And in the scenes they share during their characters' courtship, she seems directed to play more girly and immature, as if she's sinking to his level. Compared to Adams, Gyllenhaal seems like a child she comes across as incomparably more mature, wiser, with a presence more commanding and assertive.
Nocturnal animals ending interpretation movie#
That said, I've never been an admirer of Gyllenhaal, and I wonder if Ford doesn't agree with me to some extent, because this movie felt like kind of a cruel joke on him. I'll add my voice to the enthusiasm here. And you're all fawning over the wrong Amy Adams movie, and definitely over the wrong Amy Adams role.
A++ acting work all around here - Michael Shannon is a national treasure, and it will be painful, as TMDaines mentions, to see Jake Gyllenhaal ignored once again for an astoundingly good performance. Hopefully the next catalog is more of this blood red provocation and he continues to leave the soft blues of A Single Man far in the rear view. It's impersonal, it'll put just as many viewers at a distance as it will enrapture, but god DAMN, it worked for me - I'm so glad it didn't take any longer than two films for Tom Ford to realize what he's good at. Not since Drive have I felt more like I was being conned by a film but willing to sign over my better instincts and intelligence to it because of the sheer exhilaration of it all. But it's in the folding together of the pulpy novel, real life pain, and vividly three-dimensional performances that Nocturnal Animals emerges as perhaps the most exciting theatrical experience of the year. Imagine if Stanley Kubrick had been on a toxic cocktail of methamphetamine and mescaline during a Larry Clark-esque seat-of-his-pants shooting schedule to make Eyes Wide Shut, and you're most of the way there. What I can say is that the film he's emerged with is an absolutely thrilling piece of work, something that made me want to stand up out of my seat and whoop and holler out of sheer exhilaration. So, my own assumptions about Tom Ford's motivations behind adapting this particular novel are irrelevant. A novel or television episode or feature film that might mean the world to you might hardly spark more than a vague confabulation in the artist responsible for its creation, and something that you would assume to be a hollow, soulless, shoddy fabrication could have depths of personal meaning the likes of which you could not begin to speculate. But that sort of question of an artist's connections and motivations behind their work is exactly what Nocturnal Animals is about. The settings don't seem to carry any personal meaning or heft to the filmmaker, nor do the existential concerns raised by any levels of the story. Joke's on me, it seems - almost as mean of a trick as all of the contemptible visual and plot tricks going on within this ice-cold, arsenic-filled hors d'oeuvre.įord does not waste any resources at his disposal: the actors in this film are merely catalog models as far as he seems to be concerned, save for the fact that they're some of the best performers alive today. Almost as if he'd read this sentence fragment of mine, he opens Nocturnal Animals, one of the most viscerally exciting and stimulating films of the last several years, with a provocative credits sequence unlike any I've seen before, and works backwards to prove that the film he had made earned the right to use it. Mfunk9786 wrote:there are zero unattractive people in the film's universe (check out that classroom!)Īnd I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that Tom Ford had insulated his universe from the unpleasantness of reality, creating a sterile, dull, drab, bourgeoisie portrait of love, or whatever love would look like in a catalog, and passed it off as deeply emotional work.
0 kommentar(er)
