Sleeping Beauty

An interesting choice. Prostitution amidst university students. Rich old men who spend their money on flesh. Modern 'dettachment'... separating the body from the heart, the soul, the mind. Most of the critics of this film seem to dwell on complaining that "our world is not like that! All the people here are horrible...!!!" Of course they are missing the point. We are watching crude realities, but also dreams, symbols, Freudian/Jungian fetishes... A woman is directing. Jane Campion is producing. This is also a 'clue' that MAYBE there is more to this film than meets the eye... Behind the veneer are MANY hidden truths.( Behind the Twin Towers, behind the choice of a black president after a guy like Bush jr.) Separation from the truth. We are all 'anaesthetised'... so Lisa is NOT so strange, after all. Money rules. Maybe we are victims of our society, of our times. We are 'dead', as T.S. Eliot wrote some years ago. Of course the world is full of wonderful, hearty, passionate and generous people. But this film aims elsewhere, and I myself feel grateful to its director, scriptwriter (and , why not, actress) for taking the plunge, and re-floating Pasolini's 'Salò' in a more digestible (maybe more intelligent?) guise. Kubrick? His last movie may still reveal something in the future (ALL his films age very well), but he was an elderly man, and this young director seems to have the upper-hand in as much as hitting the nail on the head with the 'ésprit-du-temps', the 'Zeitgeist' or, more plainly,(and painfully), the new age our youth are forced to grow up in. Somewhat puzzled at first, I gave this film a chance...let it 'breathe', in my conscience and intellect. I'm glad I did. It contains more than one morsel of food for thought.

It's not like I'm not capable of appreciating a good artistic or original movie, on the contrary really but this movie is offering far too little to make it stand out on any level.

Perhaps it's true that I'm simply getting fed up with these sort of movies, since I have seen far too many of them already. It's the sort of movie that's all too well aware of its style and realizes very well its being part of the more artistic, independent movie genre. It's therefore being just like any other movie out of the genre basically, without offering anything new or provoking.

It has a very deliberate and well thought out and planned, style of film-making to it. It doesn't feel spontaneous in any way. The movie very rarely cuts away. When there is a cut in this movie, it means that the scene is over and another one, set at another place will start. The camera does move at times but lots of times the movie only consists purely out of static shots, with characters sitting or standing in the foreground. It's all too forced and obvious and if I want a front-view of actors, with a few props and sets, I'll go and watch a stage-play. The possibilities with movies are now days pretty much endless, yet the movie is doing absolutely nothing with it. It's minimalistic and slow, up to a point that the movie actually starts to become a bit of a drag. It manages to make 104 minutes seem like a very long time!

So is the movie pretentious? It's deliberately trying to be an artistic one, with its images and storytelling but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's being a pretentious one, since this is director's Julia Leigh first movie and I do believe all of her intentions with it were very honest. Still she really needs to work on developing a style of her own, that really suits her and the stories she is trying to tell with her movies. There now still is nothing that makes her style unique from anything else, or distinctive in any way. It also wouldn't had harmed the movie if she got a more experienced screenplay writer to come in and help to write the story with her. I actually do feel and believe that the story worked well on paper but on the silver screen it really falls flat.

It all really could had still worked out well if the movie indeed had an intriguing story or main character in it. But the movie tries to tell its story more so with its images, rather than featuring a real good main plot line or emotions in it. It does come across a bit as some lazy film-making; 'Don't worry about the script or actors, just place a camera in a room and let the emptiness and remoteness of the scene tell the whole story'. Sorry, I just really wasn't falling for that.

It does make Emily Browning's role also a bit of an ungrateful one. Ever since she had been appearing in movies and series as a child, it was apparent that she would one day not only grow into becoming a beautiful woman but also a great star and actress. However after seeing her in this movie it also becomes apparent that she isn't quite ready for it to play a lead role and carry a movie almost entirely on her own. But all of the blame can't fall entirely on her in this case, since it probably was director Julia Leigh that told her to play her character as a very distant and emotionally bland one. Seriously, she is hardly ever showing any emotions on her face. You can't really tell if she is ever happy or sad and as a viewer it makes you feel very detached from her. This is also because she is doing some very unusual and unlikely things in this movie. It never becomes really apparent why she does them and why she is the way that she is. The movie is not really offering you an exploration into a young woman's mind and her journey in life, on her way of becoming a true woman. Just like many of its scene's, the movie feels mostly as a very empty and distant one.

And what was with here wearing the same type of clothes throughout the entire movie? She is either wearing a skirt or a dress, with some high boots, or she is either half- or completely naked. Nothing wrong with showing some skin but Emily Browning's body looks like a 13-year old, even while she was 23 at the time. The clothes she was wearing really didn't seemed to suit her body type and it actually worked quite distracting for me. It made me want to send her some money, so she could buy some pants and normal shoes.

Some people might still get something out of the movie its images or will read deeper into some of the movie its moments but personally I got very little out of this movie. It was a very empty movie story-wise and an emotionally bland one, that by the end left nothing more than a very redundant impression on me.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A haunting story that serves its character to its audience on a clean plate. Full of strange characters, all seeking love and connection in different ways.

The good:

A stunning performance from Emily Browning.

Stripped down, any attempt at explaining the characters in this film on screen runs the risk of preaching to the audience.

Provoked a lot of discussion.

This is not Disney's Sleeping Beauty.

The bad:

A very unnerving sexual scene that creeped everyone in the movie theater out (though that might be a good thing).

This type of film certainly isn't for everyone.

This is not Disney's Sleeping Beauty.

The dinner scenes were a little boring.

In over half a century of cinema-going, I've seen a (deliberately) wide range of movies, including some really strange and cryptic work, and I have to say that the Australian "Sleeping Beauty" falls firmly in the odd and opaque category. Coincidentally another film in the very unusual bracket is the similarly named "Sleeping Furiously" set in Wales. "Sleeping Beauty" is not quite as slow - although it is very measured indeed - but the obscure meaning of many scenes sets it apart. There is as much nudity as "Eyes Wide Shut" with which it bears (sorry for the pun) some comparison, but a much weaker storyline.

This is an adventurous selection for a first film from Julia Leigh who both directed and wrote this strange tale of a Sdyney student who is prepared to sell her body in a variety of circumstances in order to pay her bills. And it is a bold choice for Emily Browning who moves on from "Sucker Punch" to take the eponymous role, meaning that she is rarely off screen and has to appear totally nude. There is virtually no music and very little dialogue (especially from Browning) so there is an astonishing focus on her face - doll-like with high cheek bones and cupid lips - and her body - diminutive, pale and slight.

But this is far from being an erotic work; in fact, it is a depressing one. None of the characters elicits our sympathy or warmth and Browning's character Lucy seems to be sleep-walking and drugged when she is not actually sleeping and drugged.

Poor university student Lucy (Emily Browning) responds to a mysterious ad and falls into an erotic creepy job.

The pacing for this is way too slow. I'm willing to let the creepy story seep in, but I can't let the creeping pace go. There are too many nothing scenes. Julia Leigh is the writer/director of his artsy film with pretensions of greatness. As for the nudity, there is no sexiness or beauty. It's not gritty. It's not powerful. If we need anything, we need really tough acting from Emily Browning. She needs to show a range of emotions that she doesn't seem to possess. For most of this movie, she gives us her blank face. I must admit that there is something unique here. It's probably worked out exactly as Julia Leigh had wanted. But I just don't find it compelling.