|
We (my wife and I) saw Velvet Goldmine last night. She loved it and I
found much of it not as good as it should have been. My biggest
problem was with one of the principal plot features. I didn't
understand the WHYS of the fake assassination or the WHYS of why
it then would have caused such a negative uproar ruining Brian's
career. There would have been many more feasible ways of making
him crater (like the drugs). Jumping way ahead, I also didn't
understand how, in only 10-15 years, Brian would have aged and
changed so much to make it plausible that he would have been
making a comeback and not have been recognized immediately.
Another nit or two. Although I thought the
acting of the three main male characters was terrific, I didn't
think the wife measured up - especially when in the Glitter mode.
Also - why would she have been as upset as she obviously was when
the Ewan MacGregor character came on the scene. Seems to me that
that turf was a given considering the times and attitudes, both
generally and of the characters.
Final comment - Ewan MacGregor seems to be
making a habit of going nude. At least it makes sense in terms of
the plot, both in this movie and certainly in the Pillow Book.
The music productions and costumes were
terrific, as was the beginning with Oscar Wilde.
Review Commentary:
13260
. cllrdr - Nov. 10, 1998 - 7:50 AM PT
David -- I, for one, have no complaints about
Ewan McGregor's nudity. More, please!
I'm surprised you didn't like Toni Colette.
As for the assasination plot not parsing
logically -- it doesn't really have to. Nothing is more glamorous
than assasination -- as Todd and I both learned on our visit to
the Texas School Book Depository museum. Besides, it's
metaphoric. Bowie "assasinated" Ziggy Stardust in order
to put glam aside and continue his career on another (less
troubling) plane.
13262
. KurtMondaugen - Nov. 10, 1998 -
8:27 AM PT
davidtudor:
Well, cllrdr's more or less right. The
assassination plot is essentially a device to draw the audience
in (everybody loves a mystery, right? well, not really, but...),
and ended up largely metaphoric (Slade's 'death' being just
another reinvention). The real Bowie did lose a lot of fans when
he foisted that Serious Moonlight crap on them, but then Slade
ain't the real Bowie. There were a few things about the Tommy
Storm character that didn't parse (just how Bale discovered
Storm's identity and just what his schtick was supposed to be),
and I'm planning on catching it again soon to see if it clears up
any. I agree that Collette's character wasn't as finely drawn in
the flashbacks as it could have been, but as she's telling her
story to Bale 10 years later, she did a fine job of communicating
pain. She'd been hit the hardest by the whole thing, and her
bitterness/affection and confusion came through loud and clear. I
still think the real emotional center of the film is Bale (in
retrospect I realize he only imagines his "That's Me,
Da!" confessional and holds himself back, making that bit
all the more wrenching), though everyone, not just he and
Collette, gets wrung out to some degree or another, making the
film as a whole a bit darker than it comes across initially
(McGregor's "Look at the world" bit towards the end is
a good capper). Oh, and if Ewan wants to run around with his
marriage-faucet handy, that's his perrogative, I suppose...keeps
the missus happy, at least.
13264
. davidtudor - Nov. 10, 1998 - 9:48
AM PT
KurtMondaugen. There also is something about
Bale that I found not quite in the right tint. I can certainly
agree with you that he might be considered the emotional center
of the film, and if so presumably because the Glitter and Glam
provided him the means or stimulus to come to his own
self-awareness and to be able to cut through his own repressions
and restrictions (either internal or those stemming from his
traditional, lower middle class background). In particular in
terms of his becoming aware of his sexual identity and if not
then reveling in it at least seeming to be happy with it.
If all of this rings true, then why did the
1984 him seem to be someone who at best was repressing his sexual
identity again? The careful buttoned down reporter who seemed
reluctant to get back into that scene again.
This all sounds much more negative than I
intend. I just think that a very good and different film could
have been REALLY good.
13266
. KurtMondaugen - Nov. 10, 1998 -
9:57 AM PT
davidtudor:
I'm not entirely sure the Bale character ever
really acknowledged his sexual identity until 1984, when he got
the chance to re-examine his younger self. Keep in mind that
while the glitter scene did open more than a few social doors for
him, he was never really accepted within it (witness the
flashbacks where he unsuccessfully tries to ingratiate himself to
other kids on the street). It's hard to tell whether he's
imagining himself at certain places as people tell him their
stories, or if he was really there (he was undoubtedly there at
Slade's assassination, but as far as the other concerts go, it's
not as clear). Part of the strength of Haynes' films is their
ambiguity (see "Safe" for details) which allows
conflicting interpretations to gradually surface, and this one's
no exception apparently.
13269
. davidtudor - Nov. 10, 1998 - 10:07
AM PT
KurtMondaugen. Although I am not sure that the
film actually supports your comments about Bale and 1984 being
when he came to know himself in terms of his sexual identity, I
would like to think that it does. It makes the movie much more
coherent. Thus, presumably, the rooftop scene between him and the
MacGregor character would be one of Bale in 1984 being able to
wish and fantasize as to what might have been true or possible
before. Your theory also makes his reluctance in 1984 to go into
the past more logical as well, if you buy into his being somewhat
self-aware in 1984 but not yet willing fully come to grips with
it.
|
