Esther Kahn
- 2000
- Tous publics
- 2h 37min
NOTE IMDb
6,7/10
1,2 k
MA NOTE
Une jeune fille juive à Londres au XIXe siècle rêve de devenir actrice de théâtre.Une jeune fille juive à Londres au XIXe siècle rêve de devenir actrice de théâtre.Une jeune fille juive à Londres au XIXe siècle rêve de devenir actrice de théâtre.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires et 1 nomination au total
Avis à la une
A shame that even a talented director, Desplechin, could not muster a decent performance out of a bleakly-talented actress, Phoenix, Esther Kahn lacks the substance to convey a very concise and clear plot. In an attempt to fulfill the concentric circle of an actor's plight, the performance and presentation is too contrived and poorly executed to draw any compassion from the viewer. In an overly long running time, the redundancy of Esther's struggle is too melodramatic to be effective and reduces the storyline into a frail frame of a disastrous display. The content is incoherent and gratuitous as Phoenix struggles to carry out Desplechin's instruction, just as Esther is supposedly trying to do the same. Never feeling a convincing victory over Esther's pain, we never feel a victory in Phoenix's talent.
10agaluro
Summer Phoenix did a great performance where you really feel what she's not able to feel and you just cannot understand what she has on her mind. Besides, she portrays a jewish girl who behaves really confronting the status quo of that century.
I rented this thinking it might be interesting, and it might have been an interesting story except that is was told in such an uninteresting manner. Hard to follow, strange editing, disjointed storyline, the characters mumble, all in all a dreadfully dull waste of time. I just couldn't get into it and didn't care what happened to the characters - not even Ian Holm could save this film. Unless you need a cure for insomnia, I'd skip it. 3/10, and that's being generous.
Sleepwalking, dead, boring, an endurance test for the audience - all have been said before so why am I adding to the comments I agree with? There is this:
"...it isn't before a man treats her badly that she realizes on stage, that she has talent and that she connects with the audience and emerges as a stronger human being."
This must be the reviewer's imagination talking. One can tell that this is the point of the movie that its makers are trying to make but they failed. Utterly. The only reason I kept it going in the machine was to see if they could redeem themselves. But they did not. It's a very big disappointment. There is no connection with the audience - either in the theater's audience inside the story itself or the movie audience watching this.
Too many close-ups, just way too many. I'd call it possibly a workshop on close-ups - if you're in the business. Otherwise, why waste money on this? It's just pointless.
"the film never reveals more than it needs to."
Honestly, it reveals nothing.
And yes, why was so much money thrown at this movie? I seriously wonder if the backers needed to lose money for tax purposes.
"...it isn't before a man treats her badly that she realizes on stage, that she has talent and that she connects with the audience and emerges as a stronger human being."
This must be the reviewer's imagination talking. One can tell that this is the point of the movie that its makers are trying to make but they failed. Utterly. The only reason I kept it going in the machine was to see if they could redeem themselves. But they did not. It's a very big disappointment. There is no connection with the audience - either in the theater's audience inside the story itself or the movie audience watching this.
Too many close-ups, just way too many. I'd call it possibly a workshop on close-ups - if you're in the business. Otherwise, why waste money on this? It's just pointless.
"the film never reveals more than it needs to."
Honestly, it reveals nothing.
And yes, why was so much money thrown at this movie? I seriously wonder if the backers needed to lose money for tax purposes.
A masterpiece.
Thus it is, possibly, not for everyone.
The camera work, acting, directing and everything else is unique, original, superb in every way - and very different from the trash we are sadly used to getting.
Summer Phoenix creates a deep, believable and intriguing Esther Kahn. As everything else in this film, her acting is unique - it is completely her own - neither "British" nor "American" nor anything else I have ever seen. There is something mesmerizing about it.
The lengthy, unbroken, natural shots are wonderful, reminding us that we have become too accustomed to a few restricted ways of shooting and editing.
Thus it is, possibly, not for everyone.
The camera work, acting, directing and everything else is unique, original, superb in every way - and very different from the trash we are sadly used to getting.
Summer Phoenix creates a deep, believable and intriguing Esther Kahn. As everything else in this film, her acting is unique - it is completely her own - neither "British" nor "American" nor anything else I have ever seen. There is something mesmerizing about it.
The lengthy, unbroken, natural shots are wonderful, reminding us that we have become too accustomed to a few restricted ways of shooting and editing.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesChosen by "Les Cahiers du cinéma" (France) as one of the 10 best pictures of 2000 (#01)
- Citations
Nathan Quellen: Because what has to happen, is that every step you take has to be more unbelievable than the step before. E-Every step has to be - well it has to have an idea behind it, an idea t-that is so complex, it would take, 10 philosophers just to decipher it. Each step has to stretch like a rope - in the audiences mind. Until they can't bare it anymore and they wan to cry out, "Careful Esther you're going to break it".
- Versions alternativesPremiered at the Cannes Film Festival with a Running Time of 157 minutes (2 hours 37 minutes), which was then cut down by 15 minutes, against director Arnaud Desplechin's wishes, for theatrical release in France and elsewhere. The cut version essentially removes three scenes: a dream sequence of Esther, and two scenes fleshing out the Philippe Haygard character. The full uncut version was released on DVD in France and has screened in a few places such as the Lincoln Center in New York in 2019.
- ConnexionsReferenced in I'm Still Here (2010)
- Bandes originalesSuite algérienne
[by] Camille Saint-Saëns
Performed by Orchestre Philharmonique de Monte-Carlo (as The Monte Carlo Philharmonic Orchestra)
Conducted by David Robertson
courtesy of Naïve Auvidis
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Esther Kahn?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 23 371 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 5 124 $US
- 3 mars 2002
- Montant brut mondial
- 23 371 $US
- Durée2 heures 37 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Esther Kahn (2000) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre