflection now realise it was a choice, by the director and myself. So a few days on and, much like the films premise, I've changed (but not my rating), I now nod my head and think hmmm.

This film has made me want to find out more about its directors work.

After viewing prolific and acclaimed South Korean director Sang-soo Hong's "The Day After", I went into my local library's film catalog and chose to see this one. As I've read one of the director's characteristics is to have awkward dialogue, and this movie filled that bill.

For me, the awkwardness can be annoying at times, but it also can be quite intriguing. Set at the Cannes Film Festival, the plot elements slowly unfold and come together as the film progresses. But I never really felt I completely understood it all.

The acting is most solid, and throwing the great actress Isabelle Huppert into the mix can never hurt. Always fascinating to watch her on screen.

All in all, I wish I could say I enjoyed it all but I felt the film did have its intriguing and engaging moments

The very fact that "La caméra de Claire" ("Claire's Camera" in English") is a Korean-French co-production should draw interest. But the movie has even more in store. It focuses on the relationship between a young Korean woman and a middle-aged French woman in Cannes after the former gets fired and she works with the latter to try and find out why. When we hear about Cannes, it's always in relation to the yearly film festival, but when do we ever get to see the lives of ordinary people there?

I had never heard of Hong Sang-soo before seeing this, but now I'd like to see more of his work. Judging by this movie I would guess that he's a masterful director. Definitely see it.

The plot is minimalistic to the point of being ridiculous. The dialogues reminded me of tutorials for students who study a foreign language. They are rather primitive: "I am hungry" - "Are you hungry?" - "Yes, I am hungry". Luckily this film is only 1 hour and 8 minutes but it felt longer...I love Huppert but here she has the easiest acting job ever. What a waste of a great talent.

I assume it was trying to say something. I didn't understand it at first so I kept waitching. Was this an essay on the futility of movie-making? On the futility of watching a movie because it has one of your favourite actresses and you assume it will be at least worthwhile as a result? Maybe. How it got an "80" critics' rating eludes me as well. I can only assume these people all figured that if they didn't understand the point of it then it must be really profound. They were wrong. Honestly, don't bother.