40 Tons de Azul

Someone must have thought really highly of this film, or it wouldn't have won the Grand Prize at Sundance 2005. I was just forty shades of bored. "Forty Shades of Blue" chronicles the emotional journey of Laura, the Russian common-law wife of Alan James (Rip Torn), a legendary music producer with a drinking problem and a wandering eye. When Laura embarks on an affair with Alan's stony-faced son Michael (Darren Burrows) the ensuing love triangle should be as hot as the Memphis summer. Instead it falls flat. Even the sex scenes are drab. There are only two remarkable things about "Forty Shades of Blue." One is what could be described as a nuanced performance by Dina Korzun as Laura. This actress can say a lot without talking, which is merciful given the dreary quality of most of the dialog in this film. The other thing is her haunting rendition of the title song. Buy the single, skip the film. 2 stars out of 5.

Film-making with such an eye for detail and nuance is rarely to be seen in America and I'm overjoyed that the Sundance committee stepped forward to recognize it. Forty Shades of Blue is a fascinated witness to heartbreak and refuses all melodrama, all sentimentality in favor of fully lived characters that are shocking in their naturalism---the Russian actress in particular is astonishing but what is even more astonishing is the subtlety with which the director observes her. It is the most careful portrait of loneliness I have ever seen.

Unlike most directors who point us in every frame at their star or their theme, Sachs--like Robert Altman--often points out details and people of the setting (Memphis) so that we are quite sure we're not seeing actors at all, and the effect is not the closed-room feel you would expect of a love triangle, but a place and time fixed forever by the lens. Ira Sachs has coaxed great performances from his actors, his hometown and the musicians who perform like a Greek chorus throughout. It's quite a masterpiece.

Somehow its a nice movie, with some decent performance. and yeh there are some flaws in drama which could avoid but still overall its good. its a bit boring in start to mid.

Plot is also not that NEW, there are similar movies in 90s , where same plot but here its a little bit different in the end. most of other movies with same idea was has some action (violence) in it. but this one is just pure drama.

the end game is.... no matter how the life is luxury and can buy stuff with money , if there is no LOVE or feelings and honesty then there is no relationship. and thats what happened in the end.

she realized in the end that there is nothing good in that relationship.

First, the plot summary is incorrect in a couple minor ways. Laura, the Russian girlfriend of Alan James (Rip Torn) met him in Russia on a business trip/ conference (according to a long conversation in the film between Laura and Michael (Alan's son). Second they don't live in a penthouse, but on the banks of the Mississippi, in a sprawling 70's era house (NOT luxury but great set). Michael is not a freelance writer, but a literature Professor (as he discusses in a couple instances in the film - but would probably rather be a free-lance writer).

I saw this film at the Best of Fest (Sundance) Screening in Park City, UT, knowing that it was the juried Grand Prize Drama winner with high expectations. After having seen several other films, and having been attending the festival for 15 years, I was very disappointed and quite perplexed that it went away with this honor.

The film plods along revealing the characters as boring, sad, and shallow ghosts. The only exception is Alan (Torn) who does a wonderful job (but he always place this sort of role - a curmudgeonly, outwardly genial, jerk). The story is fairly simple, and verges on Oedipal themes, however, there is no real impact of the relationship that develops between Michael and Laura, as it takes place in a miasma of moral uncertainty. Alan and Laura are not married; Alan openly courts another girlfriend and has other transient relationships, Laura picks up men in bars and has a fling here and there, and Michael is ambivalent about most everything.

The story moves so slowly and the characters have such restrained reaction to what would seem as provocative situations, that the viewer comes away with a sort of numb bewilderment. The dialog is simply awful, and often distracting. Laura goes around saying things that you might expect a Russian Tour Guide to say (which she was year ago). It would be fine if she said and reacted in this way occasionally, from a realistically portrayed film such as this, I want more: more emotion, more anger, more. Laura is just sad - throughout the entire piece.

Michael's dialog is even worse. He's a Literature Professor, but seems illiterate. He says things that at times are harder to understand than Laura with her Russian accent. And the content of what he say's are often out-of-place and silly. His character is also the most shallowly portrayed in the film. He is simply blank. It is never believable that he would have a relationship with Laura.

Don't bother with this film. If you want to see something similar, but with considerable more depth, see The Ice Storm.

Dina Korzun played an immigrant, abandoned with her son in the sordid wastelands of Merrie England, in Last Resort, and her character is in a way an extension of this part. In 40 Shades she is the trophy wife of a 'legendary' Memphis record producer, and her fragile, doll-like beauty is an extreme foil for Rip Torn's gross and menacing but superficial superstar. It is an unsettling experience to see a film like this coming from America: after half-an-hour, the plot doesn't seem to have settled on a direction. About twenty minutes have passed before we can begin to guess who everyone is, and what they are doing. None of that in-your-face stuff. The enclosed world of these people is shot mostly indoors and feels suitably claustrophobic; it's perhaps a mistake by the director to extend this feeling of claustrophobia to the auditorium where you may be watching this, though, and similarly, the exploration of ennui amongst the rich and powerful backslappers should not cross over into the darkness of the front row, like some kind of virus. Antonioni used to specialise in this kind of milieu and he (damnably) admitted that he found boredom fascinating. There is a dulled spark in there, though: Michael (Burrows), the son of the Great Man, and the lonely doll fall desperately in love, and there is an excellent scene where Big Al lovelessly declares his love for his Laura through a hootenanny P.A. while the young pretender, the hungry wolf, or Lonesome Polecat, prowls around the edge of the dance crowd. But about 40 minutes into this your reviewer began feeling the passing of time, and by the end, even this theatre's lovely new seats were arse-numbing. A noir-ish film like this should provide lots of enjoyment for the eye alone, but the camera-work was outstandingly ordinary. There is a good enough film in there, but it needs to be cut out of the block. CLIFF HANLEY