News
|
FILMSFull FrontalThis movie is not for everyone. Let me repeat that: This movie is NOT for everyone. And everyone who didn't hear that the first time around better listen up: Most people won't like this movie. It's not easy to like. I'm not trying to challenge you to watch a movie that you'll probably consider "bad"I'm just offering a warning, only because I hated the first 30 minutes of this film. I don't think I've ever disliked a movie so easily and so quickly, without really considering why I hated. The first 30 minutes felt like a Hollywood circle-jerk. Full Frontal is self-depricating and self-aggrandizing; all of these horrible little people in this horrible little town where, at best, the characters are ineffectual (see David Hyde-Pierce) and, at worst, are people who I can only characterize by saying: I'd expect that of someone who lived in Hollywood and was in the film industry (see Catherine Keener). But it won me over. Full Frontal slowly, methodically won me over. It stopped feeling like an "art film" which just happen to star Julie Roberts, and became more of a regular film with strange and quirky, if not horrible, people. By film's end my opinion had performed a graceful pirouette. I liked this film. And part of my like lay in the fact that an hour and a half before, I'd hated it. Strange, and yet, that's how I feel. Let me see if I can explain this correctly. The first hour of this film consists of short, non-connected vingettes. It seems as if each vingette has 10 pages of script, however, Soderbergh decided to shoot only pages five and sixmeaning, each scene has something that happened before it, which the audience is not privy to, and when the scene cuts away, there's still much left to see. But we're not allowed to. Full Frontal is a big of a jigsaw puzzle. And some of the pieces don't really fit together for the first quarter of the film. And it will piss you off. At least it did to me. The first hour demands a lot of the viewer. You have to make a lot of connections and work at what's going on and why people are behaving the way they're behaving. Nothing will be spelled out. Full Frontal is nested like wooden Russian dolls. There's a film within the film, within another film, and at first, it's unclear how to distinguish what's "real" and what's the "movie," mostly because the scenes with Julia Roberts and Blair Underwood threw me off. Once they drop the act, as it were, we can more easily follow. Everything that's shot on clear, crisp film is a "movie" and everything done with with hand-held camera (and washed out colors) is "real." The story really isn't much of a story at all, other than how the lives of a handful of southern Californians (Los Angelians?) relate to one another during a single day. A bit like Magnolia only nowhere near as good. I watched this on DVD and came to really like this film when I found out that this project had a set of rules that Soderbergh set up before anyone was cast. All actors had to agree to these rules before signing on. And here they are: The Rules Now that's pretty cool. I like that Soderbergh is, pretty much, saying, "Anyone who has a Hollywood ego is NOT welcome on this set." I like that. I think we could probably get ticket prices back down to two bucks if most films were made this way. But that's probably the subject of another discussion. Here's a few final thoughts on Full Frontal: Terrance stamp has two cameos.... It was only later when I realized it was an homage to one of Soderbergh's previous films, The Limey. (Which is also very good by the way.) There's a scene with Julia Roberts' character complaining about her tuna sandwich to her assistant, who humors her in a "I'm supposed to expect this thing from a star" kind of way. The thing is: I'm not entirely convinced that Roberts isn't like this in real life. Please note that I'm not basing this on any facts; who needs facts when I have completely ill-informed opinion? All in all Full Frontal is a good film. Or, at least, I liked it. I supposed there's a difference in the two. Consider yourself warned, thoughthere is a bit of Hollywood wanking going on here. Sure the movie is supposed to be low-budget and artsy, but it's the Hollywood version of being low-budget and artsy. How low-budget is $2 million? How low-budget is it when the studio offers a completely tricked-out DVD? How low-budget is it when it has a national release? Sorry Soderbergh, but low-budget is El Mariachi or Clerks. Sure two-mil is low for a movie, but it's still $2 million! I like you Full Frontal, but don't push it. And finally, a warning for the in-film content: Be careful of David Duchovny's bedsheet. It's a bit shocking. |