Rage

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.

Sally Potter's "Rage" is a very unconventional picture in so many ways to I was attracted and impressed with the concept put together of having a story with a talented group of actors and how to make they perform in solitary close-ups and in monologues that actually makes a full play where they are all connected despite never appearing on the same shot. I was curious by the whole thing and it becomes of the most interesting film experiences of recent years, and it also goes for the plot of what she wanted to tell us: to deal with the crazed and glamourous world of fashion - something you don't see these days (with the notable exception of "Ready to Wear" and I'll go back to present a harsh comparison of both).

The story and concept presented: it revolves a huge fashion where a group of characters from all walks of life are directly or indirectly involved with. An all-star cast were well-chosen by Potter: Dianne Wiest, Jude Law, Eddie Izzard, Bob Balaban, John Leguizamo, Steve Buscemi, Patrick J. Adams, Riz Ahmed, Adriana Barraza, David Oyelowo, Judi Dench and a few more are part of this unusual art project and they play characters as distinct as a rebel photographer, a tough security guard, a diva-like drag model, an organizer of the event, a delivery guy, a fashion agent and many others, each with their individual characteristics that can go from being nice people or really arrogant figures or they can change their ways as the events pass by - and they do pass by which revolves a tragic incident and each react in unexpected ways reaching out to the point of despair, fear, or simply rage.

Like said before, they don't interact with each other, they simply look at the camera in great looking close-up shots or sometimes moving around frantically, and as for background each actor/character has a colour design behind them, no props or almost anything is used. So, they're all alone delivering their monologues interacting with an invisible blogger who's covering the fashion show and the tragedy.

Sounds boring, right? Totally. Yet Ms. Potter manages to create a film/play where the actors performance and characters speaks great volumes with their own personas that the movie is anything but boring, exhausting or pretentious. You feel the action, the humor, the drama and the intensity of all so you're hooked through the whole experience. And as for the story and it meanders it's an honest view of the fashion world and all the parties involved going from models, managers, photographers, and the people from behind the scenes. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity; and there's the crudeness between those who have against those who have not, the unfair treatment workers have, the arrogance displayed by people who want to grow in such scenario by hurting people's feelings and backstabbing each other is a common place (but truth be told those issues goes on other working places as well). A dog-eat-dog world where even a death is view as something worthy of admiration and fascination rather than the sadness of the act.

You don't get to see what happens except for the static play format so a lot of what happens you have to exercise the power of imagination. And that's where I get my criticism against Altman's "Ready to Wear". That movie had a spectacular ensemble, it was filmed in Paris during the Fashion Week, it had cameos for many supermodels of the 1990's, and you the visual and the lux speaking great volumes. Was it a good movie? Absolutely not. That was a comedy of errors that had no balls to criticise the fashion world or something say good about it, so it goes all too crazed to appeal to all audiences yet it didn't get anything worthy of view. It was revolting in so many levels that it's beyond belief. "Rage" on the other hand, with the similtarity of an all-star cast takes the same environment without actually showing it yet there's magic, intelligence and creativity. I simply loved, specially the performances of practically everybody (Wiest, Law, Izzard, Ahmed and Buscemi are my favorite) - except for an unfamiliar face who got a nasty role and it didn't feel he was a professional actor, he was way over the top.

More than entertainment, movies are an artistic experience that reflect the times we live on. It must have a speech, a message, an intent even if it's just make us laugh or cry, to feel frightened or in pain. It must hit through your head and your heart, and if possible to make you connect with the world in a different way, see the world in a different light and cause a positive reaction on you to the point you can change your actions, reflect on what you're doing and with luck, you are transformed. Only a handful of films can aspire to that, and maybe I'm seeing a lot more in "Rage" than what people can actually find - and it's low rating is a proof of that. But trust me, I felt connected with it, I've seen a technique that I hadn't seen before and the concept worked. It's not a masterpiece, there are some flaws in it but it got real close of a spetacle to the senses, and since it got close I have nothing but admiration for it. 8/10.

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

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.