3 commentaires
Jane Birkin has always been one of my favorites. An import from Britain, she has been a popular figure in France for nearly four decades now, first as the sexy/funny companion and muse of major singer-composer Serge Gainsbourg, then as a singer herself and a cinema, TV and theater actress. She also took part in many a radio and TV show, popularizing her comical English accent and grammar mistakes when speaking French. First confined to light comedy or little songs she gradually let the deeper side of her personality show through and recently turned to screen writing and directing for TV. "Boxes" is her first movie for the big screen. She wrote the script, directed and starred. Needless to say I was looking forward to seeing the result of this triple effort but I must admit I was a little let down.
Not that "Boxes" is uninteresting. It is sincere (Jane tells about herself and does not spare herself). It is ambitious and courageous (opting for surrealism, opting out of linear narrative, mixing the living and the dead in the same scenes, filming the naked body of an old woman, tackling unpleasant intimate subjects, is no easy way out). And although cheaply produced, "Boxes" can boast a dream cast (Geraldine Chaplin, Michel Piccoli, John Hurt, Tcheky Karyo, Natacha Régnier, Lou Doillon, Annie Girardot ).
However, for all these assets, "Boxes" is too imperfect to be memorable.
The first defect is that the story is much too referential to be universal. If you do not know Jane Birkin's life story to the tip of your fingers you are likely to be lost. I personally had no difficulty in identifying Anna as Jane, Max as Gainsbourg,, Camille as Charlotte Gainsbourg, Jean as Jacques Doillon etc., but I was baffled by the characters I had not been introduced to. Who are Madame Martin, Josephine and the small widower? Who do they represent? I was really confused each time they appeared so I can imagine the reaction of someone with no or insufficient information about the main characters
Another problem is the director's clumsy dealing with the surrealistic form adopted. I am not the kind to balk at non-linear story-telling. I love Buñuel's "El Angel exterminador" or Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" but for a surrealistic work to leave a deep impact it must fascinate. And mesmerized I was not. There is of course a series of strange-looking, cruel-sounding scenes but they are merely flatly juxtaposed. There is no tension rising, no vertigo overwhelming you.
Last but not least, it looks as if Jane Birkin has taken herself too seriously this time. Where has her legendary self-derision gone? Of course life has been difficult for her but a touch of lightness now and then would have been welcome. By exposing her sufferings so unabashedly Birkin borders on self-indulgence.
All in all, "Boxes" is more interesting than successful. At any rate, it is recommended only to those who know Jane Birkin and who love her.
Not that "Boxes" is uninteresting. It is sincere (Jane tells about herself and does not spare herself). It is ambitious and courageous (opting for surrealism, opting out of linear narrative, mixing the living and the dead in the same scenes, filming the naked body of an old woman, tackling unpleasant intimate subjects, is no easy way out). And although cheaply produced, "Boxes" can boast a dream cast (Geraldine Chaplin, Michel Piccoli, John Hurt, Tcheky Karyo, Natacha Régnier, Lou Doillon, Annie Girardot ).
However, for all these assets, "Boxes" is too imperfect to be memorable.
The first defect is that the story is much too referential to be universal. If you do not know Jane Birkin's life story to the tip of your fingers you are likely to be lost. I personally had no difficulty in identifying Anna as Jane, Max as Gainsbourg,, Camille as Charlotte Gainsbourg, Jean as Jacques Doillon etc., but I was baffled by the characters I had not been introduced to. Who are Madame Martin, Josephine and the small widower? Who do they represent? I was really confused each time they appeared so I can imagine the reaction of someone with no or insufficient information about the main characters
Another problem is the director's clumsy dealing with the surrealistic form adopted. I am not the kind to balk at non-linear story-telling. I love Buñuel's "El Angel exterminador" or Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" but for a surrealistic work to leave a deep impact it must fascinate. And mesmerized I was not. There is of course a series of strange-looking, cruel-sounding scenes but they are merely flatly juxtaposed. There is no tension rising, no vertigo overwhelming you.
Last but not least, it looks as if Jane Birkin has taken herself too seriously this time. Where has her legendary self-derision gone? Of course life has been difficult for her but a touch of lightness now and then would have been welcome. By exposing her sufferings so unabashedly Birkin borders on self-indulgence.
All in all, "Boxes" is more interesting than successful. At any rate, it is recommended only to those who know Jane Birkin and who love her.
- guy-bellinger
- 20 juin 2007
- Permalien
I really loved this movie. Initially I was intrigued but wasn't really getting into it. Maybe it took 15 to 30 minutes before I was really... immersed (and I very much was by the way). Thinking about it, it's often that way with challenging and intellectually stimulating movies that I end up really liking and wanting to see again. They often don't win me over right away. I watched Boxes at the Cinemateque in Oslo a few hours ago, and I feel like watching it again right away, to catch all the nuances of the dialog and the acting that I didn't the first time.
The film kind of balances between the banal and the profound, but the wonderful thing is that in the end it actually makes the banal profound by being totally genuine, and intelligent. I don't think banality survives honesty. What I'm trying to say, in a not very effortless way, is that the movie seems totally effortless in its genuine portrayal of characters, relationships and feelings. But it is in some ways theatrical too. I don't mean the performances but the way the characters themselves act in a way, and the events that transpire.
And I don't mean "events" like in a plot-heavy movie, because there isn't much of that. There isn't even much of characters having "arcs" - changing in the course of the movie; this is more of a exploration of relationships and characters, at once poetic and grounded. If you like Truffaut or Rohmer, I think you will like Boxes.
And unlike the other poster, I don't think you need to know Jane's life and map the characters to the real people in her life to enjoy this movie. At least I don't need to. I know very little about her life; I know she was married to Serge Gainsbourgh, and that she had three daughters with three different men, and not much else. Although of course the film is very inspired by her life, it's not meant to be totally about these people - it is ultimately a fiction and I found it to be very good as that.
Jane said at the screening that it took her twelve years to get financing and develop this movie. I hope it doesn't take another twelve years before she gets to make the next one.
The film kind of balances between the banal and the profound, but the wonderful thing is that in the end it actually makes the banal profound by being totally genuine, and intelligent. I don't think banality survives honesty. What I'm trying to say, in a not very effortless way, is that the movie seems totally effortless in its genuine portrayal of characters, relationships and feelings. But it is in some ways theatrical too. I don't mean the performances but the way the characters themselves act in a way, and the events that transpire.
And I don't mean "events" like in a plot-heavy movie, because there isn't much of that. There isn't even much of characters having "arcs" - changing in the course of the movie; this is more of a exploration of relationships and characters, at once poetic and grounded. If you like Truffaut or Rohmer, I think you will like Boxes.
And unlike the other poster, I don't think you need to know Jane's life and map the characters to the real people in her life to enjoy this movie. At least I don't need to. I know very little about her life; I know she was married to Serge Gainsbourgh, and that she had three daughters with three different men, and not much else. Although of course the film is very inspired by her life, it's not meant to be totally about these people - it is ultimately a fiction and I found it to be very good as that.
Jane said at the screening that it took her twelve years to get financing and develop this movie. I hope it doesn't take another twelve years before she gets to make the next one.
- Edwige_Urquhart
- 30 juil. 2009
- Permalien