MovieChat Forums > cellursoul > Replies
cellursoul's Replies
This was indeed a great film. Not so much thriller or even plot-driven entertainment but a much, much deeper exposé of human nature. Watch as slowly (or not-so-slowly) each character turns against the victim, alternately blaming him or judging him on subjective morality that's not related to the crisis at hand. The psychology is apparent (as the detective says early on) that each person is projecting their own guilt, failings and selfishness onto others. And ultimately it's the victim himself who becomes the collective target.
Notice how the dog is shown throughout the movie, loyal as ever, to contrast against all the flawed people. And in the end Stan delivers a great monologue about how the dog doesn't judge, make assumptions, blame or foster resentment. The dog is just happy to see Stan again.
But the real moneyshot is the ending implication. The message "Calypso" delivered at the depths of Stan's own alienation and resentment toward his family. I think it's pretty clear what Stan's actions will be; we don't need to see it. Human nature.
He really should've been huge. I guess it shows that amazing talent doesn't make you a star, gotta have connections. Or dumb luck.
I was an instant fan after seeing him in Suicide Kings (1997) acting opposite Christopher Walken. After that I saw Into Temptation (2009) where he did an amazing job as the conflicted priest trying to save a prostitute. Most recently I saw Hangman (2015), an otherwise horrible movie, but Sisto raised the caliber of the entire production. He is one of the best actors to come out of the 90s.
Yeah, major cringe scene for an otherwise likeable character.
I think Roux works as a minor character, which he really is. The problem is that the hype, the posters & DVD packaging, not to mention Depp's name upstaging the show, lead us to expect Roux to be a major player and hence we're expecting a sweeping lovestory. It's not. Roux's presence is mostly symbolic. If you count his appearances scene-for-scene, he's rightfully in the background. That's why I think the movie has to be watched at least twice, once to get the expectations out of your system, and the 2nd time to enjoy the real story and themes.
The character Roux is essential because he provides a counterbalance. If Vianne is the dynamic protagonist at the center, then she needs to be presented with a conflict of 2 opposing sides: the townsfolk are on one side, conservative & rooted, while Roux blows in reminding her of her capricious, nomadic nature on the other side. Vianne's conflict and ultimate character arc comes down to her choosing between the two.
The plot also needed a love interest to draw a parallel with her mother's story. The plot is set up as a sort of question of fate: will Vianne follow in her mother's footsteps, her ancestral fate? To set up this dilemma, Vianne needs a lovestory like her mother's that embodies her choice to stay or drift on. If Vianne didn't have a love interest then her mother's story wouldn't be as relevant.
So I think Johnny Depp's character is absolutely necessary to complete the structure of the plot. He's a minor character, but necessary nonetheless.
(SPOILER...) I really like the way the movie ends by strongly implying that Vianne & Roux get together without being so saccharine as to show it outright. Vianne chooses the town as her lasting home, effectively defying fate, and for that defiance to be complete it should include her also choosing a lasting love. The movie doesn't show it happening which would've been too Hollywood-ending-ish, but instead it allows us to interpolate that Vianne broke the "curse" and learned to settle down in 1 town and, symbolically, with 1 lover.
Apparently that’s the exact effect Jean Cocteau had intended. While remaining true to the plot of the original fairytale (‘ugly’ beast gets transformed into ‘handsome’ prince), Cocteau wanted it to leave us feeling unsatisfied, thus turning the whole ugly/handsome stereotype upside down. So you (and Garbo) got the point!
Cocteau’s words:
“ My story would concern itself mainly with the unconscious obstinacy with which women pursue the same type of man, and expose the naïveté of the old fairytales that would have us believe that this type reaches its ideal in conventional good looks.”