Seta

In 1862, the son of the mayor of a French village, Hervé Joncour (Michael Pitt), is invited by the silk entrepreneur Baldabiou (Alfred Molina) to travel to Africa to bring healthy silkworm eggs for his factory. Hervé first marries his beloved bride Hélène Joncour (Keira Knightley) and then he travels in the long journey. He succeeds, makes fortune and is invited to travel again to trade silkworm eggs in a longer journey to Japan. He is received by the local baron in a secret spot and falls in love for his Chinese concubine. Hervé returns to Hélène, but remains obsessed in the concubine. When he has a chance, he returns to Japan to trade the eggs and stay with his unattainable love.

"Silk" is an emotionless romance with wonderful cinematography and locations and completely miscast. The expressionless baby face Michael Pitt is an insipid and weak actor and could never have the lead role. I am a great fan of Keira Knightley, but the make-up work is very poor and she does not look aged or ill in the end of the story. The situation exposed in the movie is quite ridiculous: Hervé is just-married and in deep love for Hélène; when he travels to Japan, a concubine only glances at him and touches him in the bath, and that is enough for him to become obsessed by the woman. I can not believe that a successful novel could be so shallow. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Paixão Proibida" ("Forbidden Passion")

This is a beautiful film.

The story stays very close to the book I had already read twice (around 10 years ago then 6 months ago). The adaptation is faithful to the author, and even if there's not much words, the intensity of the feelings is always present. The actors convey these feelings very well, with deep sensitivity and great sensuality (just watch when Hervé is in the Japanese wooden tub, and the girl pours water on his face and lips with her fingers). The settings and sceneries are overwhelming: there's so much beauty-like the snow covered trees in Japan, the Joncour garden, ... François Girard had already shown how a fantastic Director he is with his 2 previous films, and now with Silk! He has such a strong aesthetic sense, and a great way to direct actors...

Adapted from a rather short but great novel, they had space to expand it in the movie but didn't make the most of it. It has nice cinematography, a good soundtrack (with a beautiful main theme used in trailers), solid base story and good acting by Kiera Knightley. However, it's a love story and I wasn't moved by the romantic aspects one bit. I think the main fault lies with the main actor who just didn't convey emotions well enough. He looks good but seriously lacks in acting chops, at least in this one. The chemistry between the actors was also severely lacking. The pace was slow, which can sometimes work in period pieces to improve the atmosphere, but unfortunately here it was mostly a detriment. It might be worth a rental but I would pick other period romantic stories first.

Rating: 5 out of 10

Can we really watch a movie lasting almost two hours just for its stunning cinematography and some glimpse of storytelling, or should it rather be the other way around? I think "Silk" proves that it is often impossible to adequately translate a deep, emotionally charged book into a credible and enjoyable movie. Personally, I just got terribly bored less than halfway through the movie. Yes, it is visually compelling. And yes, there are some fine moments in the acting, especially from Alfred Molina. But as a whole this leaves with quite a disappointing feeling in the viewer, the feeling that with all that money and resources and brilliant actors perhaps they could have come up with something a bit different. And a little less slow.

Silk was a flop, not the international success its backers had hoped for after the director's The Red Violin made such a splash a decade earlier. It is worthy of attention, in pinpointing some cautionary messages to other would-be Visionary (that recently overworked term) filmmakers.

1. TRAVELOGUE: Film is unfortunately a highly literal, through visuals, medium, and it is easy to become mesmerized by the shots. Mature directors scrupulously avoid this pitfall, but perhaps Canadian director Francois Girard has subconsciously assimilated the approach of Terrence Malick. Like Malick, he only ventures forth from his artistic cave once a decade, and feels compelled to make each shot the most perfect and beautiful of all time. This is not cinema -this is "how I spent my vacation" -a $20,000,000 slide show.

2. FOOLED BY THE RUSHES: It could be a by-product of the far-flung co-production status (Silk is structured officially as a Canadian/Italian/Japanese project, an unusual combo), but the movie displays an age-old problem of Hollywood, caused by over-monitoring of the rushes. Many a stiff, stolid film result has looked "marvelous" in the dailies. Studios traditionally made decisions like director firings or bringing in a troubleshooter to haul in the reins on a project based on the quality of the rushes. This makes sense in a bean-counter universe, but has nothing to do with the ultimate movie, which as Hitchcock noted, is stored in the director's head. Watching Silk I was struck that the rushes coming back from the various locations truly must have looked fabulous, but that is no indicator that they would ultimately amount to anything in a gestalt sense. Only the director and his editors know what will be needed in terms of coverage, and how the pieces might mesh into a whole. It's easy to get bamboozled by striking shots, just as at the other extreme it's easy to assume the worst when a neophyte director falls behind schedule and isn't giving the execs their daily meters of processed celluloid.

3. DISTANCING: Brecht and Godard have long been the inspiration for film directors to keep the audience at a safe distance -break up the naturally hypnotic effect that a movie has for the viewer, which Hitchcock exploited to a fare-thee-well. In Silk, Girard uses the crutch of voice-over narration to sabotage one's involvement in the action/dialog/story. Like Zentropa, another pretentious exercise by a wannabe "visionary" director, the somnolent narration literally puts the viewer to sleep. His insistence on oft-criticized bland American accents for French characters further abstracts the story, and makes it near-impossible to smoothly enter into the life of the protagonists. Low affect is the instruction to lead Michael Pitt and even Alfred Molina, the latter bringing professional life to his rattled off exposition, and even some wit. Keira Knightley gets to actually emote in her patented shy-but-effusive manner, but I noticed the director cutting away from her as quickly as possible, and even though she is the key central figure of the story's romantic theme, her overall screen time is reduced to the bare minimum. The dialog by Girard and Michael Golding is almost all in the form of recitations: never sounding natural or using vernacular. That's as big a mistake as the bland American accents.

4. CRYPTIC: Adapting a novel is difficult; perhaps this is why the Academy gives a separate Oscar category for adaptations as opposed to the Original Screenplay niche for the Woody Allens of the world. Too often a film (or TV) adaptation REQUIRES that the viewer be not just conversant but well-nigh totally immersed in the source work in order to appreciate the film. (I recently watched the British TV series A Dance to the Music of Time, via Netflix, after a marathon reading of all 12 Powell novels it's based upon, and the damn thing would have made no sense whatsoever without having the books fresh in my mind.) For Silk, many basic and virtually all nuanced elements are lost without knowledge of the source, a damning fault. The intended purity of not subtitling the Japanese dialog segments falls squarely into this problem area too. The movie should stand alone, and if it can't, why bother? It's not impossible -everybody's favorite of all-time The Godfather saw Coppola creating a work of art that never requires one to go back and read Mario Puzo's pulp novel.

5. THE PITT FACTOR: Folks love to criticize young Mr. Pitt, an actor who future generations will scratch their heads over: "how did he get into so many films?". Pauly Shore, Phillips Holmes in the '30s, and many 4-F performers like Sonny Tufts and William Prince during WW II come to mind. Following the death of James Dean, for over a decade innumerable folks imitated his breakthrough persona, of which I recall Michael Parks and Christopher Jones becoming the most typecast. Now we have Mr. Pitt, the lookalike thespian doomed to live in the shadow of Leonardo DiCaprio, let alone his equally handsome namesake Brad. What a cross to bear!

6. UNLOCKING THE MYSTERY: I was reminded of Werner Herzog's overlooked classic Heart of Glass while watching Silk. Both films have transcendentally beautiful landscapes. Underneath the main romantic and cross-cultural themes, they have the same core parable: a one-industry community (Glassblowing in Herzog, Silk creation here) poised on the edge of disaster. Herzog hypnotized his cast to get a unique, otherworldly effect. Girard has Pitt & most others sleepwalking, to null effect.