Confession of a Child of the Century

Yes, Pete Doherty appears to be out of his depth having been cast in a leading role here, but then maybe that doesn't matter, because the character he plays is out of his depth. Charlotte Gainsboug is acting her socks off (as usual) and the supporting cast are doing their best. The storyline seems to be an exploration of love, betrayal, jealousy and suchlike and so I found it engrossingly realistic - confusing at times, but then relationships so often are .... There is a bit of muttering and unintelligible whispering going on ( and Doherty is not the main culprit in this respect). But I have seen far worse films than this one with higher ratings, so I suspect that this has been too rigorously condemned - Doherty's manner is eccentric, but he looks the part, and, personally, I just accepted that Doherty's character was eccentric and enjoyed the film on the whole.

This is an anglo-saxon movie presupposed on The Romanticism of the Early 1800 's of Northern France. Scenes of Celtic Brittany and Germany give it away clearly. The movie is a polemic of sorts showing a viewer that love is either death or life. The obvious and tedious even grating truth is that is is both and neither. Charlotte's genius suffers and still shines through amongst a college theater seeming ensemble type who enjoy dressing up in period pieces for their own enjoyment.

Why it was made to seem "big"? Not sure. Cannes seems to pick out some movies just because they nod French, sad really, but i suppose they highlight aspects of France's vast cultural influence, how ever trite and shallow they may portray it. Does anyone ever ask if it really serves the purpose then?

The only burning question I came from this movie asking myself was: was didn't French men in the second quarter of the 19th c. Ever seem to comb their hair?

Not only was Pete Doherty's performance monochromatically lackluster - but his hair was so constantly in his eyes that I, for one, simply could not get past wanting to just hand him a comb and yell: Try it, dude!!!!!

Ugh, thruout the flick, it looks like that affected coff of his literally likely has small infestations of bugs in it.

So, enough of that, you get it - annoying, repulsive.

As for the rest of it: for a period piece the sets were elaborate - albeit limited as they were in range (a "period" chandelier'd salon, or oak tables dining, or candle lit bed room here, a forested field there, a series of scenes from the same bumpy rural carriage ride) - the costuming was studied for accuracy, the tonality was period "sepia by candlelight", the casting utterly banal - extravagantly buxom "society" women, wizened clerics and old men, crocheting elderly matrons, oh so merrily square-dancing albeit grimy workers, etc etc etc

On the bright side, Charlotte Gainsbourg was, as always, excellent - always elegantly charming in a very simply way - so sorry she got mired in this swamp muck of a thing - chemistry w. Doherty? Zero - I don't blame her, that hair ...(and likely just as well for her character since his - 19th haute bourgeois debauchee - likely suffered his unremitting gloom of existential angst from a foully perduring case of physical syphilis than anything "cerebral"

An oh, the musical soundtracks were completely out of joint - inexplicable as choices.

Lots of mumbling about love and not enough substantial storyline for me. Gainsbourg carried the acting component in this film but the other cast needed more direction... A long movie trying to be too stylish and delivering mostly fluff....

So difficult to feel empathy for the neurosis of the elite