Comments on: Review: Wendy and Lucy http://www.rowthree.com/2009/02/09/review-wendy-and-lucy/ Where Cinema is more than just $100 Million productions Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:49:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: rot http://www.rowthree.com/2009/02/09/review-wendy-and-lucy/#comment-24337 rot Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:34:43 +0000 http://www.rowthree.com/?p=10130#comment-24337 What I am trying to say is that Wendy and Lucy succeeds in a way contrary to typical expectations of how a film normally succeeds, or at least how I perceive typical expectations to be. There is a tendency to over-emphasize the commodity aspect of a film and this occurs not just with blockbusters but even with the niche value of art films, are they things we would like to own and rewatch, and only secondarily are they innately valuable in the moment. I think it is very easy to gloss over the potential of a film like this because of how divorced from the usual qualifiers it is, not just reductive in a typical art house way but denying any of those kinds of flourishes either (even verite cinema aspires to be a fly on the wall with handheld cameras, but this is conventionally framed and shot). Wendy and Lucy and this trend of reductive cinema pushes the envelope, they deny you the usual attachments, and give you pared down reality, resisting even gritty reality, but neither being dogmatic in a dogme sort of way about the exercise, fighting against all framing devices of meaning, until what is left is just being. You either engage with that 'just being' or you are bored to death, but it is not going to spoon feed you why its there, whats its doing. Its not going to pander for your rating. Its not going to aspire for posterity. Its just going to exist as long as the film exists, its going to be about being in that moment, that portal, while it lasts, and hoping that there is something meditative for you in the uncluttered reality set before you. Even Gerry is pushing for something else, something transcendent, but I think Wendy and Lucy is about something terrestrial. A small story about a girl and her dog. What I am trying to say is that Wendy and Lucy succeeds in a way contrary to typical expectations of how a film normally succeeds, or at least how I perceive typical expectations to be. There is a tendency to over-emphasize the commodity aspect of a film and this occurs not just with blockbusters but even with the niche value of art films, are they things we would like to own and rewatch, and only secondarily are they innately valuable in the moment. I think it is very easy to gloss over the potential of a film like this because of how divorced from the usual qualifiers it is, not just reductive in a typical art house way but denying any of those kinds of flourishes either (even verite cinema aspires to be a fly on the wall with handheld cameras, but this is conventionally framed and shot).

Wendy and Lucy and this trend of reductive cinema pushes the envelope, they deny you the usual attachments, and give you pared down reality, resisting even gritty reality, but neither being dogmatic in a dogme sort of way about the exercise, fighting against all framing devices of meaning, until what is left is just being. You either engage with that ‘just being’ or you are bored to death, but it is not going to spoon feed you why its there, whats its doing. Its not going to pander for your rating. Its not going to aspire for posterity. Its just going to exist as long as the film exists, its going to be about being in that moment, that portal, while it lasts, and hoping that there is something meditative for you in the uncluttered reality set before you. Even Gerry is pushing for something else, something transcendent, but I think Wendy and Lucy is about something terrestrial. A small story about a girl and her dog.

]]> By: Ashley http://www.rowthree.com/2009/02/09/review-wendy-and-lucy/#comment-24326 Ashley Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:59:27 +0000 http://www.rowthree.com/?p=10130#comment-24326 Yes! Thank you! Are you listening AMPAS? Yes! Thank you!

Are you listening AMPAS?

]]> By: Mike Rot http://www.rowthree.com/2009/02/09/review-wendy-and-lucy/#comment-24325 Mike Rot Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:47:45 +0000 http://www.rowthree.com/?p=10130#comment-24325 I entirely agree, but let's face it, what they do like is showy and that is why I was confused that Williams would even be touted as a possibility. I stand by the belief that the best performance is the one you do not see, and should be really, best character, best fully realized character. I entirely agree, but let’s face it, what they do like is showy and that is why I was confused that Williams would even be touted as a possibility.

I stand by the belief that the best performance is the one you do not see, and should be really, best character, best fully realized character.

]]> By: Ashley http://www.rowthree.com/2009/02/09/review-wendy-and-lucy/#comment-24324 Ashley Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:18:47 +0000 http://www.rowthree.com/?p=10130#comment-24324 The lack of "visible emoting" is what makes Williams' performance as brilliant as it is. It's pure, raw, and lived in, not at all showy. This is the kind of work that the Academy should recognize as great, and what all actors should aspire to. The lack of “visible emoting” is what makes Williams’ performance as brilliant as it is. It’s pure, raw, and lived in, not at all showy. This is the kind of work that the Academy should recognize as great, and what all actors should aspire to.

]]>