Its redundancy (after the 2015 film) saw through its abstractions and shed interrogative light on the fact that it's just another movie. Unapologetically it's a movie: the set was as simple and stilted as high school theater, and not even Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard scream "movies" like Denzel Washington. It all felt too self-aware, therefore silly, while the earlier film was immersive. It can hardly avoid its de facto premise: create the other film again with a more famous actor, a cheaper set, and just a couple of new decisions. I surely enjoyed the Shakespeare and the artistry -- I surely enjoyed this movie -- but I was entirely too sober.
Too sober too at Meow Wolf Denver, grimacing at the cheap staging. Here my attention repeatedly drifted to the hollow-looking stucco, as I pictured Denzel leaving the warehouse in sunny Hollywood for a lunch break, then working himself back into character upon return. Too sober, too sober, and with a narrow glance.
The other film probably also took itself too seriously, but it didn't feel so self-conscious. It spun me tighter. I might be biased by the order in which I saw them, but it's the filmmaker's duty to respond to such obvious viewing conditions. Amazon would loth ignore Peter Jackson's Middle Earth in its own making.
Maybe I'm working hard to circumnavigate a challenging truth... was Denzel just not a good Macbeth? I was never sold on him, not for a minute. Maybe he's too iconic to play characters -- he's always just Denzel. That's how I felt hearing Beyonce in The Lion King. I got nothing of the character and everything of the icon. I wasn't thrilled with Frances McDormand either. Maybe both were just too far out of their element. Even if they acted well, it might not convince the familiarized viewer.
No comments:
Post a Comment