I really loved this movie. Initially I was intrigued but wasn't really getting into it. Maybe it took 15 to 30 minutes before I was really... immersed (and I very much was by the way). Thinking about it, it's often that way with challenging and intellectually stimulating movies that I end up really liking and wanting to see again. They often don't win me over right away. I watched Boxes at the Cinemateque in Oslo a few hours ago, and I feel like watching it again right away, to catch all the nuances of the dialog and the acting that I didn't the first time.
The film kind of balances between the banal and the profound, but the wonderful thing is that in the end it actually makes the banal profound by being totally genuine, and intelligent. I don't think banality survives honesty. What I'm trying to say, in a not very effortless way, is that the movie seems totally effortless in its genuine portrayal of characters, relationships and feelings. But it is in some ways theatrical too. I don't mean the performances but the way the characters themselves act in a way, and the events that transpire.
And I don't mean "events" like in a plot-heavy movie, because there isn't much of that. There isn't even much of characters having "arcs" - changing in the course of the movie; this is more of a exploration of relationships and characters, at once poetic and grounded. If you like Truffaut or Rohmer, I think you will like Boxes.
And unlike the other poster, I don't think you need to know Jane's life and map the characters to the real people in her life to enjoy this movie. At least I don't need to. I know very little about her life; I know she was married to Serge Gainsbourgh, and that she had three daughters with three different men, and not much else. Although of course the film is very inspired by her life, it's not meant to be totally about these people - it is ultimately a fiction and I found it to be very good as that.
Jane said at the screening that it took her twelve years to get financing and develop this movie. I hope it doesn't take another twelve years before she gets to make the next one.
The film kind of balances between the banal and the profound, but the wonderful thing is that in the end it actually makes the banal profound by being totally genuine, and intelligent. I don't think banality survives honesty. What I'm trying to say, in a not very effortless way, is that the movie seems totally effortless in its genuine portrayal of characters, relationships and feelings. But it is in some ways theatrical too. I don't mean the performances but the way the characters themselves act in a way, and the events that transpire.
And I don't mean "events" like in a plot-heavy movie, because there isn't much of that. There isn't even much of characters having "arcs" - changing in the course of the movie; this is more of a exploration of relationships and characters, at once poetic and grounded. If you like Truffaut or Rohmer, I think you will like Boxes.
And unlike the other poster, I don't think you need to know Jane's life and map the characters to the real people in her life to enjoy this movie. At least I don't need to. I know very little about her life; I know she was married to Serge Gainsbourgh, and that she had three daughters with three different men, and not much else. Although of course the film is very inspired by her life, it's not meant to be totally about these people - it is ultimately a fiction and I found it to be very good as that.
Jane said at the screening that it took her twelve years to get financing and develop this movie. I hope it doesn't take another twelve years before she gets to make the next one.