Rage

I understand why it was created for phone viewers.. good idea but poorly executed

There's a tricky decision the you have to make when you choose to do a film examining the controversial elements of an industry.

You have to choose whether to fix the film in a place and time, and discuss real historical events, or to allow the film to examine broader topics through fictional constructs, thus freeing the movie to be timeless.

Both choices can be fraught with peril, and Sally Potter braves those waters with Rage, choosing to create a fictional context for examining the class disparity, sweatshops, and unrealistic beauty standards that are at the heart of most of the Fashion Industry's major controversies.

Potter uses a bare-bones film technique, fixing a camera at a green screen, and shooting a series of documentary-style still-camera interviews with actors playing fashion industry archetypes.

There is a fundamental premise, and a story arc complete with acceptably dramatic events of a shocking nature, but these are neither compelling, nor believable in any context. The story here is secondary, and is a means to an end.

This film is, essentially, an acting exercise. It is an opportunity for Sally Potter and her actors to explore a character's arc in the broader context of a (largely silly and contrived) fashion industry disaster.

The film never answers any of the poignant questions it asks, and it never really allows any one character to follow a satisfying arc (with the possible exception of Jude Law's character, the high point).

For the most part, theatre and film geeks will enjoy the effort, if not the execution, but mainstream film-goers will be bored to tears inside of five minutes.

So it's no secret that experimental filmmaking is a necessity of cinema and some experimental films succeed and others don't. Rage is one of those that doesn't quite succeed in its experimentation on narrative style. Rage is about a New York blogger named Michelangelo, a character we never see or hear. Michelangelo is documenting a New York fashion show by interviewing various people behind the stage in front of various neon colored backgrounds. The entire film is just individual character interviews intertwined to create a story. There is no character interaction and no sets whatsoever. The entire film is done with actors, sound effects, and a blue screen. And believe it or not, the film does actually end up telling a cohesive story, just in the most inconvenient way possible.

Simply put, you can't tell a story like this. You just can't make this kind of narrative work without some extra flair or nuance to spice it up. You simply can't tell a unique enough story with just actors in front of a blue screen. The film, for the most part, kept my attention the whole way through, but it is not something that I would watch repeatedly. It is good for one viewing, and the most you can take out of that one viewing is that this is a narrative style that just doesn't work. This film could make an interesting contemporary stage play with a few tweaks, but as a film it is missing key elements that make cinema what it is. I commend Sally Potter, the director, for coming up with new and inventive ways to tell a story through the film medium and I would never discourage her from continuing to expand her experimentation, but I do hope she realized that this attempt was a failed one.

Moving on from the narrative style, I really can't complain about the story itself or the characters within it. That is really the tragedy of this film is how much potential its story and characters could have had, if told in a more effective manner. The story takes unexpected twists throughout, and grows surprisingly dark and captivating. Each character is very well designed, but you have to take into consideration the fact that we only see a small part of each character's potential. Like I said before, there is zero character interaction in this film unless you count the things said directly to our invisible narrator. It is difficult to fully judge a character's depth when you never see him or her interact with the other characters of the film. But for what we are given by these characters, it is all very interesting. Each character has their own philosophy and outlook on life and the fashion industry, and these personal values each one of them expresses drives the story home. A lot could have been done with what was laid out across the screen, but the over experimental narrative style held it back significantly.

And to add insult to injury, the characters were played by excellent actors who I would have loved to see go further with their roles if the narrative had allowed for it. There are some very big names in this film and a variety of A-list faces. There is everyone from Steve Buscemi as the disgruntled photographer, to the kind old Dianne Wiest who wants her perfume company to succeed, but also wants to keep everyone happy. Jude Law goes the extra mile for this film and plays the transsexual runway model Minx. It is one of the most enticing yet disturbing roles in the whole film, and Law does a great job. Judi Dench plays a painfully honest fashion critic, who delivers one of the last and most enthralling speeches of the film. She ends the film on a particularly dark, yet fascinating note and her performance is great for what she has to work with.

I see this film getting torn up by critics and audience members alike, but I feel it deserves much more credit than it has received. Obviously it is very flawed, but it is not an outright horrible movie. The narrative style simply doesn't work and it definitely holds the film back a lot, but apart from that the film delivers a lot of good things. The story, while not perfect, is undeniably interesting, and so are the characters. The actors do a great job in their limiting roles and the only complaint I can make about them is that I just wanted more. Overall, Rage is a failure in minimalist filmmaking. The film makes numerous references to Andy Warhol, but I'm sure Warhol would have been disgusted by this film, as its style almost ended up being a mockery of his own, unintentionally of course. With a lot of tweaking and revising, though, Rage could be a great film or even stage play that would most definitely be worth watching.

I just cannot understand why this film has been made. Why did such esteemed and brilliant actors contribute to this film! The film is only just over 1hr 30 minutes but felt like hours. There is nothing I cannot say that is good about this film. It was not at all interesting in my opinion.

I greatly enjoyed this film and have no idea why all of the IMDb reviewers seemed so bitterly scorned by this production. I found so much of this movie to be funny, sad, or at least entertaining. I thought the writing felt honest and sharp, and i found the acting to be superb, because IT FELT LIKE I WAS WATCHING REAL HUMAN BEINGS. Everyone else who commented seemed to have a problem with the performances but i thought they felt authentic. I think we could probably all agree that some people working in the fashion industry might on occasion behave in a way that is a little over dramatic. So when the characters in this film are portrayed behaving in an overly dramatic way, as many of them are, it makes complete sense to me. I thought this was a really unique (I'm saying this because I haven't seen any other movie shot with only actors sitting infront of blue screens) way to tell a story and I was really glad I picked it up. A fellow reviewer complained that Rage was plot-less, but it felt as ambiguous as something a teenager might put together but still had cohesive elements strong enough to leave you, or at least me, with a sense of what transpired off camera, which I believe was the aim of the director. I mean, so it is rather beyond the scope of possibility that some teenage black kid got to interview all of these people, repeatedly, and did so while they were not trying to be interviewed. But I think the statement that, "Rage shows how ugly and downright wrong it is to allow the production, fiancé and distribution of 'anything goes' cinema," is a horrible and self indulgent criticism of a artistic work you didn't like. There are a lot of things down right wrong in this world; creative expression typically isn't one of them. And also that isn't how you spell finance.