No.5 on the list and way too high for me.
This is undeniably a bloody tough watch. Anyone who says otherwise is lying; I’ll die on that hill. 3 hours and 18 minutes, and what did I learn? This movie has the greatest pull-out sofa ever and arguably cinema’s greatest piece of double-use furniture. I’ll also die on that hill.
I am a fan of slow cinema. A film does not need to be moving at 100mph with action sequences coming out of its ass from all directions, but I do want more than what this film is. I’m sorry, nerds, I’m sorry. There is no way that this is the greatest movie of all time despite the critic's list of Sight and Sound giving it the top spot in 2022. As famous football manager Sean Dyche would say, that is nothing more than woke nonsense. As a fan of slow cinema, I love films like Paris, Texas by Wim Wenders. That’s an extremely powerful piece of cinema, with incredibly long sequences of no dialogue that leave the audiences piecing together a story that isn’t clear, only for the film's final act to be one of the greatest sequences I’ve ever seen in a movie. Therefore, the time spent in the lead-up felt entirely justified. There is no payoff in Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. Something big happens in the final moments, and the film ends. Of course, you could argue a lot happens throughout to suggest something like that moment could happen, but I'm arguing that the length and slowness do not feel justified to me.
However, in an attempt to pull something out of this experience that I can learn from, I’d say that director Chantal Akerman’s drip feeding of information through the subtle performance of Delphine Seyrig means that when dialogue is introduced, the audience hangs on every single word. This is powerful. When you deprive an audience of dialogue, the impact of every word is far more potent. I kind of love that. That might be the only piece of learning I can get for myself, and that might be because of my own limitations as a filmmaker.
I understand that this is a film with a powerful message. It’s humanising a sex worker, who also happens to be a mother and a housewife (though she is, in fact, a widow) makes for a character. A woman who is, in many ways, living her life in the service of men. She wakes up and cleans the house whilst her son sleeps, she cooks for him when he’s out, and she earns her money by serving men's 'needs' sexually. The excruciating detail with which Akerman explores this character and subject is to be praised. All that being said, it’s very telling that in the world's current climate, it was given the top spot on the critic's list. This is not the greatest film of all time. It’s not even in the top 10. But who am I to say anything? I’m nobody, just a zillenial wannabe filmmaker who might regret putting his biased opinion on the internet.
Comments