The dialogue is good, it is inevitable, after all, it is due to the stage play, and he was born in a professional class.
The characters are arranged in a staggered manner. The two female protagonists are a woman and a girl; the two male protagonists are a wolf and a sheep. Not wrong, not brilliant. Once the stage is set up, the play is easy to sing.
Elements other than dialogue, some careful thinking, such as Natalie Portman's hair color and Clive Owen's clothing changes in each scene, and Jude Law not wearing it when facing Julia Roberts Glasses, rimless glasses when facing Portman, he first met Portman, Portman took off his glasses and wiped them. If you have to compete, these symbols can make sense, but they are all small tricks that you can easily pick up, and there is no technical difficulty.
The real fight is the dialogue. Dialogue is difficult, and it is even more difficult to rely on dialogue to advance. I hate wordy movies, movies are not at all about the art of language. An intellectual narcissist like Woody Allen who bores me so much. However, it is also a lot of words, and "Closer" is just right and decent, which makes me awestruck.
I would like to describe Closer as a film dealing with bourgeois life. Yes, the four protagonists, the real bourgeoisie, only the doctor Larry. Alice is a stripper, Dan and Anna are artists. However, here, food and clothing are not a problem, poverty is not a problem, and all economic and social issues are not a problem. The real problem is the human heart. The film deals with the heart in a very simple way in an ideal and objective space of peace and stability. This kind of calm on the surface, but the inner crisis is full of crises, and it is very bourgeois life. Going back, there are Madame Bovary and Red and Black. "Madame Bovary" tells the story of a young woman from a foreign province who fell into a common marriage during the July Dynasty in France, and her illusions about life were shattered. Madame Bovary, who has no worries about food and clothing and a stable life, her tragedy is a disaster in the human heart, just like the jealousy, madness, pain, betrayal in "Closer"... Inner disaster, will it be less important than physical disaster? ? How to explain that among the people who commit suicide every year, there are far more people who are well-fed and clothed than those who are destitute? Sartre said: Others are hell. Everyone's heart is not hell. Young writer Qiao Ye, wrote a very boring novel in 2006 called "Lighter". I was deeply impressed by one of them: "She finally understood that her heart was still a zoo. The reason why she has been quiet all these years is just because the beasts have been hibernating, and they are not dead." "Closer" In a nutshell, It tells the story of the inner zoo of two pairs of men and women.
Surrealist director Luis Bunuel made the famous "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie". The irony is clever, but no matter how clever it is, it is still just irony. An intellectual friend once strongly criticized intellectuals for their love of names and interests, and someone suddenly asked: What about you? He shyly smiled: Me too. Yes, sarcasm is only legal in one situation: when we keep ourselves out of it. However, can we really stay out of it? Are we really so clean and pure that we are qualified to point fingers at the moral flaws of others? As early as 150 years ago, Flaubert made his position clear, he said: I am Madame Bovary.
Therefore, I prefer the posture of being in the situation. Either let sarcasm become self-deprecating, which is a higher level of humor; or, rise to pity. The Taoist style cannot fundamentally solve the moral dilemma of mankind.
Of course, art is never about solving problems. "Closer" is also just a description, the difference between high and low is only the difference between the depths. Yes, the food problem is so difficult to solve, let alone the far more complicated human heart.
View more about Closer reviews
