Mostrando postagens com marcador horror. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador horror. Mostrar todas as postagens

quarta-feira, 28 de setembro de 2011

INVERNO DE SANGUE EM VENEZA (DON’T LOOK NOW)

Ano de Produção: 1973
Diretor: Nicolas Roeg
Roteiristas: Alan Scott e Chris Bryant

Atores Principais:

Donald Sutherland – John Baxter
Julie Christie – Laura Baxter
Hilary Mason – Heather
Clelia Matania – Wendy
Massimo Serrato – Bishop Barbarrigo
Renato Scarpa – Inspector Longhi
Adelina Poerio – Dwarf

Sinceramente não entendi por que esse filme é considerado um dos maiores clássicos do suspense moderno. Talvez porque estivesse esperando muito dele. Há, de fato, uma atmosfera surrealista, que preenche toda a película, mas não consegui detectar os elementos que geraram as críticas fervorosamente positivas a respeito de “Inverno de Sangue em Veneza”. Não fiquei apreensivo ou com medo. E olha que qualquer filme de terror, com o mínimo de qualidade, me tira o sono. Como eu tinha lido que o seu desfecho ficou famoso por ter deixado as platéias apavoradas, estava só muito curioso para saber a grande revelação final, cujo impacto não fez nem cócegas nas minhas expectativas.

No entanto, dois pontos fortíssimos do filme devem ser salientados. O primeiro é a legendária cena de sexo do casal protagonista. Donald Sutherland e Julie Christie impressionam por terem projetado intimidade e afeto de maneira tão crível, especialmente quando se sabe que Sutherland e Christie tinham acabado de se conhecer no set. Dizem que ela estava apavorada por ter sido literalmente a primeira cena de ambos. Porém, a cena serve para estabelecer credibilidade ao casal como casal. É, na verdade, um mecanismo de desenvolvimento dos personagens. A cena é lindíssima, por sinal. Estamos falando de algo relativamente raro no cinema: uma cena de sexo não gratuita e não vulgar, protagonizada por atores de aparência “normal”. Julie Christie é linda, mas não caberia perfeitamente nos padrões de hoje.

O segundo é a fotografia de Nicolas Roeg. Veneza é um cenário muito utilizado em romances e filmes de época por conta de sua beleza arquitetônica singular e sua luminosidade incrível. A maneira pela qual a luz do sol reflete em suas águas é sensacional. Nesse filme, Veneza não é nada disso. Aqui a cidade é um labirinto sombrio e abandonado, quase um cenário apocalíptico, o que conta consideravelmente para a construção bem sucedida da atmosfera lúgubre e surreal da película. O uso da cor vermelha como contraste aos tons de branco, cinza, bege e marrom dos prédios e figurino dos personagens centrais, já amplamente discutida na literatura de crítica de cinema, também acrescenta ao suspense como um elemento de tragédia iminente. É interessante notar que o vermelho anuncia as duas mortes no filme, como se fosse o causador destas.

Reconhecidos tais pontos, o filme surpreendentemente não me “pegou”. “O Bebê de Rosemary” funciona também muito na base da sutileza psicológica e da sugestão de que algo maligno e inevitável assediará e torturará os personagens até conseguir o que deseja, mas, de alguma forma, o sofrimento pelo qual passa Rosemary me incomodou (no bom sentido) muito mais do que a abstrata ameaça de perigo que ronda o casal Baxter. A sua dor, em razão da perda da filha pequena no início do filme, é mais poética, mais onírica e, por isso, menos angustiante, principalmente porque a filha, através de uma personagem médium, entra em contato com os pais do além para protegê-los. O aspecto sobrenatural do filme é positivo, angelical. Em “O Bebê de Rosemary” esse aspecto é exatamente o contrário: negativo, demoníaco.

É aí que entra a minha decepção. Não há nada de sobrenatural assediando os protagonistas. A revelação final apresenta apenas uma coincidência trágica, causada por algo real e concreto. Para mim, isso foi um anticlímax. Inclusive, quando descobrimos de onde vem o “Mal” no filme, a sensação é de traição, pois a sua materialização se dá numa forma da qual conhecemos muito pouco. O verdadeiro vilão da história não tem desenvolvimento nenhum; nem sequer uma motivação para seus crimes nos é mostrada.

Em conversas com meu grande amigo, Igor, me foi apontada um característica muito interessante a respeito dos filmes de horror, o qual está presente nesse também: o herói sempre morre. Aliás, pode-se dizer que não há heróis no gênero horror, apenas vítimas. E ninguém melhor para desempenhar o papel de vítima da morte mais imprevisível do que o personagem mais forte e, geralmente, mais cético do filme, o qual se encontra impotente, tentando fugir de uma situação inescapável.

Enfim, esse é um daqueles filmes que reconheço a sua alta qualidade técnica e artística, mas que não me agrada num nível puramente subjetivo, tal como a maioria dos filmes de arte. David Lynch, Wim Wenders, Werner Herzog dos anos 70 e 80, Godard, Antonioni são exemplos de diretores de filmes que não podem ser classificados como ruins, mas, com o perdão dos cinéfilos intelectuais, a verdade é que eu não os suporto.

Menção: A

Link no imdb.

segunda-feira, 19 de setembro de 2011

ROSEMARY'S BABY

Year: 1968
Director: Roman Polanski
Screenwriter: Roman Polanski

Main Cast:

Mia Farrow – Rosemary Woodhouse
John Cassavetes – Guy Woodhouse
Ruth Gordon – Minnie Castevet
Sidney Blackmer – Roman Castevet
Maurice Evans – Edward “Hutch” Hutchins
Ralph Bellamy – Dr. Abe Sapirstein
Victoria Vetri (as Angela Dorian) – Terry Gionoffrio
Patsy Kelly – Laura-Louise
Charles Grodin – Dr. C.C. Hill


There’s this girl; she’s happily married to a struggling actor.
They find a new apartment in the Bramford Building.
They make friends with the neighbors, a nice couple of old geezers.
She wants a baby.

A rival actor goes blind. Her husband replaces him.
One night, Rosemary and Guy are having a date at home.
Her neighbor knocks on the door and offers chocolate “mouse” for dessert.
She doesn’t like the “mouse”, but Guy insists that she eat it.
She feels dizzy and falls asleep.
She has a terrible nightmare.

When she wakes up, she notices her back has a few scratches.
Rosemary Woodhouse: I dreamed someone was raping me. I think it was someone inhuman.
Guy Woodhouse: Thanks a lot.
Rosemary Woodhouse: You... you had me while I was out?
Guy Woodhouse: It was kinda fun in a necrophile sort of way.

Rosemary gets pregnant.
She starts having constant pain in her belly.
Her doctor says she must do nothing. No painkillers.
One day it will stop.
Months go by and the pain is still there. She loses weight. She feels weak.
She looks cadaveric.

Finally, she concludes that her doctor is a sadistic nut.
Guy Woodhouse: (on Rosemary's decision to switch doctors) You know what Dr. Hill is? He's a Charlie Nobody, that's who he is!
Rosemary Woodhouse: I'm tired of hearing about how great Dr. Sapirstein is!
Guy Woodhouse: Well, I won't let you do it Ro.
Rosemary Woodhouse: Why not?
Guy Woodhouse: Well, because... because it wouldn't be fair to Sapirstein.
Rosemary Woodhouse: Not fair to Sap... - what do you mean? What about what's fair to me?

All of a sudden, the pain goes away.
The baby is kicking.
Rosemary puts Guy’s hand on her belly so that he can feel it alive.
When he touches her stomach, he recoils.
She doesn’t notice it.
Everything goes back to normal.

When she’s almost due, her best friend dies.
He’d been in a coma for no specific reason.
He'd been conscious briefly before perishing.
He left a book to Rosemary – “All of them Witches”
And a message: “The name is an anagram.”

She gives birth on June, 1966. Year One.

She’s told that her baby is dead. She doesn’t believe it.
When nobody is watching, she trespasses into her neighbor’s apartment with a knife in her hand.
She’d heard a baby crying.
There's a get-together going on.
Her husband is one of them. Now he's a successful actor.
She sees her baby inside an unusually colored cradle.
She wonders what they’ve done to the baby’s eyes.
Her neighbor says that he has his father’s eyes.


This is the best horror movie I’ve ever seen.

Grade: F

Link at imdb.

quarta-feira, 31 de agosto de 2011

MINIREVIEW – TROLLHUNTER (TROLLJEGEREN)

Year: 2010
Director: André Ovredal
Screenwriters: André Ovredal and Havard S. Johansen

Main Cast:

Otto Jespersen – Hans, the Trollhunter
Glenn Erland Tosterud – Thomas
Johanna Murck – Johanna
Tomas Alf Larsen – Kalle
Urmila Berg-Domaas – Malica
Hans Morten Hansen – Finn Haugen


The Blair Witch Project
Cloverfield
The Stunning Norwegian Landscape
Rabies
U.V. Lights
Beautifully Designed Fucking TROLLS!














Grade: A

Link at imdb.

quarta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2011

NEVER LET ME GO

Year: 2010
Director: Mark Romanek
Screenwriter: Alex Garland

Main Cast:

Carey Mulligan – Kathy H
Andrew Garfield – Tommy D
Keira Knightley – Ruth
Charlotte Rampling – Miss Emily
Sally Hawkins – Miss Lucy
Nathalie Richard – Madame

Please, do me a favor and watch “Never let me go” before reading this review. Or don’t, because this movie is not for the weak of heart. I’m making a point of telling you to watch the film first, because, though it’s always a good idea to see the films and read my reviews later, this time it’s essential to be surprised in order to fully appreciate this one.

When I woke up at 5:30 this morning, I realized this was a horror film, without the scares and the thrills. It haunted me; I couldn’t go back to sleep. There is a beautifully moving love story in it, its narrative style, its pace, the quality of its acting, everything points to classical drama, but make no mistake: we’re talking about the Horror.

The movie is set in England, its timeline spans from the 70s to the 90s, but it’s an alternate reality. In this reality, humanity found the cure to all diseases through organ donation and cloning. Our three main characters live in a boarding school, from which grounds they can never go beyond. They don’t seem to have a family of their own; they never talk about parents or brothers and sisters. Their health is very well taken care of – their diet is strict and they play sports on a daily basis. This is so, because they are clones. Their only purpose in life is to grow up healthy and donate their organs until they “complete” (die). The school is nothing more than a farm, where they graze like cattle. They are not people, they are “Donors”.

We only find about that in the middle of the movie, which is quite a shock. Up until then, they are portrayed as completely normal kids. They fight, they make art, fall in love, just like everybody else. It’s one of the movie strengths. When the entire scheme is revealed, we are not ready for it. Very disturbing stuff and the worst is still coming.

The fact that clones are very human is exemplified by Kathy, Tommy and Ruth. Kathy and Tommy fall in love when they are around 10 years old. Ruth, Kathy’s best friend, senses that very clearly and envisions a long happy relationship for them. She can’t stand that. Before Kathy and Tommy have a chance to get together, Ruth intervenes and “seduces” him (I don’t know if you can apply this term to a 10-year-old girl). They stay together for years. When they reach the age of 18, they are sent to the “Cottages” (perhaps a word game with “College”). There, Kathy is still very much in love with Tommy, but he is being tightly kept by Ruth through the diligent use of sex. There are no more classes or teachers or sports; they just wait. Eventually, frustrated by the possibility of never being able to fulfill her dreams, Kathy decides to apply for a “Carer” position. She leaves the Cottages to travel around England and take care of the Donors. Of course, after she goes, Ruth breaks up with Tommy.

In short, before the film starts showing the donors’ daily routine in hospitals and health care facilities, it’s made clear that the characters go through the most human emotions like jealousy, envy, competitiveness, frustration, unfulfilled longings, uncontrollable sexual drive and, most importantly, love. Tommy and Kathy have loved each other since childhood and will always do.

It made me wonder: what a grim perspective of humankind. We are dealing with the idea that, since we don’t want to get sick ever again, we are raising clones – who are exactly like us – just like we raise cows for nourishment. Could this notion ever become reality? As an indefatigable optimist, I don’t believe so. On the other hand, if it was me, would I prefer to count on doctors, medicine and myself, and fight diseases the hard way? Would I take another life and live more than a hundred years? I honestly couldn't say for sure. Maybe I would after having seen the scenes in which the characters undergo the actual surgeries. They are quite powerful and disconcerting. The patients are treated like animals in a slaughterhouse.

Furthermore, one thing about this film really bothered me. Why do the clones accept their fate so easily? Why don’t they run away? There are a few elements in the movie that suggest possible explanations. Firstly, all the clones have to wear armbands all the time, which lead us to think they are monitored 24 hours a day by an invisible “Big Brother”. Secondly and most relevantly, in several scenes most clones show tremendous difficulty in doing things simply because they want to. It seems that they don’t understand the concept of free will, apparently because of the way they were raised. A question follows: Does one have to learn the idea of free will in order to use it? Isn’t the search for individual liberty something natural, instinctive, even if you’ve learned to resign and accept what’s given to you your whole life? What about fighting for your survival?

Again, I'm uncertain. I’m just glad we don’t live in a world like that and hope we never will.

Grade: A

Link at imdb.