two men
I loved it . For simplicity, for dialogue, for the shadows of melancholia. Easy to define it as a chain of...pretextes. An artist, isolated, has as guest, then captive, than lover and companion and son surrogate a young man, presumed victim.
The theme is not original.
The difference - that is all. Not a real story, but stories - memories - confessions , not authentic tension - except few scenes, forced in high measure- , not real fight to obtain freedom- except more expression of fury of young man.
Only two men in a sort of relation , ambiguous , in some measure, but being less interesting than the house of painter.
An experiment ? More a try. Decent acting and the viewer having the illusion of answers about story.
Not bad but ...experimental. And with strange good potential, sacrificed for a kind of film about a final point who seems , in some measure, artificial, defining the fatigue of scripwriter and director. But, I recognize, for me, just a beautiful film, good supportzt recalling of few personal memories.
The theme is not original.
The difference - that is all. Not a real story, but stories - memories - confessions , not authentic tension - except few scenes, forced in high measure- , not real fight to obtain freedom- except more expression of fury of young man.
Only two men in a sort of relation , ambiguous , in some measure, but being less interesting than the house of painter.
An experiment ? More a try. Decent acting and the viewer having the illusion of answers about story.
Not bad but ...experimental. And with strange good potential, sacrificed for a kind of film about a final point who seems , in some measure, artificial, defining the fatigue of scripwriter and director. But, I recognize, for me, just a beautiful film, good supportzt recalling of few personal memories.
- Kirpianuscus
- 28 feb 2024