This is a movie worth recommending. It touches on many aspects and hopes to arouse some discussions in the whole society; Director Robin Campillo's personal aesthetic; but it's not in the best-looking category, it's important, but it's really not that good-looking. The editing is chaotic and the length is long, which makes this movie far less than Brokeback Mountain in the category of complete relaxation and relaxation different from events? Maybe because other movies are too petty and don't have such big ambitions? Maybe because I haven't experienced that history?
Perhaps, it is really just a lack of ability and ambition to make up. Such a huge proposition is a shackle under 140 minutes. This is a work worthy of being made into a TV series. Probably not as good as QAF. However, placing the breadth of his propositions in the dimension of the film will only lead to the embarrassing situation of lack of ability and ambition.
Like I mentioned, it's important enough to highly recommend and even watch it several times (personally twice). There are many articles complimenting it. I will not repeat it.
1. There are too many unnecessary plots The
viewer can clearly feel that there are several plots that are debatable. For example, the male protagonist suddenly fell to the ground during the parade, accompanied by a slow-motion display. What is the purpose of this paragraph for more than 1 minute? The first feeling is that the male protagonist is also infected, but after reading it, it seems that he is not. What's the use of this low lens? I went to school for publicity, and the female characters who appeared in the publicity later were dissatisfied with the "fag", a boy who was silently watching, but how did the naughty boy who came to ask for anal sex serve the theme? The length of bed scenes is also debatable. If the essential difference between several protest scenes is not very big, is each scene so "detailed"? If the overall style is like this, it’s fine, but sometimes the performance of too detailed life sometimes has the politics of thinking of semi-group images, so that the overall style becomes broken under the control of the plot.
The director seems to want to flesh out the whole with details, making the entire campaign a glimpse into the times. However, 140 minutes really can't support so many details, and some plots are really useless.
2. The single scenes are all very well edited . Personally, I like the three scenes of the hospital bed conversation, the river of blood, and the ashes. But the whole series is connected, especially the editing when changing scenes is really cumbersome, even rude. Feeling very bad. The abuse of slow motion is even more unrestrained.
There are two parts before and after, the first half is about group image and political expression, and the second half turns into the love story of the two people in the social background at that time. Each piece can be made into a good movie if taken out alone. But the director is not able to catch the swing between the two. If the first half has a relatively good balance, not only expressing the big environment but also the personal love of the small environment below, then the second half is obviously clichéd and completely tilted the scale to one. The raid on the office at the beginning is really good, and the friend's visit at the end is also very life-like, but these two are really broken and irrelevant in the current situation. What? Does the director want to include various categories and express historical nodes? ---- If you have insufficient ability and ambition, please make a TV series. In an unbalanced environment, no matter how good the historical background is, it will only become a mediocre and important work.
3. Audience
I have seen many expressions of support that this film is a paean to the lgbt community, and only the lgbt community can understand the director's intentions. As for this claim, in the case of Liberty Square, which eventually won the award in the same session - aimed at the intellectual middle class, this audience can better understand the jokes and satire, but the non-audience will not affect the overall drama expression. I didn't see that when the ticket was sold, it said that only lgbt can buy tickets, other people can't buy it? My point of view is still: if you don't have the ability and ambition to make it together, it's better to arrange it into a TV series.
A good work, a good same-sex work, goes beyond narrow sexual distinctions. The core of it is to resonate. There can be stylized expressions. But some "hard wounds" cannot be covered up by themes and topics.
A major movie with great lines like "This may be my last gay Pride" and some great shots. But does this really make it one of the best movies to watch?
View more about BPM (Beats Per Minute) reviews
