Posted by Dianne Brooks on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
I can see why the critics are split on SHAME, Steve McQueen's (the other one) latest starring his muse of sorts, Michael Fassbender. It's the kind of film that is truly a downer, but not necessarily in a good way. Not even the glorious albeit brief sight of the stars privates could save the day. It's a movie about sex that isn't in the least sexy, titillating or whatever description you might expect. I'm the type who likes to cry at films, and I even like to be saddened deeply. I'll offer Polanski's Tess (I film I used to rent when I was feeling like I wanted to indulge my depression) as an example of a film that wasn't tear-jerking melodrama but was overwhelmingly sad. I guess I like to have an emotional relationship with a film. And here's the problem with SHAME...there is no invitation to have any kind of relationship. It's about a man who is utterly incapable of connecting in any way. So it's sad on an intellectual level, but offers no way in for the audience. You aren't even alienated in the way that Von Trier purposely alienated us in say, Breaking the Waves. You won't be inspired to walk out in a storm of disgust. But you will feel kind of dirty when you leave.
Tags:
shame "michael fassbender" "steve mcqueen"