Home; Movies @ 19 Jan 2008 05:19 pm by Christina Waters
How much is Julian Schnabel paying the film critics? There’s no other reason why intelligent film-goers would succumb to the sophomoric exercise in cinematic vanity that is The Diving Bell & the 
Butterfly. Intrigued by raves from a wide range of reviewers, including local filmies, I wasted $7 and two hours on this pathetic excuse for a movie about a magazine editor confined to almost complete paralysis and the “life lessons” he learns thanks to attractive therapists, hand-held camerawork and of course, those crucial sub-titles.
Did Schnabel really think that making the film in French would elevate its mawkish, soporific effect? It doesn’t. It just means that you listen to lots of French speakers while you’re being bored to tears.
Wait, I know. Schnabel (a well-connected New York artist famous for painting on really big plates) decided to invoke the “Atonement effect.” You know, that’s where you shamelessly capitalize on a five-minute cameo by a major-but-aging star. In Atonement that chore went to the remarkable Vanessa Redgrave - and even her wonderfully eloquent facial expressions couldn’t pump gravitas into that over-rated exercise in art direction.
Schnabel’s home movie version of a true story — starring Mathieu Amalric (who looks a lot like Schnabel did about 25 years ago) - exploits the gifts of the once-mighty Max von Sydow to try to bring some dignity to The Diving Bell. It still tanks badly. We can only wonder just how desperately the veteran Swedish actor needed the cash in order to be part of a film that goes absolutely nowhere. That illuminates absolutely nothing. And worse.
Worse is that the movie rips off, borrows from and pales in comparison to the 2005 Academy Award-winning The Sea Inside, starring the magnificent Javier Barden. The great Spanish film also tells a true story of a hopelessly paralyzed man who exerts a charismatic effect on those around him. Schnabel must think that filmgoers are idiots who never leave the house - how could he think he could literally lift scenes and motifs from The Sea Inside and that somehow it would appear original? How could he think he could get away with ripping off a far better artistic effort — and that no one would notice?
The Diving Bell’s vertiginous camerawork - largely shot by twisting the camera around and shooting through gauze - does induce a bit of seasickness. But nothing else.
Most first-year film students would have been embarrassed to have created such a mess — and ANY first-year film student could have done better. I was shocked at how bad a highly-hyped film could be. The Diving Bell has no clothes.
Right on Christina! The man was a creep.Is it a French thing that such a jerk holds a fascination for Frenchwomen that they put up with all sorts of abuse and yet cater to his every whim? Subtext: I’m a bad boy but Mommy loves me no mattter what. and will take care of me. Bah
Oh come now! Maybe reading the book would help. Writing the book was an amazing accomplishment. There were images in the film that evoked more than words could say about how much we take for granted when we’ve got all our faculties. Maybe Von Sydow’s role was to have us think the main character cared about more than just the shallow world of fashion in which he worked. True, “The Sea Inside” was probably a better film but I liked both (and I’m not the type who goes for sappy “disease of the week” films)
One of my favorite movies of the year - really interesting to read such a different take. I loved The Sea Inside as well, but I wouldn’t say it was better - it had a different focus. This one was somehow able to put us inside the experience of someone who could hardly communicate. Fascinating. The fact that he was a former playboy and fashion magazine editor added a whole different layer.
I dragged my husband to this - he was pleasantly surprised.